Cant believe this is not talked about more. Players skating away from the play, with 0 vision on the puck and player carrying the puck are MORE accurate at interceptions than a guy LOOKING and facing the play and waiting for the puck. Scenario: Defenseman pickup the puck, the Center from other team is facing the defenseman and waiting for the pass coming to a guy behind him. The Center does not react and lets a soft pass right by him to the offense player from the other team. Scenario 2: Defenseman pickup the puck, the Center from other team is facing AWAY from the defenseman. The defenseman attemps a hard fast pass towards his teammate somewhat close to the center. The Center casually stretch while not looking at all anywhere near where the puck came from and intercepts the puck....not even fumble it or anything...just clean pickup.Completely moronic how frequently this occurs. Where is the hockey IQ in that, the risk vs reward and proper positioning rewards in this? This needs to change next year. IF you are facing away from the play, at BEST you could maybe stretch and deflect the puck but mostly, you shouldnt even try to stop that pass.

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:Can you post a video of these scenarios? Playing anywhere from 1-3 games max will allow you to see these scenarios.

@EA_Aljo wrote:@llamaverox NHL 13 was less sim than we have now. Which is probably why so many still claim to love it. The physics did not take into account real world physics the way they do now. You could skate laterally across your blades for one. I've said it many times and I'll say it again. I don't think the sim people want a sim game when we get push back from making the game harder. Even your suggestion in the other thread for an automatic puck steal goes against the desire for a full sim game. Do you play offline? If so, do you turn all of the assists off? That would give you more of a simulation experience.So your metrics of "realism" are solely based on the fact that the animations present are "realistically correct" if you will? So, if the blades "realistically" interact with the ice but then you tune the game speed, acceleration, and agility to silly levels that result in what's essentially weightless movement that rivals NHL 09 rather than NHL 13, you consider that a "win" for realism?I agree that people advocating for "full sim" probably don't want a full sim video game, but I'd also argue that this community is way too quick to label a request as "full sim" simply because it disagrees with status quo of said feature which almost all of them present in the game are tuned to wildly arcadey settings.This is easily confirmed by putting an NHL game on and any streamer bro of 6s game live on twitch and you'll see that there's an extremely wide gap between "real" and this game which doesn't' even look like hockey when you watch it. There's such an insanely infinite spectrum of "middle ground" tuning that falls in between the silliness present by default and the real life product, why can't we all try to talk about getting there without sacrificing accessibility? Accessibility doesn't NEED to be easy to master. It needs to be easy to understand. Rocket League isn't a complex game control-wise, but it's an incredibly hard game to master. NHL has a very complex control scheme in comparison, but it's tuned in a way where you don't need to be anything more than a novice at the game to score 3+ goals because offense is just wildly easy and unbalanced. Are you under the impression that if offense had even an ounce of accountability/skill required to be moderate successful that this game would lose all accessibility and fun? I strongly disagree if that's the case based on the fact that all of these much harder games have much higher followings, player counts, payouts for tournaments, and respect when it comes to being considered a legitimate esport.NHL could be a legitimate esport, it just can't get out of its own way because it's so committed to casual players having competitive level success which is something not found in any legitimate esport.

@EA_Aljo wrote:@llamaverox You're asking for an immediate puck steal with a simple button combination. For this to be full sim, you'd need to get into a good position, lift the stick or poke and then hit a button to pick up the puck. As it is now, you have to knock the puck loose and then skate within reach to pick it up. Which is still more sim even though the puck is automatically being picked up just for being close to it.Making the game full sim means taking the most basic hockey skills and removing the automation for them. Pick ups and full manual passing are good examples. How much fun would be added to the game if these were more difficult to do?If there really were as much interest in full sim sports games, there would be more of them. I really think people are overestimating how popular they would be. We already get complaints that NHL is too hard for new people to pick up.Well this game is probably difficult for beginners because there's no tutorials, the default sliders allow for the CPU to do insane 360 spins that would put gold medal figure skaters to shame all while at full speed, defensive actions are inconsistently rewarded even when executed perfectly, the AI can't do extremely simple tasks like "stand next to the opponent in your slot rather than drifting behind the net for no reason", and the goalies have had their limb reactions turned up to "robot" so the only consistent way to score is by doing 1 of the 2 EA approve patterns of scoring which makes new players frustrated because they just watched a real life NHL game where shooting from the slot is rewarded but in this game that's met with a 99.99999% save percentage unless the magic pattern and aim was used.This game isn't hard for beginners because its a hard game. Its hard for beginners because there's no tutorials and basic hockey concepts are not rewarded in the slightest so a new player whether they be a hockey fan or not would lack the slightest clue as to how to score on a semi-consistent basis.

@EA_Aljo wrote:@Limp_KidzKit What you're asking for is a full on simulation. That's just not what we're going for so some liberties are going to be taken. A player might not be looking right at a puck and still pick it up. That's because this is a video game. A real world player may have turned their head in that instance though. Another example is the stick phasing through objects. There are times this is intended. Without it, there would be bigger issues. We also have to consider if something is just too tedious and takes away from the overall fun. I get that fun is subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what that is. Making the game overly difficult to play isn't in our best interest though. That would satisfy a very small part of the overall playerbase. We're trying to grow the game and not restrict it to a very minority of the players that insist on a full simulation.Thanks for all the feedback.No sports game is full on simulation, you all have no idea how well that would sell, so you can't assume that the player base would not grow based on it. NHL 13 was the closest to simulation, and when it was nerfed slightly to a little more free flowing NHL 14 was considered "the greatest NHL game of all time" and "the last good nhl game"The NBA games have always been pretty close to simulation with maybe needing a bit more arcade and they sell extremely well. As does MLB which is pretty close to simulation and sells well too. The closer you are to simulation the better imo.

@llamaverox wrote:@EA_Aljo wrote:@Limp_KidzKit What you're asking for is a full on simulation. That's just not what we're going for so some liberties are going to be taken. A player might not be looking right at a puck and still pick it up. That's because this is a video game. A real world player may have turned their head in that instance though. Another example is the stick phasing through objects. There are times this is intended. Without it, there would be bigger issues. We also have to consider if something is just too tedious and takes away from the overall fun. I get that fun is subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what that is. Making the game overly difficult to play isn't in our best interest though. That would satisfy a very small part of the overall playerbase. We're trying to grow the game and not restrict it to a very minority of the players that insist on a full simulation.Thanks for all the feedback.No sports game is full on simulation, you all have no idea how well that would sell, so you can't assume that the player base would not grow based on it. NHL 13 was the closest to simulation, and when it was nerfed slightly to a little more free flowing NHL 14 was considered "the greatest NHL game of all time" and "the last good nhl game"The NBA games have always been pretty close to simulation with maybe needing a bit more arcade and they sell extremely well. As does MLB which is pretty close to simulation and sells well too. The closer you are to simulation the better imo.You can also tell it's a flaw in how your company views sports games in that Madden is consistently considered horrible because of it's dedication to arcade elements that people will buy because it'sthe only "simulation" football game on the market and it's in air quotes for a reason. People are yearning for full feature simulation style sports games. Which it seems like EA is either too conservative/unwilling to provide. You all want kids to play and kids are no longer the primary market for video games.

Picking up pucks while looking away

18 Replies

Jutila22
New Hotshot
2 years ago
@kezz123 Totally agree. This and many changes needs to be done next years game
KidShowtime1867
Hero
2 years ago
Can you post a video of these scenarios?
Limp_KidzKit
2 years ago
@KidShowtime1867 wrote:
Can you post a video of these scenarios?
Playing anywhere from 1-3 games max will allow you to see these scenarios.
EA_Aljo
Community Manager
2 years ago
@Limp_KidzKit wrote:

@KidShowtime1867 wrote:

Can you post a video of these scenarios?

Playing anywhere from 1-3 games max will allow you to see these scenarios.

We still need to see the particular scenarios the OP is talking about to make sure we're seeing the same thing. Yes, I get you can reproduce this by playing. However, it's entirely possible the situations won't be totally identical.
Limp_KidzKit
2 years ago
@EA_Aljo wrote:
@Limp_KidzKit wrote:
@KidShowtime1867 wrote:
Can you post a video of these scenarios?
Playing anywhere from 1-3 games max will allow you to see these scenarios.
We still need to see the particular scenarios the OP is talking about to make sure we're seeing the same thing. Yes, I get you can reproduce this by playing. However, it's entirely possible the situations won't be totally identical.
See, I disagree with approach. Personally, I don't need a video to discuss the general idea of puck pickup success rates and their relationship with in-game avatar's line of sight. I believe it can be "generally" discussed without needing a specific video to nitpick. Because we the know the drill right? A video is posted, the original point of the video is lost by "pro tips" and discussing the intricacies of that one specific scenario, and then usually everyone runs a little hot, gets discouraged, and we fail to seize the opportunity to discuss the general point of the video/scenario. I personally believe for every video of someone doing something in a non-optimal way that we can sort of "dismiss" when it comes to "real problems" with said feature/scenario, there is at least a 1:1 ratio of said feature/scenario not working out in an "enjoyable" way while playing in an optimal way that isn't posted on here.
We all know that similar scenarios can be reproduced, you said it yourself. So let's discuss said similar scenarios where players are picking up pucks outside their line of sight without having the prior "knowledge" required to make such a reaction. I'll start!
It's in my opinion that there's an egregious amount of not only reactions to pucks outside of the line of sight, but an egregious amount of pickup success outside of the line of sight. You can't in any way shape or form ask defenders in this game to realistically keep up with the offense due to their ability to snag pucks that are:
behind them
overpowered for the distance between the passer and receiver
started from behind them and never crossed their line of vision
then add on the ability to drag pucks with possession as the offensive stick shaft is going through a leg paired with almost zero incidental body contact and you have "backup and hope" simulator on most rush opportunities for defensive players. We need to start making offense a skill and not just something you pickup and do successfully. One-handed, behind the back, backhanded receptions on a puck they never saw should have a next to zero percent success rate, especially given the ridiculous speeds seen in default online sliders. It's not a skilled play, it's not "vision", it's the game bailing out visonless, skilless players who get to use a top-down view of things, forgot to plan ahead, and just whipped a lazy pass over to their teammate while going "ah what the heck, let's see what happens."
Onto the "under the hood" portion of this discussion, what attributes/context are being used in whatever calculation is being used to determine someone's ability to react to a puck? For context, I play NHL 20 and have been fine-tuning sliders and rosters for 3+ years now. All of my players have 36/100 offensive and defensive awareness, yet I still find that they react to pucks outside their line of vision way too often. And what's hard to "fix" about this scenario with sliders, is that the "reaction time effect" slider seems to be globally applied rather than contextually applied. What I mean by that is, if I move that slider too high, all of a sudden short distance passes where the receiver is looking at the passer, even when lacking pace, seem to result in bobbled pucks if the distance covered is small enough. So, it doesn't seem to be applied like we see the goalie "screen effect" sliders are where vision is for the most part respected. It seems like distance is more of the factor of "reaction time" than vision. I'd expect that "reaction time" would be in relation to both distance AND vision, but I haven't had great success in finding a sweet spot where players aren't able to receive slow pucks outside of their vision but can inside. It just plays like a catch all.
All of my players also have 99/99 puck control and 99/99 hand-eye. Are those being used in the pickup calculation? I always assumed OA and DA were the two main factors for pickups due to how the online game seems to approach those sliders, is offline different? I'd assume OA/DA being the literal minimum value would "overpower" Hand-eye and PC inwhatever calculation is resulting in behind the back pickups from happening, but maybe I'm wrong? I'd also argue that the "puck pickup type" effect slider might need a more granular breakdown. It's a very tricky slider that seem to treat forehand as "good" and everything else as "bad" when experimenting. I never quite found a value that distinctly treated normal backhands as any more "correct" than a one-handed behind the back backhand reception. It's more granular, sure, but maybe it would allow more freedom when it comes to "punishing" poorly placed passes if forehand, backhand, and one-handed receptions all had their own values to change.
Please see if you can get this info from the dev team and relay it here. I'd love to further understand these calculations for both my own personal gain and for the community's ability to discuss this topic.
RatedxPGxEnigma
Seasoned Ace
2 years ago
@Limp_KidzKit Can you blame them for not wanting to play this game?
EA_Aljo
Community Manager
2 years ago
@Limp_KidzKit

What you're asking for is a full on simulation. That's just not what we're going for so some liberties are going to be taken. A player might not be looking right at a puck and still pick it up. That's because this is a video game. A real world player may have turned their head in that instance though. Another example is the stick phasing through objects. There are times this is intended. Without it, there would be bigger issues. We also have to consider if something is just too tedious and takes away from the overall fun. I get that fun is subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what that is. Making the game overly difficult to play isn't in our best interest though. That would satisfy a very small part of the overall playerbase. We're trying to grow the game and not restrict it to a very minority of the players that insist on a full simulation.

Thanks for all the feedback.
llamaverox
2 years ago
@EA_Aljo wrote:
@Limp_KidzKit
What you're asking for is a full on simulation. That's just not what we're going for so some liberties are going to be taken. A player might not be looking right at a puck and still pick it up. That's because this is a video game. A real world player may have turned their head in that instance though. Another example is the stick phasing through objects. There are times this is intended. Without it, there would be bigger issues. We also have to consider if something is just too tedious and takes away from the overall fun. I get that fun is subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what that is. Making the game overly difficult to play isn't in our best interest though. That would satisfy a very small part of the overall playerbase. We're trying to grow the game and not restrict it to a very minority of the players that insist on a full simulation.
Thanks for all the feedback.
No sports game is full on simulation, you all have no idea how well that would sell, so you can't assume that the player base would not grow based on it. NHL 13 was the closest to simulation, and when it was nerfed slightly to a little more free flowing NHL 14 was considered "the greatest NHL game of all time" and "the last good nhl game"
The NBA games have always been pretty close to simulation with maybe needing a bit more arcade and they sell extremely well. As does MLB which is pretty close to simulation and sells well too. The closer you are to simulation the better imo.
llamaverox
2 years ago
@llamaverox wrote:
@EA_Aljo wrote:
@Limp_KidzKit
What you're asking for is a full on simulation. That's just not what we're going for so some liberties are going to be taken. A player might not be looking right at a puck and still pick it up. That's because this is a video game. A real world player may have turned their head in that instance though. Another example is the stick phasing through objects. There are times this is intended. Without it, there would be bigger issues. We also have to consider if something is just too tedious and takes away from the overall fun. I get that fun is subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what that is. Making the game overly difficult to play isn't in our best interest though. That would satisfy a very small part of the overall playerbase. We're trying to grow the game and not restrict it to a very minority of the players that insist on a full simulation.
Thanks for all the feedback.
No sports game is full on simulation, you all have no idea how well that would sell, so you can't assume that the player base would not grow based on it. NHL 13 was the closest to simulation, and when it was nerfed slightly to a little more free flowing NHL 14 was considered "the greatest NHL game of all time" and "the last good nhl game"
The NBA games have always been pretty close to simulation with maybe needing a bit more arcade and they sell extremely well. As does MLB which is pretty close to simulation and sells well too. The closer you are to simulation the better imo.
You can also tell it's a flaw in how your company views sports games in that Madden is consistently considered horrible because of it's dedication to arcade elements that people will buy because it's
the only "simulation" football game on the market and it's in air quotes for a reason.
People are yearning for full feature simulation style sports games. Which it seems like EA is either too conservative/unwilling to provide. You all want kids to play and kids are no longer the primary market for video games.
EA_Aljo
Community Manager
2 years ago
@llamaverox

NHL 13 was less sim than we have now. Which is probably why so many still claim to love it. The physics did not take into account real world physics the way they do now. You could skate laterally across your blades for one. I've said it many times and I'll say it again. I don't think the sim people want a sim game when we get push back from making the game harder. Even your suggestion in the other thread for an automatic puck steal goes against the desire for a full sim game.

Do you play offline? If so, do you turn all of the assists off? That would give you more of a simulation experience.