Nhl 24 the game for everyone and anyone.
This used to be a game that took skill to be good at. Many of us have spent decades trying to master the skills to get where we are now. It's more than obvious that EA have given up on us loyal fan...
Forum Discussion
@Treatmentworke66 wrote:
@KidShowtime1867Here's a reminder to you no it doesn't
So how do you explain the fact that I've provided dozens of in-game examples of it working just fine?
@KidShowtime1867 You can't win this one. They just want the old version back that gave 100% safety of it getting out of the zone. They don't care that Mike explained they are content with the results.
The back hand flip to clear the zone was a common play. So easy in real life that even a beer league player could do it. Also it didn’t also work 100%. Sometimes if your aim was off it would clear the glass (penalty) or if your timing was “off” it wouldn’t have enough power to clear the zone. Now it’s very rare to accomplish it.
Who is Mike anyway and what did he say about it?
Why should myself as a consumer care if “they’re” content with the results? Just because they’re content with something in their game doesn’t make it right.
- @thebrazenhead75 You're playing the game they envision for us. They have ideas and goals they want to bring to the game. It doesn't mean people will agree with it, but it's their vision. They held quite firm on this one too even mentioning it in an interview. It's their way of saying you need to adapt and buckle up because it probably isn't changing in NHL 24. They did make lots of feedback changes from people voicing concerns. What didn't get touched might mean that changes some people want aren't going to happen. Much like some people wanting the old hitting method back. They didn't really change their stance on that. They did nerf the speed boost from it then reverted it back though.
Who knows what NHL 25 will add or remove. Overall I'd say the pressure system was a letdown to majority. Time will tell if that gets scrapped or stays in the game but they simply add options to turn it off in offline modes and also hide the on-ice visuals.
I know many don't really watch the videos and interviews, but they really should to get an idea on how the game will be shaped for the future.It's more the fact it was a bad creative decision. The game took all the issues that nhl 23 had that made it not fun, and made it more frustrating. By fixing things that weren't the issue. It's a creative vision and it failed. You have to get consistency first before you can add changes like that.
Creative director responded to a video and admitted that they need to make changes to improve overall consistency. So if you want to argue that their vision is fulfilled I have to disagree with you. They know the criticising and are working to improve them. Which unlike y'all who say the game is good and we need to adapt. I think the game needs to adapt and I think Mike and his team will do that.
@KlariskraysNHL wrote:
@KidShowtime1867You can't win this one. They just want the old version back that gave 100% safety of it getting out of the zone. They don't care that Mike explained they are content with the results.Well of course you can't "win" an argument when you're on the side of justifying artificially making something harder to do in a video game than IRL. Of course you're going to be facing an uphill battle when you remove a real life solution to a real life problem all for the sake of difficulty in a game. I mean, SDS could hold a press conference about why sinkers will always lead to flyballs regardless of ratings, timing, PCI placement as they see this pitch as a "get of jail free card" when runners are on, but that probably just wouldnt end up making much sense to the fans of baseball now would it? That's where the fundamental disconnect is betweeen both parties in these almost daily discussions. One side is asking "why I can't do soemthing I see 400 times a night in an NHL game to solve the exact problem im facign?" and the other is saying "because you cant, so git gud" which naturally leads to a lack of a constructive result.
Now, I come in peace here as i feel like the pressure system could certainly be a good addition to the game as long as they stop plasterign the timer in the middle of the ice and remove commentary lines mentioning the feature like its a real life thing (same with x-factors). But to see where im (and probably moany other IRL hockey fans) are coming from, I have to pose a question:
IRL, what do you see as the primary solution teams resort to when hemmed in and tired? Do you see one of them sprint 100% one way, do a 360 degree spin at full speed that would put a zero-trun lawn mower to shame, then pass it to their wide open wing on the far side that the offensive team's D is inexplicably backing away from for no reason? No, You see a flip dump. It's that simple.
So how do we find a middle groudn between "it shouldnt be easy" and "it should be artifically impossible?" Well the answer is quite simple actually:
If players in NHL were actually held to the physical limitations of reality when it comes to their speed, their agility, their accelration, and had to actually account for incidental contact, it would make forechecking immensely easier. It would be such a night and day difference, time and space wouldn't feel abundant, having a feel for the sport would be required rather simply relying on "twitch skills" and it would result in more relaistic puck movement, more realistic defense, and more realistic offense.
If you then added a polished AI that correctly executed real life forechecking strategies, getting a flip dump off would be much harder organically rather than the current alternative we see today.
So there you have it. It's that simple (im not saying the execution is simple, im saying the high-level approach or "vision" if you have it, is that simple). Idk why we cant get to this point as a community. If your avatar/team is tired, held to laws of physics, and have a competent forecheck applied to you, getting time and space is going to be hard in itself. No need for anyone's "vision" to impede or artifically make a routine play impossible. Just approaching the sport in the way its actually played vs an arcade game with werewolves and superman entrances solves everyone;'s problem here.
Again, I don't believe this is an "easy" fix when it comes to executing the vision, but is this "approach" not an ideal one? Imo, having players be able to do everything they can IRL and having real strateiges and tools to make the execution hard would be the perfect scenario to me. Is there not 100% agreement here? We actually believe making something artifically harder is good and should remain? I mean, tbh I don't care what mike, johnny, jim, tim, pat, tommy, dan, shane, curt, or anyone has to say, I will never simply accept the artifical limitation of such a routine play IRL in a game to make said game harder or so it aligns with someones vision. The "vision" of in-zone play being rewarded can be achieved via better forechecking and realistic skating, that should be tried and should fail long before we ever get to removing basic skills of the sport.
@Limp_KidzKit wrote:. One side is asking "why I can't do soemthing I see 400 times a night in an NHL game to solve the exact problem im facign?" and the other is saying "because you cant, so git gud" which naturally leads to a lack of a constructive result.
This is such a gross misrepresentation of what happens here.
One side is stating "because I'm unable to execute a certain mechanic flawlessly every single time, it's broken". I'm literally posting videos of these mechanics working as intended and trying to explain these mechanics take a little skill and patience to master. We're not saying "git gud". We're trying to showcase there's room for players to improve their mastery of the tools.
@Limp_KidzKit wrote:IRL, what do you see as the primary solution teams resort to when hemmed in and tired? Do you see one of them sprint 100% one way, do a 360 degree spin at full speed that would put a zero-trun lawn mower to shame, then pass it to their wide open wing on the far side that the offensive team's D is inexplicably backing away from for no reason? No, You see a flip dump. It's that simple.
Which is 100% executable in this game. It's that simple.
@Limp_KidzKit wrote:If players in NHL were actually held to the physical limitations of reality when it comes to their speed, their agility, their accelration, and had to actually account for incidental contact, it would make forechecking immensely easier.
But.. you DO have to account for incidental contact. And players ARE mostly held to the limitations of reality, but with any videogame ever created, liberties need to be taken in certain areas. Yes, it can be improved upon.. but acting as if there's literally nothing realistic at all about the forecheck or other elements of the gameplay is ridiculous.
@Limp_KidzKit wrote:If you then added a polished AI that correctly executed real life forechecking strategies, getting a flip dump off would be much harder organically rather than the current alternative we see today.
The AI DOES execute real life forechecking strategies. If you're not seeing them do this, then there's something wrong with the way you're controlling your players. It's as simple as that.
Kid,, you've missed the entire point of my post. I'm flat out saying "flip dumps shouldn't require mastery and people are frustrated that they require mastery" and you're telling me that I'm "grossly misrepresenting what happens here" while saying "flip dumps require mastery." I'll leave the flip dump discussion there because there's no middle ground to be found here clearly.
The speeds in this game are out of a cartoon and incidental contact is inconsistient at best. Again, if you can't admit that the agility and accerlation currently seen in online play is way beyond real life, then there's no middle ground to be found here so we can agree to disagree.
As far forechecking strategies go,. I've covered this extensively. 2/4 options we have are fictional, the other 2/4 are not executed properly. And there's no room for discussion here, it's objectively true that the weak side lock and the 2-3 are not executed properly. Theres no coach in the world that would watch the AI run either of these forechecks and go "that's a great 2-3" or "thats a greart weak side lock." And the 1-2-2 "aggressive" and "passive" are just silly. I mean, what are those? Can you explain? Have you had a coach tell you to run a "1-2-2 passive" haha? Have you seen a 1-2-2 where both offensive players in the second wave stand on the boards and give up the entire middle of the ice? If you have, please let me know so I know where you're coming from and I can refrain from assuming 1-2-2's are being taught in a rather consistient manner world wide. As I've explained in many posts before, the 1-2-2 should never result in both of your 2nd wave forecheckers being on their respective boards. If this isn't common knowledge, again my apologies for assuming and I'll be better about explainign my position going forward. So I guess, no...its not ridiculosu to suggest that theres no real forechecks happening in this game because its quite literally ture. There isnt. Theres no pretending here.
And I'd like to add that evidence gathered by me to present this objective fact is based on observing how full AI teams execute said forechecks. You again,assumed my skill, assumed my lack of skill I should say, and told me that its my fault that the AI don't execute real life forechecks without even asking the question of where im seeing this happen. This is why no middle ground is ever found. I mean, there's no middle ground here and you're telling me a fact is wrong lol.
