1cjijid288of wrote:80-82 players shouldn’t be able to outskate 90-92’s thats so unrealistic.
Context is important. When stating it like you have, of course the faster players should be faster. That makes perfect sense.
But in the context of the 90-92's being at the end of a shift while the 80-82's are fresh off the bench, the context changes and that statement no longer holds true.
1cjijid288of wrote:Same with from having your 89-91 goalie dominating and shutting down 3-4 games, start letting in 5-6 goals a game and misspasses from the blueline for 3-6 games in a row?
When your goalie is standing on their head for a stretch, it usually lines up with you limiting odd-man rushes, controlling rebounds, and keeping shots predictable. When that changes even slightly, the cracks show fast. Same with missed breakout passes. When pressure ramps up, lanes close quicker, timing gets rushed, and suddenly those blue-line passes that worked for three games are getting picked or deflected.
Hockey is streaky by nature. In real life and in this game. The mistake is assuming good runs are “normal” and bad runs must be interference. Most of the time it’s just the game exposing small adjustments that haven’t been made yet.
1cjijid288of wrote:epecially in an gamemode which is about building your ultimate team and climbing the ranks to get rewards, if you build your ultimate team you should get rewarded and not getting your goalie/defence (which you couldve paid 50$-300$ for) go ghost on you, and your 90-94 wingers with tape to tape attribute not hitting one single pass.
I get the frustration, but that expectation is the disconnect. Building a high-rated team isn’t supposed to remove variance or guarantee execution. Ratings raise ceilings, they don’t eliminate risk.
If attributes like passing or goalie ratings overrode context, positioning, pressure, and decision-making, the mode would collapse into pure pay-to-win. A 94 winger should make difficult plays more possible, not automatic. Tape-to-tape still depends on lane control, forecheck pressure, skating direction, and timing. Under heavy pressure, even elite players miss passes. That’s true in real hockey and it’s intentional here.
Same with goalies. A high-OVR goalie isn’t meant to erase defensive breakdowns. If odd-man rushes, screens, lateral plays, and rebound chaos increase, the goalie will look “ghosted” regardless of rating. That isn’t the game punishing spending; it’s the system refusing to turn ratings into invincibility.
HUT is about giving you tools, not guarantees. When expectations shift from “this should work more often” to “this should never fail,” frustration is inevitable, especially in a competitive mode built around variance and adaptation.
1cjijid288of wrote:I could accept it if it were 1–2 matches, or if it were actually about a goalie performing worse after being at the top for 5–6 matches. But if it’s supposed to be a “realistic add-on” to the game, it would need to allow you to build the team and switch goalkeepers between matches, like a real team in a real season. And then it should be clearly stated in the description that this is how the game works. Just my opinion, i dont see that as an realistic aspect added to the game, more like broken and frustrating.
That’s a fair opinion, but I think this is where expectations and implementation get crossed.
HUT isn’t trying to simulate roster management over a season the way Franchise does. It’s a competitive, match-to-match mode. Letting players hard-swap goalies every game to chase hot streaks would actually reduce realism at the gameplay level, because it would turn performance into a toggle rather than something influenced by play in front of them.
What is being modeled is variance, momentum, and pressure, not “goalie fatigue” in a literal sense. A goalie looking unbeatable for a stretch and then leaking goals usually lines up with defensive patterns changing, opponents adapting, or shot quality increasing. The system doesn’t surface that cleanly, which is where the frustration comes from, but that doesn’t mean it’s random or broken.
I do agree with you on one point though: the game does a poor job of explaining this. If EA were clearer that ratings and streaks influence probability rather than guarantees, a lot of this anger would evaporate. Instead, players fill in the gaps themselves and assume hidden punishments or manipulation.
So I get why it feels broken. I just don’t think it’s intended as a fake “realism add-on.” It’s variance layered into a competitive mode, and when expectations don’t match that reality, it feels unfair fast.
