@BIGRlTCHY wrote:Anyways please address the issues that many of us are talking about.
Why not provide some details? Lots of people bring up things that aren't even 'issues' and center mostly around a misunderstanding of the controls.
Now, as you've said - you know the exploits and use them yourself. A.I. is obviously an 'issue' people have - but many of the a.i. mistakes (not all of them) are based on poor user play.
@BIGRlTCHY wrote:You can literally pivot by the boards in the O=zone until the opponents AI goes out of position leaving the human controlled player stranded defending by themselves while they struggle to player switch because that doesn't work as intended.
I'd wager your ability to pull an a.i. defender out of position has more to do with your opponents' skill than your ability to 'trick' the computer. But if you're confident that you can execute this exploit independent of your opponents' skill - then why not post some video to help the developers pinpoint the issue better?
Player switching does work as intended, so long as the user is not mashing the switch button. There's also an astounding number of players not utilizing holding RT and moving RS in the direction of the player you want to control. Not to mention holding RT and clicking R3 to control the last man back. These two small adjustments make player switching a skill you can depend on. But their lack of use shows an unwillingness to adopt advanced techniques to get the best out of the game. That's on your opponent. It's not some 'exploit'.
@BIGRlTCHY wrote:These exploiting E-sports kids complain oh the goalies are too good and I can't score! Well you know why that is? Hate to say but it's because you are a one dimensional player who only goes for unrealistic cheap plays instead of use hockey IQ... But again EA caters to that crowd so here we are.
I agree with you here. However, everyone has a different "Hockey IQ". Some people use their IQ just like you said: pivot in the O-Zone until the a.i. takes the bait. The IQ in that play is knowing your opponent is skill zoning or hesitant to swap controls (due for aforementioned unwillingness to utilize advanced player switching techniques). That's a 'Hockey IQ' play in the sense you're reading a gap in your opponent's skill-level and exploiting a high scoring %% area. That's hockey.
One-dimensional players are a dream to defend against. However, in the most popular mode - HUT - you can play this game perfectly, be in the exact right position, do all of the things right and still be on the bad outcome of a calculation under-the-hood designed to ensure when little Bobby who paid $50 for a pack of cards, feels the purchase was justified when McDavid gets 3-4 bounces in a row right to his stick. This makes sure little Bobby comes back and buys more packs.
HUT is forever going to be catered to spending money and/or playing nonstop grinding everything. I barely dabble in it because after 2 months I just can't keep up and lose interest. Yeah you can still compete without spending and such but when you run into certain teams and the player is decent you are in for a very bad time.
And as I have gotten older while I do enjoy a multiplayer game here and there with the boys. I find single player games to just be more enjoyable and relaxing. Anything with competitive modes just isn't gonna give me that feel good time.
@KlariskraysNHL wrote:HUT is forever going to be catered to spending money and/or playing nonstop grinding everything. I barely dabble in it because after 2 months I just can't keep up and lose interest. Yeah you can still compete without spending and such but when you run into certain teams and the player is decent you are in for a very bad time.
And as I have gotten older while I do enjoy a multiplayer game here and there with the boys. I find single player games to just be more enjoyable and relaxing. Anything with competitive modes just isn't gonna give me that feel good time.
Same.
I find Squads to be a great way to play HUT. It allows you to set a comfortable difficulty and build at your pace and with no interaction with the "Toxic" play the OP is hinting at.
It shouldn't be surprising that the game is going to cater to the people who are going to open their wallets to get whatever advantage they can get and to people who have no problem making playing the game an essential 2nd full time job. EA is a business out to make as much money as possible, not deliver the best experience for all players. There is zero reason Squad Battles couldn't be 5-10 games that count towards ranking/rewards and a bunch extra that are just for fun. It would be a hell of a lot more fun and competitive because a ton of people now actually have a shot to compete for the higher rewards because currently they don't have the time and/or desire to play THIRTY EIGHT games against the computer that has a team comprised of players somebody else built just for the CHANCE to get the best rewards. There isn't a reason there can't be an option to have a maximum opponent team overall option to weed out playing against people who have super teams against your low rated team. There isn't a reason why Champions can't have at least 2-3 divisions so that everybody gets the chance to compete for the best rewards.
None of these things are just randomly happening, they are carefully/deliberately/intentionally done so that it encourages people to purchase packs in order to keep up with the people who are spending their money. At the end of the day the people who should be held responsible are the ones who are paying for the packs, if nobody bought packs and EA gave reasonable chances to get rewards it would be a much more even and far more fun playing field.
