Nhl 24 the game for everyone and anyone.

@MasterB89Then they probably shouldn't use the word authentic anymore because even back in the PS360 era the game is like 70% realistic with 30% arcade type stuff mixed in. It was said by a dev back in the day that posted on the forums who went by the name RedShirt. I used to have the link saved but those forums got closed.

But I am sure their authentic is that it looks like hockey most of the time.  But trust me I get what you are all saying but at the end of the day the product is what the product is.

---

@KlariskraysNHL wrote:
We don't say adapt because people are bad. We just say adapt because if things aren't changing what you gonna do?

---

Exactly. The negative reactions to being shown how exactly someone can execute something in-game that they insist they can't, tells me all I need to know. They don't want to be shown how to do something - they just want the mechanic to be reverted back to a state where they don't need to adapt and they can go back to abusing it for quick breakouts. 

We cry for more responsibility on offense and when EA adjusts the mechanics in order to accomplish that, those unwilling to adapt demand that responsibility be removed.

---

@MasterB89 wrote:Plus this the wording that EA is using for their marketing is "AUTHENTIC ON-ICE ACTION" this defines it as "Authentic" hockey experience (this if from the front page title of the official NHL 24 website. That is where the issues lies, I get it in ways its can't be full realism for NHL only (as other games like MLB, NBA and fifa can do it), but don't market it as authentic if it is not.

---

You will not get a true authentic experience of any sport on earth on a videogame console. Using a term like 'Authentic' should not give the customer the idea that they're going to experience a 1:1 videogame to real life experience. 

@KidShowtime1867That is where I'll disagree. Take time to play MLB the show. It does offer an extremely close experience on so many levels (yes it has some glitches) but whole package is there. From different bat sounds, to varied crowd numbers (in NHL 24 it will state the teams poor record and lack of tickets sold but will be a sellout if you look at the crowd) I flagged this issue to EA,  authentic player stances, player specific celebrations, dynamic stats for replays, authentic stadiums that change when needed (Blue Jays changed in game same year. (Arizona is an example for NHL 24 where it's still in an NHL arena which has not been the case for a year and a half), full creation for stadiums, day night cycles for authentic stadiums and created stadiums, realistic shadows and sun placement, different broadcast types depending on national or regional games and I can easily go on.. I haven't touched on features online and offine.. Road to the show that gets some updates throughout the years as a big one comparison to be a pro that is still the same from launch and even with some of the game glitches and spelling errors still present. 

Plus we would define the word authentic to what it's meaning is. No person or company can change the definition of a word. If you are not offering it there is other words you can use to promote of market it.

Subjectiveness can go many ways, especially when you are purchasing a product, you can take it that I should bend and be forgiving whereas I see it that they are offering this "authentic on-ice action" but not delivering or stating that due to creative changes that were made we had to remove some options.

Also, you had mentioned prior that games struggle going through different generations where as MLB on a whole has mostly grown from different generations and now different platforms. 

Making a close to real sports game is possible. 

---

@MasterB89 wrote:

@KidShowtime1867That is where I'll disagree. Take time to play MLB the show. It does offer an extremely close experience on so many levels (yes it has some glitches) but whole package is there. From different bat sounds, to varied crowd numbers (in NHL 24 it will state the teams poor record and lack of tickets sold but will be a sellout if you look at the crowd) I flagged this issue to EA,  authentic player stances, player specific celebrations, dynamic stats for replays, authentic stadiums that change when needed (Blue Jays changed in game same year. (Arizona is an example for NHL 24 where it's still in an NHL arena and it's been a year and a half where they have not), full creation for stadiums, day night cycles for authentic stadiums and created stadiums, realistic shadows and sun placement and I can go on.

---

I do play MLB The Show. It's an incredible gaming experience and its presentation, game flow, accessibility, etc is 2nd to none. It makes the NHL series look amateurish. 

That said - Baseball is a non contact sport that is played at a snails pace. The only player-to-player interaction is simply timing the user's selected swing versus the pitcher's selected pitch and then calculating the success of the swing using variables from user input, player attributes, etc. I'm not going to say it's 'easier' to develop a baseball game - because a game like The Show has a lot more going for it than just pure gameplay. But, Baseball is a MUCH easier sport to virtualize than hockey.

---

@MasterB89 wrote: 

Plus we would define the word authentic to what it's meaning is. No person or company can change the definition of a word. If you are not offering it there is other words you can use to promote of market it.

---

In the context of an "authentic gaming experience," the term "authentic" typically refers to a gameplay experience that feels genuine, true to the intentions of the game developers, and immersive for the player.

Authenticity often refers to the ability for the game to immerse the user. Now I know that some people here are adamant that the NHL series has lost all immersion and to a point, I agree (bring back custom music). However, if at any point you've played this game and felt genuine excitement for scoring a goal, making a good play or winning a game - you've verified the authentic immersion that the developers intended.

I understand there are extremely stale presentation elements and gameplay bugs that can break that immersion, but you're going to get that in any game.

In MLB The Show, for example, immersion is broken for me when a player randomly commits an error that wasn't a result of any user input. Firing a throw to 1st base only to have the 1st baseman bobble it to allow a hit - despite me ensuring the throw was not overpowered - kind of breaks immersion for me when it happens so often. 

In Madden, immersion is broken when your opponent continuously goes for it on 4th down regardless of the field position. 

In UFC, immersion is broken when Bruce Buffer omits a fighter's record and hometown during introductions to my first UFC championship fight in my career.

But all of those games still provide an authentic experience that does its best to replicate the sports using 1's and 0's. 

@KidShowtime1867I can list many immersion breaking actions in NHL which most have been brought up on these threads, goalies/players own goals, saves being made with the glove in the net..

The pace of the game is different but on ways can be more complex when it comes to how players react to ball movement, to diving catches to a double play. Each has their own complexities. 

For mlb if you want to take your point, this can be based around player stats either card or offline stats. Real life players can over or under throw a ball ot not have the accuracy. This is the same in NHL where a high end player does not score every goal even with the xfactor.

So would that also be defined as immersion breaking in NHL?

---

@MasterB89 wrote:

@KidShowtime1867I can list many immersion breaking actions in NHL which most have been brought up on these threads, goalies/players own goals, saves being made with the glove in the net..

The pace of the game is different but on ways can be more complex when it comes to how players react to ball movement, to diving catches to a double play. Each has their own complexities. 

For mlb if you want to take your point, this can be based around player stats either card or offline stats. Real life players can over or under throw a ball ot not have the accuracy. This is the same in NHL where a high end player does not score every goal even with the xfactor.

So would that also be defined as immersion breaking in NHL?

---

Yes, which is why I said 

---

I understand there are extremely stale presentation elements and gameplay bugs that can break that immersion, but you're going to get that in any game.

---

My point is that authenticity typically refers to the ability for the game to immerse you. Everyone posting in this forum has been immersed in this game at some point. That immersion being broken from time to time does not negate the claim to being 'authentic'. Immersion breaks happen in all games, even ones that claim to be 'authentic'. 

---

@KlariskraysNHL wrote:
@MasterB89Because you aren't play real life hockey you are playing a hockey video game. When LT-ing existed it was a very unrealistic thing that wasn't changed for the longest time. If you wanted to compete at the highest of levels you had to master it.

And yes I had already written up a giant thing on the flip dump and how it could have been tied to stamina and whatnot. But sure we can all complain about how it should be but if it isn't in the game you got to use what is given to you to use. I play defense probably 70%, goalie 29%, and forward 1% of the time. I know that my positions are extremely extra tough and that I need to play a very solid position game with little to no mistakes because my mistakes are going to be super costly compared to forwards. I also get more joy shutting down teams defensively knowing my job is harder than theirs.

We don't say adapt because people are bad. We just say adapt because if things aren't changing what you gonna do? I mean making forum post after forum post every week to month isn't gonna make things speed up. They see the complaints about various things and my guess is if nothing gets "fixed" then it's either A.) Something they are OK with B.) Something they want to fix but it's going to take a bunch of work.

You have to stop thinking real life hockey when you are playing a video game adaptation. It's like watching your beloved anime then they make a live action version of that anime. You know you want to expect things to be just like the anime but they gonna change things for their vision.
^^^best analogy ever

---

So is this the same "just a video game" that I'm being told has 100% perfect AI executing 100% real life concepts and the only possible shortcoming is due to human error?

Which is it guys? is this "just a game for fun" or is this a "simulation" because you can't keep dismissing feedback because for being "too unrealistic" or "too realistic" at the same time. So lets all decide now what this game is. If its an arcade game, I expect to be able to provide AI improvement suggestions without being told that the issue must lie with the user because that really wouldn't align with an arcade game would it? A "for fun" game probably is missing some real life stratagies dont we think? Can we agree NFL Blitz maybe didn't perfectly execute real life football?

Otherwise if this is a simulation, I expect to be able to provide feedback on things like game speed, shot accuracy, pass receptions, goalie animations, etc. without a ton of "skill issue" rebuttals as this is a simulation and should be based semi-close to reality. 

We gotta pick though, because this is why we cant all decide on thedirection of this series. Its a perfect middle ground which makes it equal parts unrealistically frustrating and realistically frustraing depending on the sitatuion/feature/position.

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

So is this the same "just a video game" that I'm being told has 100% perfect AI executing 100% real life concepts and the only possible shortcoming is due to human error?

---

I don't think anyone is saying the AI is 100% at executing real life concepts. Obviously, they make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are also the result of human error. There are plenty of times when AI, without human interaction, aren't behaving as well as the should be.

---

@EA_Aljo wrote:

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

So is this the same "just a video game" that I'm being told has 100% perfect AI executing 100% real life concepts and the only possible shortcoming is due to human error?

---

I don't think anyone is saying the AI is 100% at executing real life concepts. Obviously, they make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are also the result of human error. There are plenty of times when AI, without human interaction, aren't behaving as well as the should be.

---

I guess my point is, how do we know that the AI are "making mistakes" while executing totally fictional strategies and concepts? Does that makes sense?

I have no idea what a "mistake" is while running a "1-2-2 aggressive" but I do know that a "1-2-2 aggressive" is quite simply not a real strategy.

I mean, a 1-2-2 is a rather "conservative" forecheck IRL due to the fact that wings are maintaining depth around the dots/tops of circles and they're not to "crash" into corners on the forecheck because it leaves open opposing forwards behind them #1 and like I stated earlier, it leaves you with a near impossible task of keeping the puck on one side of the ice which is one of the most fundamental goals of applying a forecheck. A 1-2-2 IRL also usually doesn't involve a D pinch as standard practice/expectation, so a 1-2-2 "aggressive" is just kind of not a thing to be honest. Then again, the 1-2-2 passive doesn't cover the strong-side boards so what breakout passes is it defending against? The up the middle stretch lol? I mean, the foundational concept of a 1-2-2 is to take away the breakout side wing. So, a "1-2-2" strategy in the game that sees 0 forecheckers on the boards is silly to be honest. It's just totally fictional #1 and accomplishes literally nothing in terms of a forecheck.

So to reiterate my position, you can't by any normal or hockey objective standards come to the conclusion that the user made an error while executing a completely fictional forecheck because what are the rules/expectations that you're judging these "mistakes" by/on you know lol? I mean, I could say you ran the "loopty loop" wrong, but what in the world is a the loopty loop? So then why when I post breakdowns of these strategies multiple times are we still getting "poor execution" rebuttals? Maybe its just me, but I'd expect someone to be able to breakdown what a "1-2-2 agressive" should look like if we're going to tell users that they did something wrong, you know? Am I being unreasonable? To me, the only way we can see what the true "programming" or "intention" of these strategies are/is, is to watch AI teams execute them....which I've done extensively and have come to the conclusion that evem when "well exectued" that are essentailly useless forechecks that don't offer any real advantage nor accomplish any goals that you'd expect to accomplish in a hockey forecheck.

So, this isn't a "user" issue. It can't be. These forechecks are fundamentally flawed. All of them. A weakside lock does IRL include a D pinch yet it's in the description of the strategy...and to the point, I've never seen the what should be "new" strong-side D pinch 100% of the time like the description says. It never happens. Trust me, I've played 1000's of offline games. Never happens. 

Anyway, I've rambled enough. I'll make my own post.

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

 I'm being told has 100% perfect AI executing 100% real life concepts and the only possible shortcoming is due to human error?

---

Nobody ever said that. 

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

---

@EA_Aljo wrote:

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

So is this the same "just a video game" that I'm being told has 100% perfect AI executing 100% real life concepts and the only possible shortcoming is due to human error?

---

I don't think anyone is saying the AI is 100% at executing real life concepts. Obviously, they make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are also the result of human error. There are plenty of times when AI, without human interaction, aren't behaving as well as the should be.

---

I guess my point is, how do we know that the AI are "making mistakes" while executing totally fictional strategies and concepts? Does that makes sense?

I have no idea what a "mistake" is while running a "1-2-2 aggressive" but I do know that a "1-2-2 aggressive" is quite simply not a real strategy.

I mean, a 1-2-2 is a rather "conservative" forecheck IRL due to the fact that wings are maintaining depth around the dots/tops of circles and they're not to "crash" into corners on the forecheck because it leaves open opposing forwards behind them #1 and like I stated earlier, it leaves you with a near impossible task of keeping the puck on one side of the ice which is one of the most fundamental goals of applying a forecheck. A 1-2-2 IRL also usually doesn't involve a D pinch as standard practice/expectation, so a 1-2-2 "aggressive" is just kind of not a thing to be honest. Then again, the 1-2-2 passive doesn't cover the strong-side boards so what breakout passes is it defending against? The up the middle stretch lol? I mean, the foundational concept of a 1-2-2 is to take away the breakout side wing. So, a "1-2-2" strategy in the game that sees 0 forecheckers on the boards is silly to be honest. It's just totally fictional #1 and accomplishes literally nothing in terms of a forecheck.

So to reiterate my position, you can't by any normal or hockey objective standards come to the conclusion that the user made an error while executing a completely fictional forecheck because what are the rules/expectations that you're judging these "mistakes" by/on you know lol? I mean, I could say you ran the "loopty loop" wrong, but what in the world is a the loopty loop? So then why when I post breakdowns of these strategies multiple times are we still getting "poor execution" rebuttals? Maybe its just me, but I'd expect someone to be able to breakdown what a "1-2-2 agressive" should look like if we're going to tell users that they did something wrong, you know? Am I being unreasonable? To me, the only way we can see what the true "programming" or "intention" of these strategies are/is, is to watch AI teams execute them....which I've done extensively and have come to the conclusion that evem when "well exectued" that are essentailly useless forechecks that don't offer any real advantage nor accomplish any goals that you'd expect to accomplish in a hockey forecheck.

So, this isn't a "user" issue. It can't be. These forechecks are fundamentally flawed. All of them. A weakside lock does IRL include a D pinch yet it's in the description of the strategy...and to the point, I've never seen the what should be "new" strong-side D pinch 100% of the time like the description says. It never happens. Trust me, I've played 1000's of offline games. Never happens. 

Anyway, I've rambled enough. I'll make my own post.

---

Can you take some videos to show what you're talking about? It's hard to follow the ramblings. 

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

 I'm being told has 100% perfect AI executing 100% real life concepts and the only possible shortcoming is due to human error?

---

Nobody ever said that. 

---

You're right. It's been heavily implied rather than explicitly stated.

Why don't I do one better? I'll whiteboard the difference between a 1-2-2 Aggressive in game and a 1-2-2 IRL execution.

To start, I'll show the fundamental difference between the way the AI are running the 1-2-2 aggressive and how most would expect a standard 1-2-2 to be executed IRL.

In game 1-2-2 Aggressive

Three things to highlight here:

1. F1 not truly forcing the play to the strong-side

2. F2 "crashing" down on puck carrier in support of F1

3. F3 usually found standing still or doing some sort of shuffle while not bothering to cover the opponent's middle-lane forward

IRL 1-2-2

Three things to note here:

1. F1 forcing the play to the strong side by taking an angle on the carrier which mitigates the chances of going behind the net

2. F2 moving to mark the strong-side wing rather than crashing down on the puck carrier

3. F3 moving with the middle-lane opponent as that's their assignment

Now, let's breakdown why these differences are so large. We'll start with a continuation of the in-game 1-2-2 aggressive

Things to note:

1. Due to F2 crashing, one pass from the D to the strong-side boards results in 2 players being "under the puck" or "beat."

2. F3 choosing to be stationary/moonwalking allows opponent middle lane forward free passage through middle, essentially leading to all three forecheckers being "under the puck" now.

3. Due to the lack of F3's pressure, offensive team has free passage to use entire width of the ice on their 3-on-2.

This is the "landing" spots after the movement. Notice the options available to the attackers in terms of puck movement and lane exchanges all without any sort of back pressure on the puck.

Now, here's the same continuation exercise from a IRL 1-2-2

Things to note:

1. F1 attacks with body positioning net-side on the forecheck ensuring the play remains on the strong-side so the FC can execute as expected

2. F2 attacks his mark on the boards rather than crashing which should result in either a pass deflection, a puck battle, or a quick touch pass to the only option which is the middle.

3. F3 covers his mark in the middle ensuring that even if the pass beats F2 that there's pressure on the puck carrier and will use his inside leverage to keep the play to the strong-side

Further showing the "landing" spots after a pass beats F2. You can see that the middle-lane opponent has limited options and is more than likely going to be pushed to the outside. This is going to require either the weakside D or the weakside wing to fill the middle lane to have a remotely threatening rush. The likely best scenario for the black team here is a red-line dump due to their options being exhausted.

Hypothetical scenarios being conjured up to allegedly demonstrate how bad the a.i. is just isn't going to get us anywhere. I understand you're pitting CPU v CPU and then generating feedback on the forecheck based on that but why would you do that when cpu v cpu means literally nothing?

You're omitting the human element completely. 

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

1. F1 not truly forcing the play to the strong-side

2. F2 "crashing" down on puck carrier in support of F1

3. F3 usually found standing still or doing some sort of shuffle while not bothering to cover the opponent's middle-lane forward

.

---

Who's controlling the F's here? What responsibility does the human have? How do attributes affect the positioning? 

You're passionate about demonstrating your hockey knowledge, but you're not giving any in-game examples that actually demonstrate the erroneous a.i. 

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

 I'm being told has 100% perfect AI executing 100% real life concepts and the only possible shortcoming is due to human error?

---

Nobody ever said that. 

---

You're right. It's been heavily implied rather than explicitly stated.

---

No it's not. You're taking criticism of your claims as an implication that the ai is perfect. We might just be implying that you're not taking all factors into consideration when critiquing the forecheck and other a.i. anomalies. 

If you could actually provide an in-game example of what you see as egregious ai activity, then maybe we could get somewhere. 

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

Hypothetical scenarios being conjured up to allegedly demonstrate how bad the a.i. is just isn't going to get us anywhere. I understand you're pitting CPU v CPU and then generating feedback on the forecheck based on that but why would you do that when cpu v cpu means literally nothing?

You're omitting the human element completely. 

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

1. F1 not truly forcing the play to the strong-side

2. F2 "crashing" down on puck carrier in support of F1

3. F3 usually found standing still or doing some sort of shuffle while not bothering to cover the opponent's middle-lane forward

.

---

Who's controlling the F's here? What responsibility does the human have? How do attributes affect the positioning? 

You're passionate about demonstrating your hockey knowledge, but you're not giving any in-game examples that actually demonstrate the erroneous a.i. 

---

The only reason it won't get us anywhere is because you refuse to accept that the AI quite literally do what I just drew up. The human element is 100% irrelevant to the point being made here. The point is that the forechecks are not real lol. They're quite useless because they dont make any strategic sense. They don't take way time or space, they actually create more holes than not because the fundamental design of the forecheck is flawed.

If executing said forecheck perfectly as the AI wants you to do, you will get beat beacuse the foreheck is flawed! It's really quite simple to understand.

And I don't need to post video about things that happen 1000s of times a game. That's not on me to handhold you through things are are easily observable to the naked eye with bare minimum effort. 

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

Hypothetical scenarios being conjured up to allegedly demonstrate how bad the a.i. is just isn't going to get us anywhere. I understand you're pitting CPU v CPU and then generating feedback on the forecheck based on that but why would you do that when cpu v cpu means literally nothing?

You're omitting the human element completely. 

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

1. F1 not truly forcing the play to the strong-side

2. F2 "crashing" down on puck carrier in support of F1

3. F3 usually found standing still or doing some sort of shuffle while not bothering to cover the opponent's middle-lane forward

.

---

Who's controlling the F's here? What responsibility does the human have? How do attributes affect the positioning? 

You're passionate about demonstrating your hockey knowledge, but you're not giving any in-game examples that actually demonstrate the erroneous a.i. 

---

The AI is doing all of these things, you just admitted that you know this to be the case. Why the rhetorical questions? 

You're saying the AI are "erroneous" but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they are perfectly executing a flawed strategy. 

I can tell 100 men to straight on rush a heavily fortified MG emplacement if I want. It will fail, but it won't be due to my men being erroneous. It will be due to my flawed strategy.

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

 I'm being told has 100% perfect AI executing 100% real life concepts and the only possible shortcoming is due to human error?

---

Nobody ever said that. 

---

You're right. It's been heavily implied rather than explicitly stated.

---

No it's not. You're taking criticism of your claims as an implication that the ai is perfect. We might just be implying that you're not taking all factors into consideration when critiquing the forecheck and other a.i. anomalies. 

If you could actually provide an in-game example of what you see as egregious ai activity, then maybe we could get somewhere. 

---

No, you're just failing to understand my argument. There isn't a proper FC to execute here. That's been my argument from the start. I don't know why this hasn't been understood yet. I've made this abundantly clear that my issues with the forechecks is that they are for the most part fictional. How do you judge "mistakes" while executing a flawed and fictional forecheck lol? 

@Limp_KidzKitTheir argument is more it's how the game is designed adapt when you and I are saying the way it is designed is not congruent with hockey.

100% which is why I don't get why we have to review this every time someone like us posts. We're not here to discuss skill-based issues with the game. We're here to offer our opinion on how the game is played and why the game is played the way its played. 

I don't think many appreciate being told how to play the game or why you're "wrong" for posing a question like "why are my two AI forwards on top of each other on the post during a 3-on-2?" as that's an extremely valid question and is an easy example of the AI failing to execute simple hockey plays that should be corrected for the betterment of the game regardless of skill level.

It's actually one of the bigger fallacies of the "video always helps" mantra because discussions naturally devolve into "skill issue" nitpicking and we lose the focus of the main point of the thread or video. Video SHOULD help us discuss topics, but many times it ends up leading to less than constructive conversations to no fault of anyone really. It's just what happens when you're able to break everything down frame by frame. That's why I always prefer to keep discussions as high-level as possible. If we can agree on high-level approaches to offense vs defense, or implementing correct forechecks, or how (insert feature here), then video might be able to be used to supplement a point but too often it becomes the main point of the video and turns into a "thumb trial" than simply an additional piece of context.

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

100% which is why I don't get why we have to review this every time someone like us posts. We're not here to discuss skill-based issues with the game. We're here to offer our opinion on how the game is played and why the game is played the way its played. 

I don't think many appreciate being told how to play the game or why you're "wrong" for posing a question like "why are my two AI forwards on top of each other on the post during a 3-on-2?" as that's an extremely valid question and is an easy example of the AI failing to execute simple hockey plays that should be corrected for the betterment of the game regardless of skill level.

It's actually one of the bigger fallacies of the "video always helps" mantra because discussions naturally devolve into "skill issue" nitpicking and we lose the focus of the main point of the thread or video. Video SHOULD help us discuss topics, but many times it ends up leading to less than constructive conversations to no fault of anyone really. It's just what happens when you're able to break everything down frame by frame. That's why I always prefer to keep discussions as high-level as possible. If we can agree on high-level approaches to offense vs defense, or implementing correct forechecks, or how (insert feature here), then video might be able to be used to supplement a point but too often it becomes the main point of the video and turns into a "thumb trial" than simply an additional piece of context.

---

You are stating it much better than my caveman hockey brain can. A game of sixes doesn't make it any better either. You don't have to adapt to an AI that doesn't get open. However you still have to deal with the terrible way the puck interacts with sticks especially when it is controlled by someone players should not be able to tank pokechecks and stick lifts while standing still which they currently can.

---

@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

And I don't need to post video about things that happen 1000s of times a game. That's not on me to handhold you through things are are easily observable to the naked eye with bare minimum effort. 

---

It's weird how something that happens so often and you're unable to provide a single clip of the game doing what you claim. 

Well, showing videos to you doesnt make any sense, you have seen a lot of poke checking and interceptions absoutelly not working and you are still repeating, that its working fine and everything is users fault :D Dont know why, but you are blindly (and very often comically) defending the game and throwing down every proves that the defending in the game is bad.