EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 Patch Details April 3rd

image
Check out our April 3rd patch details here.

Dynamic difficulty is ruining versus play

Replies

  • jake19ny
    688 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    headup81 wrote: »
    Ea dev. I know you know what I’m talking about but I’ll explain anyway. Game 1 starts, your players are fast and responsive, passes go where they should, poke checks work as intended, you win the face offs you should based on grip and all that. If your opponent gets caught with his head down he gets rocked you win this game 7-1. Game 2 starts, you lose the first face off despite the fact your opponent did it wrong. Now your players are slow and wonky and your A.I. players are all over the place. Passes are wild, shots are wild. One timer attempts pause before shooting. Your opponent is bouncing off of clean body checks. You fight to either win or lose this one 2-1 or 1-0.

    What determines this? Both games should they not feel 100 percent the same at puck drop. Shouldn’t the play on the ice dictate momentum.


    You guys say there is no momentum in the game which everyone knows is 100 percent false so how can we believe there’s no DDA when something as overtly obvious as momentum you can’t be honest about.

    I don’t doubt you’re passionate about what you do for a living and I realize forum posting is not in your job description. I worded that poorly. I meant that you’re porsting within the limitations that have been set upon you by your employer. I work for a large company and if start sharing company info on the net I’ll hear about it.

    You guys are 90 percent the way to creating the best hockey game ever. The framework for this game is top notch. It’s the philosophy as to what constitutes are realistic hockey game that’s way off the mark. Example of this is coming around your net and passing the puck to your player on the right side blue line. If I pass to the right, it’s acceptable for the pass to bounce over his stick, it’s ok to bobble the pass because it’s too hard. What is not acceptable is when you aim right and the puck goes to the left to where there just so happens to be your opponents players who takes any shot that your goalie doesn’t moves to stop. This has nothing to do with the people holding the controllers.

    A reason a few have posted here and I’m only looking into it now (maybe I should have sooner) is the the P2P connection EA uses. It’s not your connection itself but rather your connection to the other player. This type of connection creates all kinds of issues due to the latency. It is entirely possible that all these things were seeing is the result of this. I can admit I was ignorant on the subject and assumed because I had a connection at home that it meant all was good. Perhaps the Dev can elaborate on it. For now I take his word that DDA doesn’t exist in this game but something is causing bad things to happen in some games and it very well could be the P2P issue.
  • Sinbin
    1331 posts Member
    jake19ny wrote: »
    DDA is also rampant and ridiculously obvious in HUT challenges. Need to win faceoffs? CPU will be a master. Need a certain amount of attack zone time? CPU will have glue on their sticks....Need to take no penalties? One of your CPU AI teammates will take one. Just played the Rangers on superstar for the collectible. Winning 1-0 with 16 seconds left in the game the Rangers score on their first and only shot on net, a weak baby shot, then win in a shootout by scoring with all 3 skaters against my AI goalie....what joke

    No. You're wrong. If that were the case they'd be unbeatable. I've beaten a lot of the superstar challenges. Just because you can't beat them it doesn't mean they use DDA. They use the superstar setting. It doesn't mean it kicks in while you play. You guys need to take some accountability for your own play. Superstar is tough, but very beatable when you play more like real hockey. Which few people do because they just go for short side shots all game long.
  • headup81
    99 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    jake19ny wrote: »
    headup81 wrote: »
    Ea dev. I know you know what I’m talking about but I’ll explain anyway. Game 1 starts, your players are fast and responsive, passes go where they should, poke checks work as intended, you win the face offs you should based on grip and all that. If your opponent gets caught with his head down he gets rocked you win this game 7-1. Game 2 starts, you lose the first face off despite the fact your opponent did it wrong. Now your players are slow and wonky and your A.I. players are all over the place. Passes are wild, shots are wild. One timer attempts pause before shooting. Your opponent is bouncing off of clean body checks. You fight to either win or lose this one 2-1 or 1-0.

    What determines this? Both games should they not feel 100 percent the same at puck drop. Shouldn’t the play on the ice dictate momentum.


    You guys say there is no momentum in the game which everyone knows is 100 percent false so how can we believe there’s no DDA when something as overtly obvious as momentum you can’t be honest about.

    I don’t doubt you’re passionate about what you do for a living and I realize forum posting is not in your job description. I worded that poorly. I meant that you’re porsting within the limitations that have been set upon you by your employer. I work for a large company and if start sharing company info on the net I’ll hear about it.

    You guys are 90 percent the way to creating the best hockey game ever. The framework for this game is top notch. It’s the philosophy as to what constitutes are realistic hockey game that’s way off the mark. Example of this is coming around your net and passing the puck to your player on the right side blue line. If I pass to the right, it’s acceptable for the pass to bounce over his stick, it’s ok to bobble the pass because it’s too hard. What is not acceptable is when you aim right and the puck goes to the left to where there just so happens to be your opponents players who takes any shot that your goalie doesn’t moves to stop. This has nothing to do with the people holding the controllers.

    A reason a few have posted here and I’m only looking into it now (maybe I should have sooner) is the the P2P connection EA uses. It’s not your connection itself but rather your connection to the other player. This type of connection creates all kinds of issues due to the latency. It is entirely possible that all these things were seeing is the result of this. I can admit I was ignorant on the subject and assumed because I had a connection at home that it meant all was good. Perhaps the Dev can elaborate on it. For now I take his word that DDA doesn’t exist in this game but something is causing bad things to happen in some games and it very well could be the P2P issue.
    jake19ny wrote: »
    headup81 wrote: »
    Ea dev. I know you know what I’m talking about but I’ll explain anyway. Game 1 starts, your players are fast and responsive, passes go where they should, poke checks work as intended, you win the face offs you should based on grip and all that. If your opponent gets caught with his head down he gets rocked you win this game 7-1. Game 2 starts, you lose the first face off despite the fact your opponent did it wrong. Now your players are slow and wonky and your A.I. players are all over the place. Passes are wild, shots are wild. One timer attempts pause before shooting. Your opponent is bouncing off of clean body checks. You fight to either win or lose this one 2-1 or 1-0.

    What determines this? Both games should they not feel 100 percent the same at puck drop. Shouldn’t the play on the ice dictate momentum.


    You guys say there is no momentum in the game which everyone knows is 100 percent false so how can we believe there’s no DDA when something as overtly obvious as momentum you can’t be honest about.

    I don’t doubt you’re passionate about what you do for a living and I realize forum posting is not in your job description. I worded that poorly. I meant that you’re porsting within the limitations that have been set upon you by your employer. I work for a large company and if start sharing company info on the net I’ll hear about it.

    You guys are 90 percent the way to creating the best hockey game ever. The framework for this game is top notch. It’s the philosophy as to what constitutes are realistic hockey game that’s way off the mark. Example of this is coming around your net and passing the puck to your player on the right side blue line. If I pass to the right, it’s acceptable for the pass to bounce over his stick, it’s ok to bobble the pass because it’s too hard. What is not acceptable is when you aim right and the puck goes to the left to where there just so happens to be your opponents players who takes any shot that your goalie doesn’t moves to stop. This has nothing to do with the people holding the controllers.

    A reason a few have posted here and I’m only looking into it now (maybe I should have sooner) is the the P2P connection EA uses. It’s not your connection itself but rather your connection to the other player. This type of connection creates all kinds of issues due to the latency. It is entirely possible that all these things were seeing is the result of this. I can admit I was ignorant on the subject and assumed because I had a connection at home that it meant all was good. Perhaps the Dev can elaborate on it. For now I take his word that DDA doesn’t exist in this game but something is causing bad things to happen in some games and it very well could be the P2P issue.

    I’m talking about local vs with a real life opponent.
    I know 100 percent that lag and DDA are separate. I play sometimes at 5am and one time for a division 1 winning game the match was snappier than snappy. Knew the guy had to be close to me. Turns out he lived an hour away and didn’t change the fact I had to climb uphill to beat an obviously lesser skilled player who had a .500 record when I was like 67-7 or something.
  • Sinbin wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    DDA is also rampant and ridiculously obvious in HUT challenges. Need to win faceoffs? CPU will be a master. Need a certain amount of attack zone time? CPU will have glue on their sticks....Need to take no penalties? One of your CPU AI teammates will take one. Just played the Rangers on superstar for the collectible. Winning 1-0 with 16 seconds left in the game the Rangers score on their first and only shot on net, a weak baby shot, then win in a shootout by scoring with all 3 skaters against my AI goalie....what joke

    No. You're wrong. If that were the case they'd be unbeatable. I've beaten a lot of the superstar challenges. Just because you can't beat them it doesn't mean they use DDA. They use the superstar setting. It doesn't mean it kicks in while you play. You guys need to take some accountability for your own play. Superstar is tough, but very beatable when you play more like real hockey. Which few people do because they just go for short side shots all game long.

    That is not what he said. We can beat them. They are just different based on what needs to be done. He is right about that.
  • Sinbin wrote: »
    Superstar is tough, but very beatable when you play more like real hockey.

    That made me chuckle. :D
  • EA_Roger
    1482 posts EA Community Manager
    edited November 2018
    headup81 wrote: »
    Jake. A mut developer admitted DDa a few years ago on these boards then retracted his post.

    I want to touch base on this before the rumor spreads. If this were true, there would have been screenshots before any edits/retracts were possible it would have been on the front page of Reddit and it would have spread to all other sports titles in no time. MUT developers didn't admit this, as it is simply not true. Here is the Lead Game Developer Clint Oldenburg confirming there is no DDA or Equalizer in an interview he gave last year.
    headup81 wrote: »
    A dev on here is just an employee of a company doing a their job. If boss man says don’t talk about something then they can’t talk about it.

    This is not Ben's job, not in the slightest. If I'm being honest, I can only think of a couple of other Game devs that interact with the community as much as he does (off the top of my head - Geoff Harrower on UFC titles & Jeff Kaplan on Overwatch). I'm also pretty sure that given the insight and detailed response NHLDev gives here I'm sure his boss is more nervous than anything :)
  • KidShowtime1867
    1058 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?
  • headup81 wrote: »
    Game 1 starts, your players are fast and responsive, passes go where they should, poke checks work as intended, you win the face offs you should based on grip and all that. If your opponent gets caught with his head down he gets rocked you win this game 7-1. Game 2 starts, you lose the first face off despite the fact your opponent did it wrong. Now your players are slow and wonky and your A.I. players are all over the place. Passes are wild, shots are wild. One timer attempts pause before shooting. Your opponent is bouncing off of clean body checks. You fight to either win or lose this one 2-1 or 1-0.

    You had a bad game. Chalk it up to that, maybe?
  • PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?

    Let's put it this way.

    Chuck a turd on net, from say 30 feet out, unscreened, on a settled goalie. So let's say that shot has a 2% chance of going in. In the hockey world, it is simply considered a shot and by no means a scoring chance.

    Instance 2. On the PK and a winger passes it cross crease to the other winger on the other side of the net, but his angle is a little tight. Goalie slides over and makes the save. So let's say that shot had a 75% chance of going in. The goalie actually had to react, move, and make the save. It is a shot, and considered a scoring chance.

    Basically, when you see a shot that had a very high chance of going in, but didn't, it is considered a scoring chance. Because technically, it should have gone in the net.

    Or when a goalie "robs" a goal, that is absolutely a scoring chance.

    When you see very low scoring chances, they are simply considered shots. A routine shot, a routine save.
  • HockeyCityUSA
    500 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    4i8b6tr7ja9l.jpg
    PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?

    Let's put it this way.

    Chuck a turd on net, from say 30 feet out, unscreened, on a settled goalie. So let's say that shot has a 2% chance of going in. In the hockey world, it is simply considered a shot and by no means a scoring chance.

    Instance 2. On the PK and a winger passes it cross crease to the other winger on the other side of the net, but his angle is a little tight. Goalie slides over and makes the save. So let's say that shot had a 75% chance of going in. The goalie actually had to react, move, and make the save. It is a shot, and considered a scoring chance.

    Basically, when you see a shot that had a very high chance of going in, but didn't, it is considered a scoring chance. Because technically, it should have gone in the net.

    Or when a goalie "robs" a goal, that is absolutely a scoring chance.

    When you see very low scoring chances, they are simply considered shots. A routine shot, a routine save.

    To add to this, I'm pretty sure a "scoring chance" can even occur if there was never a shot taken. It could simply be a shot "attempt", meaning the shot was not on goal. As long as the opportunity occurs within the picture that I included above, it is known as a "scoring chance".

  • VeNOM2099
    3172 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    4i8b6tr7ja9l.jpg
    PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?

    Let's put it this way.

    Chuck a turd on net, from say 30 feet out, unscreened, on a settled goalie. So let's say that shot has a 2% chance of going in. In the hockey world, it is simply considered a shot and by no means a scoring chance.

    Instance 2. On the PK and a winger passes it cross crease to the other winger on the other side of the net, but his angle is a little tight. Goalie slides over and makes the save. So let's say that shot had a 75% chance of going in. The goalie actually had to react, move, and make the save. It is a shot, and considered a scoring chance.

    Basically, when you see a shot that had a very high chance of going in, but didn't, it is considered a scoring chance. Because technically, it should have gone in the net.

    Or when a goalie "robs" a goal, that is absolutely a scoring chance.

    When you see very low scoring chances, they are simply considered shots. A routine shot, a routine save.

    To add to this, I'm pretty sure a "scoring chance" can even occur if there was never a shot taken. It could simply be a shot "attempt", meaning the shot was not on goal. As long as the opportunity occurs within the picture that I included above, it is known as a "scoring chance".

    Yes. Exactly this. It can be a blocked shot. Or a missed one-timer or wrister on a breakaway. They are considered a scoring chance. And as Ben recently replied to me, sometimes there are shots that are not really considered scoring chances as when I was analyzing my game.

    The trapezoid area in your diagram is what's considered THE SLOT (although it should end in front of the goalie's crease, but that's nitpicking). That's one of the highest percentage areas to score from in hockey. It's also why it's one of the HARDEST areas to set up in in real hockey as teams don't just let you waltz in there as you please.
  • EA_Roger wrote: »
    headup81 wrote: »
    Jake. A mut developer admitted DDa a few years ago on these boards then retracted his post.

    I want to touch base on this before the rumor spreads. If this were true, there would have been screenshots before any edits/retracts were possible it would have been on the front page of Reddit and it would have spread to all other sports titles in no time. MUT developers didn't admit this, as it is simply not true. Here is the Lead Game Developer Clint Oldenburg confirming there is no DDA or Equalizer in an interview he gave last year.
    headup81 wrote: »
    A dev on here is just an employee of a company doing a their job. If boss man says don’t talk about something then they can’t talk about it.

    This is not Ben's job, not in the slightest. If I'm being honest, I can only think of a couple of other Game devs that interact with the community as much as he does (off the top of my head - Geoff Harrower on UFC titles & Jeff Kaplan on Overwatch). I'm also pretty sure that given the insight and detailed response NHLDev gives here I'm sure his boss is more nervous than anythinig :)

    The mut developer thing is 100 percent true. I’ll tell no lies as I read it myself. This is bit before all the dda hype. Someone out there knows this to be true but essentially he admitted a mut team require more skill to play with as the team got better. He retracted shortly after. I’m not making this up and would suggest that you know this.

    And the dev posting stuff your taking too literal. What I meant is that company’s have confidential info and ea dev has to stay within that when answering questions.
  • 4i8b6tr7ja9l.jpg
    PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?

    Let's put it this way.

    Chuck a turd on net, from say 30 feet out, unscreened, on a settled goalie. So let's say that shot has a 2% chance of going in. In the hockey world, it is simply considered a shot and by no means a scoring chance.

    Instance 2. On the PK and a winger passes it cross crease to the other winger on the other side of the net, but his angle is a little tight. Goalie slides over and makes the save. So let's say that shot had a 75% chance of going in. The goalie actually had to react, move, and make the save. It is a shot, and considered a scoring chance.

    Basically, when you see a shot that had a very high chance of going in, but didn't, it is considered a scoring chance. Because technically, it should have gone in the net.

    Or when a goalie "robs" a goal, that is absolutely a scoring chance.

    When you see very low scoring chances, they are simply considered shots. A routine shot, a routine save.

    To add to this, I'm pretty sure a "scoring chance" can even occur if there was never a shot taken. It could simply be a shot "attempt", meaning the shot was not on goal. As long as the opportunity occurs within the picture that I included above, it is known as a "scoring chance".

    Or also when a player has practically an open net, and decides to pass it instead and the play gets fumbled. No shots taken. That would indeed be a scoring chance as well.

    Great point I neglected to mention. Nice catch Venom.
  • headup81 wrote: »
    Game 1 starts, your players are fast and responsive, passes go where they should, poke checks work as intended, you win the face offs you should based on grip and all that. If your opponent gets caught with his head down he gets rocked you win this game 7-1. Game 2 starts, you lose the first face off despite the fact your opponent did it wrong. Now your players are slow and wonky and your A.I. players are all over the place. Passes are wild, shots are wild. One timer attempts pause before shooting. Your opponent is bouncing off of clean body checks. You fight to either win or lose this one 2-1 or 1-0.

    You had a bad game. Chalk it up to that, maybe?

    Ya for sure that would explain the polar shift of about everything related to the gameplay. So no. We all know that the game play different game by game. Ea won’t explain this.
  • j0rtsu67
    480 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    4i8b6tr7ja9l.jpg
    PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?

    Let's put it this way.

    Chuck a turd on net, from say 30 feet out, unscreened, on a settled goalie. So let's say that shot has a 2% chance of going in. In the hockey world, it is simply considered a shot and by no means a scoring chance.

    Instance 2. On the PK and a winger passes it cross crease to the other winger on the other side of the net, but his angle is a little tight. Goalie slides over and makes the save. So let's say that shot had a 75% chance of going in. The goalie actually had to react, move, and make the save. It is a shot, and considered a scoring chance.

    Basically, when you see a shot that had a very high chance of going in, but didn't, it is considered a scoring chance. Because technically, it should have gone in the net.

    Or when a goalie "robs" a goal, that is absolutely a scoring chance.

    When you see very low scoring chances, they are simply considered shots. A routine shot, a routine save.

    To add to this, I'm pretty sure a "scoring chance" can even occur if there was never a shot taken. It could simply be a shot "attempt", meaning the shot was not on goal. As long as the opportunity occurs within the picture that I included above, it is known as a "scoring chance".
    To sum this up: every shot is not a scoring chance, yet there could be a scoring chance even without a shot taken. Sounds funny but that's the way it is in real hockey.

  • headup81 wrote: »
    EA_Roger wrote: »
    headup81 wrote: »
    Jake. A mut developer admitted DDa a few years ago on these boards then retracted his post.

    I want to touch base on this before the rumor spreads. If this were true, there would have been screenshots before any edits/retracts were possible it would have been on the front page of Reddit and it would have spread to all other sports titles in no time. MUT developers didn't admit this, as it is simply not true. Here is the Lead Game Developer Clint Oldenburg confirming there is no DDA or Equalizer in an interview he gave last year.
    headup81 wrote: »
    A dev on here is just an employee of a company doing a their job. If boss man says don’t talk about something then they can’t talk about it.

    This is not Ben's job, not in the slightest. If I'm being honest, I can only think of a couple of other Game devs that interact with the community as much as he does (off the top of my head - Geoff Harrower on UFC titles & Jeff Kaplan on Overwatch). I'm also pretty sure that given the insight and detailed response NHLDev gives here I'm sure his boss is more nervous than anythinig :)

    The mut developer thing is 100 percent true. I’ll tell no lies as I read it myself. This is bit before all the dda hype. Someone out there knows this to be true but essentially he admitted a mut team require more skill to play with as the team got better. He retracted shortly after. I’m not making this up and would suggest that you know this.

    And the dev posting stuff your taking too literal. What I meant is that company’s have confidential info and ea dev has to stay within that when answering questions.

    There is a possibility he retracted his words because he realized he was wrong you know. However small you think that chance is, it's still a possibility.
  • j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    4i8b6tr7ja9l.jpg
    PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?

    Let's put it this way.

    Chuck a turd on net, from say 30 feet out, unscreened, on a settled goalie. So let's say that shot has a 2% chance of going in. In the hockey world, it is simply considered a shot and by no means a scoring chance.

    Instance 2. On the PK and a winger passes it cross crease to the other winger on the other side of the net, but his angle is a little tight. Goalie slides over and makes the save. So let's say that shot had a 75% chance of going in. The goalie actually had to react, move, and make the save. It is a shot, and considered a scoring chance.

    Basically, when you see a shot that had a very high chance of going in, but didn't, it is considered a scoring chance. Because technically, it should have gone in the net.

    Or when a goalie "robs" a goal, that is absolutely a scoring chance.

    When you see very low scoring chances, they are simply considered shots. A routine shot, a routine save.

    To add to this, I'm pretty sure a "scoring chance" can even occur if there was never a shot taken. It could simply be a shot "attempt", meaning the shot was not on goal. As long as the opportunity occurs within the picture that I included above, it is known as a "scoring chance".
    To sum this up: every shot is not a scoring chance, yet there could be a scoring chance even without a shot taken. Sounds funny but that's the way it is in real hockey.

    Hmm, actually, if NHL 19 tracked scoring chances it just may consider 32 scoring chances if you take 35 shots lol.
  • j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    4i8b6tr7ja9l.jpg
    PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?

    Let's put it this way.

    Chuck a turd on net, from say 30 feet out, unscreened, on a settled goalie. So let's say that shot has a 2% chance of going in. In the hockey world, it is simply considered a shot and by no means a scoring chance.

    Instance 2. On the PK and a winger passes it cross crease to the other winger on the other side of the net, but his angle is a little tight. Goalie slides over and makes the save. So let's say that shot had a 75% chance of going in. The goalie actually had to react, move, and make the save. It is a shot, and considered a scoring chance.

    Basically, when you see a shot that had a very high chance of going in, but didn't, it is considered a scoring chance. Because technically, it should have gone in the net.

    Or when a goalie "robs" a goal, that is absolutely a scoring chance.

    When you see very low scoring chances, they are simply considered shots. A routine shot, a routine save.

    To add to this, I'm pretty sure a "scoring chance" can even occur if there was never a shot taken. It could simply be a shot "attempt", meaning the shot was not on goal. As long as the opportunity occurs within the picture that I included above, it is known as a "scoring chance".
    To sum this up: every shot is not a scoring chance, yet there could be a scoring chance even without a shot taken. Sounds funny but that's the way it is in real hockey.

    Hmm, actually, if NHL 19 tracked scoring chances it just may consider 32 scoring chances if you take 35 shots lol.
    :D and that's why I said "in real hockey".
  • j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    4i8b6tr7ja9l.jpg
    PadrinoIV wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    False. A shot is a shot. Many shots from outside are not scoring chances.

    How is a shot on the goalie not a scoring chance?

    Are you saying that a weak wrist shot - which SOMETIMES does fool goalies - fools a goalie and goes in was not a scoring chance?

    How does one SCORE a goal without it being considered a SCORING chance?

    Let's put it this way.

    Chuck a turd on net, from say 30 feet out, unscreened, on a settled goalie. So let's say that shot has a 2% chance of going in. In the hockey world, it is simply considered a shot and by no means a scoring chance.

    Instance 2. On the PK and a winger passes it cross crease to the other winger on the other side of the net, but his angle is a little tight. Goalie slides over and makes the save. So let's say that shot had a 75% chance of going in. The goalie actually had to react, move, and make the save. It is a shot, and considered a scoring chance.

    Basically, when you see a shot that had a very high chance of going in, but didn't, it is considered a scoring chance. Because technically, it should have gone in the net.

    Or when a goalie "robs" a goal, that is absolutely a scoring chance.

    When you see very low scoring chances, they are simply considered shots. A routine shot, a routine save.

    To add to this, I'm pretty sure a "scoring chance" can even occur if there was never a shot taken. It could simply be a shot "attempt", meaning the shot was not on goal. As long as the opportunity occurs within the picture that I included above, it is known as a "scoring chance".
    To sum this up: every shot is not a scoring chance, yet there could be a scoring chance even without a shot taken. Sounds funny but that's the way it is in real hockey.

    Hmm, actually, if NHL 19 tracked scoring chances it just may consider 32 scoring chances if you take 35 shots lol.
    :D and that's why I said "in real hockey".

    Yea I know. Was only kidding. I totally understand what you meant, but alas, I couldn't help myself.
  • headup81 wrote: »
    EA_Roger wrote: »
    headup81 wrote: »
    Jake. A mut developer admitted DDa a few years ago on these boards then retracted his post.

    I want to touch base on this before the rumor spreads. If this were true, there would have been screenshots before any edits/retracts were possible it would have been on the front page of Reddit and it would have spread to all other sports titles in no time. MUT developers didn't admit this, as it is simply not true. Here is the Lead Game Developer Clint Oldenburg confirming there is no DDA or Equalizer in an interview he gave last year.
    headup81 wrote: »
    A dev on here is just an employee of a company doing a their job. If boss man says don’t talk about something then they can’t talk about it.

    This is not Ben's job, not in the slightest. If I'm being honest, I can only think of a couple of other Game devs that interact with the community as much as he does (off the top of my head - Geoff Harrower on UFC titles & Jeff Kaplan on Overwatch). I'm also pretty sure that given the insight and detailed response NHLDev gives here I'm sure his boss is more nervous than anythinig :)

    The mut developer thing is 100 percent true. I’ll tell no lies as I read it myself. This is bit before all the dda hype. Someone out there knows this to be true but essentially he admitted a mut team require more skill to play with as the team got better. He retracted shortly after. I’m not making this up and would suggest that you know this.

    And the dev posting stuff your taking too literal. What I meant is that company’s have confidential info and ea dev has to stay within that when answering questions.

    There is a possibility he retracted his words because he realized he was wrong you know. However small you think that chance is, it's still a possibility.
    I doubt it. Basically he agreed he wasn’t cool with how hut plays (like how hut,mut and fut players claim as their teams get better they get worse) and he said he’d speak with the other Devs about it and then he deleted that posted. The thread was up for a while but when ea upgraded the boards a couple years ago I’m guessing it got deleted.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!