Nhl 24 the game for everyone and anyone.

---

@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.

---

@Losoun wrote:

you have seen a lot of poke checking and interceptions absoutelly not working

---

Show me one.

I've posted this one before ( there's two clips in the video, only the first is relevant ).  Offensive player exposes the puck and it should be a trivial play to poke the puck away.  The puck is both accurate and strong enough to knock his stick away, but somehow completely misses the puck.  Couldn't pull that off on-ice if I tried but it's a regular occurrence in this game. 

Two for interceptions.  First one I've got inside position with my stick on the ice, just somehow miss the puck entirely while the offensive player just inches past my stick picks it up clean and gets a shot off.

Second it a bit more forgivable, but still frustrating.  Again, inside position but instead of breaking up the pass while it's in front of me, the game decides I'll try to pick it off on the far side of my body which opens up the opportunity for the offensive player to get the puck and the goal.

---

@PlayoffError wrote:

I've posted this one before ( there's two clips in the video, only the first is relevant ).  Offensive player exposes the puck and it should be a trivial play to poke the puck away.  The puck is both accurate and strong enough to knock his stick away, but somehow completely misses the puck.  Couldn't pull that off on-ice if I tried but it's a regular occurrence in this game. 

Two for interceptions.  First one I've got inside position with my stick on the ice, just somehow miss the puck entirely while the offensive player just inches past my stick picks it up clean and gets a shot off.

Second it a bit more forgivable, but still frustrating.  Again, inside position but instead of breaking up the pass while it's in front of me, the game decides I'll try to pick it off on the far side of my body which opens up the opportunity for the offensive player to get the puck and the goal.

---

Finally, someone pulls through. Of course, these are from HUT. As I've said time and time again; realism down to the pixel should not be expected in HUT. No attribute parity, top players are all similarly skilled.. RNG will be more consequential than it should be. 

---

@PlayoffError wrote:
@KidShowtime1867These are from club games. I don't play HUT.

---

Fair enough. 

Is it so hard to see for the team and everyone that this i a very bad hockey game that is just full of bugs ? I have tried 100 Times to play this game but I cant stad play it anymore . It is bad in every single way and there is no action  left in the game, even the menus is slow and crappy . I cant understand why i got like this ?

u cant say enough about this game..

Worst gameplay and changes ever. This game was soo good previous years but not anymore. Of course few bugs was previous years but the gameplay was fun to play. Now the gameplay is arcade whit the un realistic speed hitting, AI is so bad and many more. Game rewards players Who just shoot and hit all the time.

And u can do Michigan goal and other fancy stuff whit ONE button? Are u kidding? :D u have to master the skills, moves and how to play and score playing the game and not like this that everyone can do Michigan when ever they want just Pressin one button. 

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

---

@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. 

---

It's not that I can't, it's that your request is the equivalent of asking me to take a video of the sky to prove that the sun does rise every day. That's just quite simply not worth my time. You clearly need to do more homework on the AI and it's tendencies before engaging with me on this topic. I have provided a plethora of context to make my position clear, the onus to continue discussing the AI and it's competence is very much on your side as you've provided zero context/commentary to outline your position.