Poke Checks

OFFENDED_DMAN wrote:

but at the end he accomplished absolutely nothing in that sequence

Agreed — but this wasn’t the result of flawed poke check logic (although that could be improved)  or faulty puck interaction systems. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, if the user had fully committed to completing the sweep check, the puck likely would have been knocked loose and sent toward the corner. You can even see in the video that the stick blade does make contact: it kills the puck’s forward momentum and briefly disrupts possession.

However, the puck carrier was in a stronger position to execute a clean pickup, while the defender’s own teammates were limiting his ability to recover the puck, in addition to not closing the gap on the puck carrier. That combination—not any deficiency in the poke-check system—is what ultimately resulted in the offensive player coming away with the better outcome.

OFFENDED_DMAN wrote:

fun and fairness should be a priority like any other videogame.

Absolutely. EA’s challenge is finding the right balance, while some players let frustration from a loss distort how they interpret what happened on the ice. For some, “fun” means being able to use Truculence with zero downside. For others, “fun” means pulling off LT moves at unrealistic speeds with an unrealistically high success rate. And for some, “fairness” means believing their higher-rated players should always win every interaction, and when they don’t, they blame X-Factors or some hidden game bias.

The reality is that hockey is a fast, chaotic sport where randomness and imperfect outcomes are part of the game. That can feel “unfair” to players who assume their hockey IQ makes their decisions infallible and when things don’t go their way, they conclude the game is at fault rather than acknowledging the inherent variability of the sport.