Poke Checks
I guess maybe ill buy one of those $25 jersey packs maybe it will help with the poke checks or the stick lifts https://youtu.be/eI5-4erWnlk?feature=shared
Forum Discussion
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.
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.
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.
I think it is flawed, why the need to stay on dss once you have the puck on your blade, you should gain possession. In reality he would have reeled the puck closer to his body. Everything that happen after is pointless as OP probably expected to have the puck by then.
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.
That argument is brought foward often by ea. Let us know once you get that perfect hockey sim that warrants it. Until then we are given improper tool to deal with current gameplay. You can belittle critics all you want but numbers don't lie, can't hardly find a game once proper matchmaking is activated in playoff.
once you have the puck on your blade, you should gain possession
No. There are countless instances where a puck will interact with the blade of a stick and in no way whatsoever should it warrant a possession change. This would take all dynamics out of puck interaction and make it incredibly static. Understandably, some people want it this way as it removes all kinds of responsibility (positioning, speed/balance management, etc) but it makes for a far more stale game.
You can belittle critics all you want but numbers don't lie, can't hardly find a game once proper matchmaking is activated in playoff.
Critics should be aware that criticisms aren't belittling. If you're going to make grand claims about the game in the guise of just 'being critical' - you have to expect some pushback and equating any pushback with 'belittlement' shows you're not looking for genuine discussion - you just want agreement.
Critics should be aware that criticisms aren't belittling.
players who assume their hockey IQ makes their decisions infallible and when things don’t go their way,
some players let frustration from a loss distort how they interpret what happened on the ice
It's just convenient to portrait criticims as bad players with short temper. I can tell you, from organised league, lots of good players don't like the state of the game.
You explain in great details how the game mechanic operate but it's irrelevant since the model is incomplete. It's impossible to program all the nuances of a real life poke check through a gamepad. Sometime you should spear the puck, othertime you could reel it back, instead we are stuck with a limpy stick extension that barely dislodge it 2 inches away, no wonder the game decide the carrier is in better position to grab it back...
In the clip, the user managed to hit the puck but the game arbitrary decided to give the opponent the advantage because of a serie of conditions (yet incomplete) instead of letting player input (as cartoonish it may look sometime) decide of the outcome, as in a video game approximation of hockey.
Understandably, some people want it this way as it removes all kinds of responsibility (positioning, speed/balance management, etc) but it makes for a far more stale game.
It's a balancing act, too much of it and you'll have a stale game too, plus it goes against high level hockey play that by definition beats the odds. In the current state, it stiffen creativity on the defensive side imo, making poke check too predictable.
It's just convenient to portrait criticims as bad players with short temper. I can tell you, from organised league, lots of good players don't like the state of the game.
If that’s the case, then why are they participating in an organized league built entirely around this game? Why are they scheduling their evenings around it, buying consoles specifically to play it, and purchasing the title year after year?
The more honest answer is that they do enjoy the game right up until they’re matched against a team that outplays them. That’s when the complaints start. That’s when frustration turns into narrative. You don’t hear these criticisms when they’re stringing together highlight-reel plays (although some among us have done this), walking defenders, and burying one timers after clean puck movement. The outrage often only surfaces when the game flips and they’re on the wrong side of a matchup.
Suddenly it’s “teams can score at will,” “poke checks don’t work,” or “the game is broken.” When asked to back those claims with video, the response is usually deflection, “if you play enough, you’d know.” And when video does get posted, it often just illustrates a skill gap that’s being ignored. Left unaddressed, that gap doesn’t disappear; it just fuels more resentment toward the game itself.
There are legitimate issues surrounding poke checks and stick lifts (although I still think there's a mechanical change to both that has still gone unnoticed) and not all complaints are from bad players with a short temper but as we've seen by the videos posted on these forums there are often very fundamental misunderstandings on how some mechanics work and when someone tries to point that out, the reaction is just anger that someone would have the gall to question others' hockey IQ and real-world hockey experience.
You explain in great details how the game mechanic operate but it's irrelevant since the model is incomplete. It's impossible to program all the nuances of a real life poke check through a gamepad. Sometime you should spear the puck, othertime you could reel it back, instead we are stuck with a limpy stick extension that barely dislodge it 2 inches away, no wonder the game decide the carrier is in better position to grab it back...
The question isn’t whether the game perfectly reproduces real life biomechanics through a gamepad. It can’t, and no one seriously expects it to. The question is whether the system is coherent, learnable, and expressive within its constraints. I believe it is.
What you’re describing as a “limpy stick extension” is usually the result of how and when the mechanic is being used, not evidence that the mechanic itself is broken. Poke checks aren’t a single binary action with a guaranteed outcome, they’re contextual. Angle, gap control, skating direction, carrier speed, handedness, timing, and recovery state all matter. If you’re reaching while flat-footed, overextended, or from a disadvantaged lane, the game is correctly resolving that as a low percentage play. That’s not the engine “deciding” for the puck carrier out of favoritism; that’s risk being punished.
The irony is that the same people arguing for more “realism” often want outcomes without accepting the responsibility that realism demands. In real hockey, a bad poke puts you out of position and hands the attacker an advantage. The game models that tradeoff. It just doesn’t bail you out when you choose poorly.
At some point, this stops being about theoretical limitations of a model and starts being about mastery. Not everyone is able or willing to extract value from all of the mechanics working together: skating, spacing, defensive posture, and restraint. Calling the system incomplete is an easy way to avoid confronting that gap. Although - there is always room for improvement with added animations, physics calculations, etc.
It's a balancing act, too much of it and you'll have a stale game too, plus it goes against high level hockey play that by definition beats the odds. In the current state, it stiffen creativity on the defensive side imo, making poke check too predictable.
I agree that it is a balancing act, but “highlevel hockey beats the odds” doesn’t mean every low percentage defensive action should be rewarded in the name of creativity. At high levels, what actually beats the odds is decision quality, not randomness. The game is trying to model that distinction.
Poke checking becoming “predictable” isn’t inherently a flaw; it’s a signal that it’s no longer meant to be a default answer. At higher levels of play, predictability is exactly what gets punished. The game is pushing defenders toward layered solutions like:
angle control
body positioning
stick lift timing (nobody has mentioned on these forums yet this year that you can interfere with a shot by using stick lift, which tells me there's still fundamental misunderstandings of the changes made to the mechanic)
gap management
and delayed pressure rather than repetitive reach ins.
That’s not stifling creativity, it’s forcing intentionality.
If poke checks were more freely effective, you wouldn’t get creativity. You’d get defensive spam. We’ve seen that era already, and it produced a far more stagnant game where offense was throttled by low-risk defensive inputs. The current model accepts that elite offense will sometimes win cleanly, just as it does in real hockey, but it also rewards defenders who understand when not to poke.
High level play isn’t about beating the odds by brute forcing mechanics, it’s about stacking advantages and minimizing risk. When poke checks feel “predictable,” it’s often because the attacker has already won the battle earlier in the sequence—through speed, spacing, or deception and the poke is arriving late. That’s not the system suppressing defensive creativity; that’s the system recognizing who earned the upper hand.
Featured Places
NHL 26 General Discussion
Join the community forums and discuss the latest news and game information around NHL 26.Community Highlights
- EA_Aljo5 months ago
Community Manager
