fredo911 wrote:I disagree. Anyone who has played this game in any competitive fashion over the last few years has known that the AI are muted to encourage more offense, not more defensive play from users.
The CPU still maintains structure, holds positioning, intercepts passes, blocks shots, and collapses properly. What is muted is autonomous aggression. Poke checks and body checks are intentionally conservative unless initiated by a user.
That distinction matters. By limiting automatic pokes and hits, the game avoids AI driven turnovers and forces users to actively defend. You cannot rely on CPU teammates to disrupt possession on their own. The user has to time the poke, angle the hit, or manually pressure the puck carrier.
This can lead to more offense when users make mistakes, but that is a consequence, not the objective. The objective is to keep defensive impact tied to user input rather than background AI aggression. If the AI applied frequent pokes and finished checks automatically, competitive play would trend toward passive coverage and system-driven turnovers which is what we've all experienced with skill-zoning.
So, the muted-CPU system does not encourage offense. It requires defensive responsibility from the user, and scoring outcomes reflect how well that responsibility is executed.
fredo911 wrote:Point being, look at defensive play limitations (goalie too) compared to offensive ones. Even the weird fortnite player options prove this with how offensively focused they are. Pressure system... etc.
I don’t disagree that offense is more fully surfaced and system-supported than defense. That part is obvious. But that still doesn’t contradict what I’m saying about AI muting.
Systems like the pressure meter, goalie fatigue, and offensive-focused player options exist to reward sustained possession and proactive play. They are visible, legible, and tunable. Defense, by contrast, is intentionally constrained in its automatic actions. The AI will position, contain, and react, but it will not regularly take the puck or initiate contact without user input.
That imbalance is deliberate. EA consistently limits defensive automation because automatic defensive success is far more disruptive to competitive integrity than automatic offense. A CPU poke or hit that kills a rush feels worse and removes more agency than an offensive bonus that still requires execution to convert.
So yes, the game provides more explicit tools to amplify offense. But at the same time, it deliberately withholds autonomous defensive actions. Those two things can be true at once. The result is higher scoring, but the design intent is still to keep decisive defensive outcomes in the user’s hands, not the AI’s.
If the AI defended aggressively on its own while offense remained system-boosted, competitive play would skew heavily toward passive defense and counterattacks. Muting defensive aggression is how the game avoids that outcome, even if it means offense is easier to see and feel.
