Cheat Detection

Blambo_svk wrote:

Dude, how many videos are there of what the game does, but you always say something like this, but never that the game is bad?

I'm very critical of certain elements of this game. When someone posts videos claiming to be proof of 'cheating', I'll always provide insight to shut that down. Any claims of 'cheating' is just a coping mechanism for taking losses you don't 'believe' you should take. 

You should have noticed that I agreed with you regarding the pucks in-close to goalies and their inability to cover them. 

Blambo_svk wrote:

How many people here describe the same error and you still want a video, so everyone probably just writes the error, it's on their head. And in my videos, you don't go here to stop a player because the stick goes through him, so what do you want

Stories mean nothing. People often write these stories leaving out details or create narratives that push their agenda, which is mostly an attempt to say "the game is bad because I lose". This is why I always ask for video because it provides an objective truth to the claims, which can then be either proven, disproven and/or an opportunity to provide context for the user to understand why things play out in-game the way they do.

For example, in previous years, many people complained their poke checks were 100% accurate but completely ineffective. They told tall tales of being the greatest defenders on planet earth with the most impeccable positioning and timing only to have their opponent "instantly regain possession".  Of course, video 'evidence' of this showed that in a majority of cases - players were wildly out of position, executing poke checks with poor timing and seemingly no awareness of their position on the ice. 

Then there were the instances where the situations played out exactly as described: perfect poke check but zero puck reaction.

This is where providing additional context is important.

Developers jumped into these discussions to explain that if the poke check animation traverses the player model (ie: stick goes through a player's leg) the stick then becomes an inactive element of the sequence. This is to simulate the fact that in real life, the stick would've been deflected away from the puck from hitting the player's leg. Limitations to technology or the underlying game engine mean they cannot properly apply the stick physics that would cause the stick to deflect off the leg in a realistic fashion/animation. 

Taking liberties like this in an attempt to balance real-world reactions with limitations in the physics department is something that should be easily comprehended by your average player, but it seems many players still just observe the sequence play out in-game and determine the game is 'broken', 'tilted', etc. People will jump to conclusions when they can't fill in the details. 

Blambo_svk wrote:

This game is purely for money, nothing more, I don't want to play this game but I won't see the money, EA has deceived me again. But watch the streams and you will see it there

Yes, EA makes games to make money. We all have our grievances with the game and we all have certain things we'd personally like to see get improved, changed, etc. But at the end of the day, EA still puts out a hockey game with enough changes that 400, 500K people buy it every single year. They have data that shows them exactly how big of an impact these changes have to their bottom line and exactly how many new players their yearly changes can acquire. This is the only metric they're concerned about, although I'm sure a lowered population in World of Chel is something they must be keeping an eye on.