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
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.
@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.
@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.
- @KidShowtime1867 These are from club games. I don't play HUT.
@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.
@Limp_KidzKit wrote: you've provided zero context/commentary to outline your position.Congrats bro. You've made me realize how stupid it's been spending my time trying to provide context to clips. Trying to dissect videos, outline better ways to play, all in an effort to give people insight into how to get better outcomes. Not sure why I've spent so much time doing this stuff. All just to have someone say "you've provided zero context". Like seriously.. it's like talking to a brick wall.
You win. I'm out. Just not worth it anymore. Cheers.
@KidShowtime1867 wrote:
@Limp_KidzKit wrote: you've provided zero context/commentary to outline your position.Congrats bro. You've made me realize how stupid it's been spending my time trying to provide context to clips. Trying to dissect videos, outline better ways to play, all in an effort to give people insight into how to get better outcomes. Not sure why I've spent so much time doing this stuff. All just to have someone say "you've provided zero context". Like seriously.. it's like talking to a brick wall.
You win. I'm out. Just not worth it anymore. Cheers.
That clearly wasn't a "catch all" that you've provided zero context ever, I fail to see how you jumped to that conclusion. My comment was clearly in response to our ongoing discussion around AI strategy options and their flaws, hence me quoting our ongoing thread.
You seem to not agree either on the accuracy of my diagrams that show what the AI are designed to do or my foundational knowledge of how to properly execute a 1-2-2 IRL, yet have failed to provide any videos showing the AI executing a 1-2-2 differently than my diagram nor some sort of alternative breakdown of a IRL 1-2-2 that disprove my fundamental understanding of an IRL 1-2-2.
You keep asking me for videos because like I said, you either don't believe my observations while playing this game are true or my understanding of real life 1-2-2's is erroneous, yet you haven't added any context to support your side of this conversation.
All I'm asking for is that you provide a diagram or a video if you vehemently disagree with my points. I'd love to see them so I can better respond. If you feel like the AI execute a 1-2-2 like the IRL diagrams I've shown, send me a video. If you feel like a 1-2-2 in it's most proper form of execution IRL mimics what the AI do in this game, then find me a video of a coach drawing it up. I'd love to see it.
I've provided additional context to support my position, I'm asking you to do the same if you disagree with what I've shown/stated so far.
I have also noticed trying to give this game another chance that the AI is broken. I'm working on getting video up but on at least 2 occasions in offline play had an AI teammate actually block my cut to the net or a break out, like that is the only position he is programmed to do and if it blocks my break out or push to the net then it happens.
https://www.xbox.com/play/media/WM6kMbEmSW
Once my user controlled player goes for the puck the AI should adapt and start the break out, or once I get the puck help start the break out and not stand infront of me? No?
Also, if a AI opposing player interfered with a AI team player (does not have control or have touched the puck), plus elbows them with a hit to the head.
https://www.xbox.com/play/media/uEdguA3bBx
Why is no penalty called? Like I get it in real life calls are missed but i didn't think that sort of adaptive AI was built into NHL games?
Seeing i have been told we can't expect realism, this does not make sense. I get games like MLB the show that has umpire tendencies for strike zones but I never saw anything that said the NHL refs in game have this feature.
Am I missing something?
EA_AljoCommunity Manager
For the second clip, I don't really think that's an elbowing call. No hit was thrown and since it's incidental contact, there's not going to be a penalty. Of course a real ref may call this, but we don't have that luxury really being a video game. A penalty being called isn't based on what the ref sees and makes a judgment call on. The game is looking for a hit being thrown outside the conditions of a legal hit. Since this was incidental, there's no call.
It would have been good to see more of the first clip so we know how the players ended up there. Regardless, this drives me crazy. AI players are very frequently getting in the way. As if they don't have a lot of awareness of the players around them. They don't move to get out of the way of teammates or opposing players very well. I'm very often having to skate around them when trying to enter the my O zone or even double back in the NZ and pass to a teammate on the other side of the ice. Frustrating for sure. I also know the team is aware of this. This is one of the biggest areas I'd like to see improve.
@EA_AljoYes, it's very annoying and it's one reason why I struggle playing the game.
For the "hit" yes there is some incidental contact but the moment the opposing player extends his elbow that is defined as elbow. Elbowing can happen outside of a big hit correct? Example would be a fight for position in front of the net and player gets elbow up on the player (not a traditional hit) but this is defined as a penalty and not subjective to the refs call (now it can be missed in real life, that I get)Plus I think there is also a rule for an illegal hit to the head as well. Is that in the game?
That is where I have an issue, if it is just looking for a hit mechanic.
- EA_Aljo
He also could have extended the elbow just as part of the animation they're going into. I really don't think the elbow is being extended to throw a hit. Sure, if these were real world players, there's always the possibility of trying to get away with a dirty hit. Obviously, being AI players, that don't make those decisions. As far as the game is concerned, this is incidental so there's no hit and hence, no penalty.
@EA_AljoHere is another example of AI not being sure what to do. Can you please tell me how my 2 forwards are getting in any position to open up for a pass for a play at the net or even screen the goalie?
User controlled player is driving around the net.
https://www.xbox.com/play/media/V7GZAEzwtrThe only option I'm left with is the high dman which isnt a good chance at all.
That line is running on an overload strategy.
- EA_Aljo
I'm really not able to diagnose why the AI are behaving the way they do. I'm not a developer. I don't know what all the conditions are for their reactions. It looks like a player skates into the slot for a pass, but doesn't recognize the lane isn't open. I think we've already established they are often not in the best position. However, there are many times they are. It's certainly easy to cherry pick when they do something that negatively impacts your play when there are also many times they're getting open for good scoring chances.
@EA_AljoI know you cant explain in detail why it is the case. These instances were in an game and a half of play today. To me, I'm unsure of how frequent they are actually in a correct position or following the selected strategy.
Also I'm not sure how this is cherry picking? I was driving the puck wide to swing around for a possible pass in the slot or back to the Blueline.
- EA_Aljo
@MasterB89 wrote:
@EA_AljoI know you cant explain in detail why it is the case. These instances were in an game and a half of play today. To me, I'm unsure of how frequent they are actually in a correct position or following the selected strategy.
Also I'm not sure how this is cherry picking? I was driving the puck wide to swing around for a possible pass in the slot or back to the Blueline.
I just mean, it's always easy to focus on the bad things they do when there also are many times they play really well.
@EA_Aljo wrote:
@MasterB89 wrote:@EA_AljoI know you cant explain in detail why it is the case. These instances were in an game and a half of play today. To me, I'm unsure of how frequent they are actually in a correct position or following the selected strategy.
Also I'm not sure how this is cherry picking? I was driving the puck wide to swing around for a possible pass in the slot or back to the Blueline.
I just mean, it's always easy to focus on the bad things they do when there also are many times they play really well.
How do you define "really well" in terms of AI competence. I find the underlying strategies to be rather faulty. I mean, 0/3 strategies result in "net front presence" on a consistent basis. You would think "crash the net" would have 1 player always screening the goalie, yet they usually stand 2-3 feet off the crease which is effectively useless if your main goal on offense is to establish a low-to-high cadence with lots of pucks and traffic on net. The non-negotiable rule of an offense centered around quantity rather than quality is taking the goalies eyes away which does not happen on a consistent basis.
Overload when starting down low always sees the closes sport wing actively leaving the center of the ice to go stand literally on the boards. This not only does nothing offensively, it actually eliminates the puck carrier's option of passing it to the strong side point or skating up the wall to try and attack the tops of the circle as there's literally a teammate in the way forcing you to the middle which is where the defender is which takes time and space away from their own teammate.
Behind the net sees the play start centered behind the net and then has both supporting wings literally stand stationary off the posts of the net and never sees the AI take their handedness or the puck position into account. They actively will not move into the high middle slot even if wide open which is a saving grace because I can almost guarantee no defensive player would adequately track said offensive player to that spot if it did happen.
I actually think it's much more likely that "cherry picking" would be coming from the "AI is actually pretty good" side compared to the "what are the AI doing?" side of the house based on the fact that the in-zone strategies for both offense and defense simply don't align with modern hockey and also that many of the FC and NZ strategies are either fictional or not executed properly. Now, maybe the AI are able to execute these flawed plans correctly at a decent clip, but they're simply not good strategies and they don't produce good hockey results because of it.
