Nhl 24 the game for everyone and anyone.

Dang I didn't think you'd push back against even THAT simple question lol. You've got gusto. 

As far as your claim about their "explanation" of the game's strategies: yeah, they give you a text blurb about what the strategies supposedly do and show you a static image of the players' "home" positions in said strategies BUT they don't show the strategies in motion at all and don't give the player tips on how they should play the strategy to ensure that their AI follows suit. 

Basically what I'm saying is the strategy explanations and especially their implementations could be improved immensely in all three areas; offensive zone forechecking, neutral zone forechecking, and defensive schemes. 

---

@KlariskraysNHL wrote:
@Limp_KidzKitI can't remember his name but on NHL 23 he was very into making a lifelike experience and with rosters too. He had the game playing very sim-like and said it required you to play your positioning almost exactly how you would need to be. He also position locked to defense too. So with tuning the AI can play very great it just requires you to play exactly how they want.

---

My entire point is that the current strategies in the game are not "sim-like" even with perfect execution. Sure, I don't doubt their ability to play their programmed strategies to perfection, but the strategies when executed perfectly are fundamentally flawed. 

This is very apparent when the puck is in the zone. There is zero AI understanding of assignments and how to keep said assignments. A simple "3 high" look will not see the defensive center taking the "extra" guy. Everything is very obviously a "zone" foundation when high-level hockey is primarily M2M for all intents and purposes. 

So no matter the sliders, the game is unable to be even "sim-like" when you see very obvious positional errors in all zones that I believe can be mitigated by a different approach to how the AI execute forechecks and mark assignments in their own end.

---

@KlariskraysNHL wrote:
@MasterB89Here is a highlight of stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXasCyJ2ZU&t=562

Here is a period of the game in play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aKDm-tB4EI

---

Not to "double dip" on you, but heres a screenshot, 26 seconds into the period:

Notice:

• Poor wing path to D with puck. Lane to net extremely open (this is half due to poor faceoff setup)
• Original strong-side D collapsing to net while allowing his mark to stand open on the weakside...now, the wing is helping momentarily right now, but if this frame were to progress further, the defensive wing would continue going high and the LA wing would be left wide open.

Another grab, 30 seconds into the game. PK is running "Weak Side Lock" as seen at the start of the video. 

Weakside Lock Reminders:

• A weakside lock is a "1-2-2" variant. This means D pinching shouldn't be a main part of a forecheck
• Should be forcing the puck to the weakside

Notice:

• The game accounts for a pinching D according to the description...this is a fundamentally flawed "weakside lock" You can tell this by the fact that
  • The game has Kopitar (LA #11) force the puck towards the strong-side
  • The game has Kempe (LA #9) grab the COL center
  • The game has LA #55 take the COL weakside wing
  • Thus leaving the puck carrier to LA #44 who starts moving that way at 1:21 of the video.

Quick recap...we didn't force the puck to the weak side and we wanted the D to pinch in a strategy that already sees 3 forwards low. Not a great strategy even when executed properly. It goes against every foundational element of a weakside lock

Here's what should've happened (screenshot taken a second before erroneous WSL started being executed)

• Kempe should've started the forecheck as the closest forward. Also, already had strong-side leverage which is an added bonus
• Koptiar should've stayed with the Center he was already next too
• 55 should've taken his wing as originally planned
• No D should be expected to pinch

This simple change would be a proper weak side lock which would not only remove confusion about the game's current weak side lock which sees the puck being forced to the strong-side and a D pinch, but is also just a much more fundamentally sound hockey strategy that better accomplishes puck pressure while maintaining a better defensive structure.

Now, this is 30 seconds into this video. Regardless if anyone finds his game speed and sliders realistic is irrelevant, the fact that the AI have made these simple mistakes in such a short amount of time proves that there's some fundamentally improper AI programming right now which means no amount of slider changes can make for a "sim" experience.

---

@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. 

---

Hold on a minute... let's say you're in a 1v1 game and you're controlling your D-man while your 3 forwards take care of the offensive zone forecheck? If the case then turned out to be as Limp_KidsKit said, then that would mean the AI does not know how to forecheck properly, right? I've personally never seen the F1 angle the puck carrier to one side correctly unless I'm doing it myself and usually, my other 2 forwards are out of position anyway. 

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

---

@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. 

---

Brother, you can't beg for videos every time someone criticizes the game and then say, "No, not those videos!" C'mon, man. 

Idk man. You really "dissected" that dude's videos by saying they were HUT clips and therefore didn't make sense and then when he responded with, "No actually the clips are from club," you just said, "fair enough." I don't think that's a good faith discussion, honestly. 

---

@NeonSkyline21 wrote:

---

@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. 

---

Hold on a minute... let's say you're in a 1v1 game and you're controlling your D-man while your 3 forwards take care of the offensive zone forecheck? If the case then turned out to be as Limp_KidsKit said, then that would mean the AI does not know how to forecheck properly, right? I've personally never seen the F1 angle the puck carrier to one side correctly unless I'm doing it myself and usually, my other 2 forwards are out of position anyway. 

---

Thank you for this!! Seriously, I have been trying to get this point across forever! I have never seen the AI turn a puck properly (because they don't, they sprint directly at the puck) and I've never seen the weakside wing properly cover the middle of the ice like you should see in a 1-2-2! It's simple stuff, it should be easily debunkable if I'm making stuff up but I'm not. Easily seen during 5 seconds of gameplay, shouldn't need a video!

---

@NeonSkyline21 wrote:

---

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

---

@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. 

---

Brother, you can't beg for videos every time someone criticizes the game and then say, "No, not those videos!" C'mon, man. 

Idk man. You really "dissected" that dude's videos by saying they were HUT clips and therefore didn't make sense and then when he responded with, "No actually the clips are from club," you just said, "fair enough." I don't think that's a good faith discussion, honestly. 

---

This is why I've taken an "anti video" stance on this site. Videos are always requested to discuss "x" but when videos are uploaded, the "x" that the OP wanted to discuss is rarely discussed and the video starts being nitpicked for "y", "z", and everything else that can be seen. 

The community needs to be comfortable with discussion HIGH LEVEL concepts without a video. If a video is requested, the OP point NEEDS to be discussed. Not the missed the poke, not the clipping, not the less than optimal decision making, not the game mode and why you can't expect "x" because of "insert game mode here" explanation, but the actual main point of why the video was uploaded.

When these videos are nitpicked to death and essentially dismissed due to "skill issue bro" it forfeits all opportunity to gain anything constructive from the topic at hand. If we all can't talk about the theory of how this game should look and feel without video, then what are we all doing here? If we can't agree on the fundamental direction of the series in theory, how can we properly provide feedback to the development team? 

Thank you for the addition. Let's keep this positive approach rolling and get the devs some actionable, constructive feedback!