Make NHL games great again (NHL 27 wishlist)

MasterB89 wrote:

NHL 25 had an issue where the CPU/AI in offline play (maybe online HUT) would not take penalties (when they did it was only 1 to 2 specific penalties). This issue was mainly resolved in a later patch for NHL 25 - however is an issue for NHL 26 on launch and still pending (being investigated). 

The issue isn't that the CPU wouldn't take penalties then. The issue was that they weren't taking all penalties available in the game. Two separate 'issues' geared towards immersion and not gameplay.

Not saying it shouldn't be fixed, but I can understand how it's the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to 'issues' that need to be fixed.

MasterB89 wrote:

Determining the "skill issue": This fall under the factor that due to their cycle of game creation they start with an release date coding for NHL 25 to try and mix and match codes + add new coding to make their next game. This issue here is that seemingly there is no communication between the team working on the new game and the team maintaining the current game - thus leading to previously resolved or "fixed" glitches or issues being present in their new game due to them not implementing their own fixes in the development process of the new game. 

The issue isn’t that EA has two disconnected teams “forgetting” to copy fixes into the next NHL game. NHL is built on a single, evolving codebase where new systems, tuning changes, and engine updates can unintentionally break old fixes. When the foundation shifts each year, some regressions naturally reappear—not because of poor communication, but because, as you've alluded to, annual sports development is a constant cycle of adding, removing, and rewriting interconnected systems under tight timelines.

MasterB89 wrote:

This now takes the team who maintains the current game away from fixing the new issues present in the game or ones they stated was fixed but was false (LT spam usage) and makes them fix an issue that was previously fixed. It also adds to the frustration on the player base that is compounded by new issues that new and continue to be an issue. 

That assumes the live team is a separate unit that could simply “stay focused” on new issues if only old bugs didn’t resurface. But in reality, the same core systems underlie both the live game and the next year’s build, and the people maintaining those systems are already working across both branches. When a regression appears, it isn’t “taking time away” from fixing new issues—it’s part of the same continuous process of stabilizing a shared codebase.

And while it’s understandable that players feel frustrated, regressions aren’t proof of mismanagement, they’re a normal byproduct of iteration, especially when gameplay systems are redesigned every cycle. If you overhaul skating, defensive logic, animation timings, online desync rules, or collision thresholds, some previously fixed issues will resurface. The player base interprets this as “they said it was fixed but it wasn’t,” but often the fix was valid for last year’s mechanics and no longer applies after the new changes.

So no, I don't think this reflects a failure in priorities or communication. It reflects the inherent complexity of annual sports development, where stabilizing evolving systems naturally requires revisiting both old and new issues across the lifecycle of the game.

This is also Categorically untrue. If you want to determine "some" issues are player skill issues, then as a consumer I can use that context towards EA and development. 

Example: NHL 25 had an issue where the CPU/AI in offline play (maybe online HUT) would not take penalties (when they did it was only 1 to 2 specific penalties). This issue was mainly resolved in a later patch for NHL 25 - however is an issue for NHL 26 on launch and still pending (being investigated). 

Determining the "skill issue": This fall under the factor that due to their cycle of game creation they start with an release date coding for NHL 25 to try and mix and match codes + add new coding to make their next game. This issue here is that seemingly there is no communication between the team working on the new game and the team maintaining the current game - thus leading to previously resolved or "fixed" glitches or issues being present in their new game due to them not implementing their own fixes in the development process of the new game. 

The affect: This now takes the team who maintains the current game away from fixing the new issues present in the game or ones they stated was fixed but was false (LT spam usage) and makes them fix an issue that was previously fixed. It also adds to the frustration on the player base that is compounded by new issues that new and continue to be an issue. 

I full think and believe they want to put out the best game possible, however this does feel very counter productive. 

trw1987 wrote:

26 is widely regarded as one of the worst releases in recent memory

Categorically untrue. Echo chambers built on riling up less-skilled players with nonstop negativity are not an accurate reflection of overall consumer sentiment. 

Many 'issues' (please note how I didn't say all issues) raised by people are skill issues. Much of the feedback is "better physics" or "better presentation" which is fairly redundant considering that's always what the developers of the game are shooting for. Of course, I understand even that is a controversial opinion - but the people making this game are human beings and like many of us, they always want to put out the best product they can.

letsgorangers99 wrote:

and 26 are good

That's certainly a take...26 is widely regarded as one of the worst releases in recent memory, probably since the release of 15 on then-next-gen consoles back in '15

Skip NHL 27. Take a year or two off and actually build the code from scratch. That's the only real way to improve the franchise. Anything else is just lipstick on a pig.