EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 Patch Details April 3rd

image
Check out our April 3rd patch details here.

Silence is infuriating

Replies

  • PlayoffError
    245 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    All 'cheese' goals can be defended.

    In my opinion, there are no goals in this game (so far this year) that can be considered 'glitch' goals.

    There are definitely high percentage scoring areas that are commonly used by players above a certain skill level. It takes high-level defending in order to prevent those players from obtaining time and space in those areas.

    When those goals go in - goals you've seen thousands of times - it's infuriating yes, but in no way is it a 'glitch' goal.

    I think Ben is right in that some complaints are the result of the 'new game' wearing off and people generally facing tougher competition.

    Again - not saying the game is perfect - but I'm not sure why this community is so quick to disregard his comments.

    Ah, the old "high percentage scoring areas" argument.

    The problem is that in EA's NHL games "high percentage" is outrageously high. And very predictable. The top of the circle is a "high percentage" spot, but against a set NHL goalie it's only going in 10-15% of the time. In EA NHL it's 50% plus.

    It's the same with breakaways/penalty shots. NHL goalies will stop around 65% of attempts. In EA NHL the backhand deke is good 90% of the time in the hands of any halfway decent player.

    And yes, I realize it's a game and won't replicate real results perfectly, but the current state of things is a bit silly.

    This article is a few years old, but the NHL hasn't changed so much to invalidate it: https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/introducing-the-shot-quality-project-part-ii/

    Compare those numbers to what we see in this game.

    What's really needed is goalies that aren't so predictable. A shooter should have to watch the goalie, see what he's being given and shoot accordingly. Not just get to "his spot" and shoot to the same place every time. The same holds for breakaway chances. Right now most players could probably score on a breakaway blindfolded. Now I'm sure adding a minor element of "randomness" or outright learning to the goalies is probably a tricky problem to get right, but I think it's a step that needs to be taken at some point.

  • KidShowtime1867
    962 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    Yeah the "high scoring areas "cough cough, cheese goal area" can be defended, however it is absolute stupidity to think that it's fun having to defend that the whole game because it works so easily.

    If it works 'so easily' - why are you not scoring from these areas?

    Most times that should never go in, they are NHL GOALIES!! Not going bar down or anything and no screen like what?

    Like this?
    eXXERAr.gif


    It's just simply not fun hockey to play someone who just cuts in off the boards and tries to shoot short side over and over and over because it's more than likely to go in with one slip up on defense. Fail to block it or get a stick in the way and it's probably going in the net.

    I am sorry to tell you this, but this is how sports works. If you have a defensive lapse, expect to pay for it.


    That's tough competition, real fun and exciting game play. And maybe I'm unlucky but 70% of the games I get lately is cheese goals, and it's stupid. I did it twice to one guy yesterday and he called me a homophobic slur for doing a "glitch goal" so yeah I'd say it makes people angry.

    Competition isn't tougher, it's just ez game to score now. In fact it's hard not to not score.

    It will always anger people when they get scored on...
    Ah, the old "high percentage scoring areas" argument.

    The problem is that in EA's NHL games "high percentage" is outrageously high. And very predictable. The top of the circle is a "high percentage" spot, but against a set NHL goalie it's only going in 10-15% of the time. In EA NHL it's 50% plus.

    If you're getting scored on 50% of the time from that spot, you are playing HORRIBLE defense.

    It's the same with breakaways/penalty shots. NHL goalies will stop around 65% of attempts. In EA NHL the backhand deke is good 90% of the time in the hands of any halfway decent player.

    So... a 'decent' player has a higher success rate at breakaways than your typical player? And that is an oddity because.....?

    And maybe giving up breakaways is a problem for you? 90% success on breakaways is a complete exaggeration for 99% of the people who play this game..
    What's really needed is goalies that aren't so predictable. A shooter should have to watch the goalie, see what he's being given and shoot accordingly. Not just get to "his spot" and shoot to the same place every time.


    lol wut? Players don't typically have time to 'see what the goalie is giving them' unless it's a completely uncontested shot. For the most part, shots on net are EXACTLY what you just described - get to a spot and put the puck on net in a fashion that makes the goalie move or results in a rebound.
    The same holds for breakaway chances. Right now most players could probably score on a breakaway blindfolded.

    Seriously.... the hyperbole doesn't help your case.

    Now I'm sure adding a minor element of "randomness" or outright learning to the goalies is probably a tricky problem to get right, but I think it's a step that needs to be taken at some point.

    We want RNG, we don't want RNG. Which is it?



  • LeFury_27
    203 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    Showing a video of a short side goal does nothing, why not show some short side glove saves? Because 1 goal goes in short side you just ignore all the saves goalies make in the NHL on the short side.

    You are acting as if that goes in 99% of the time to suit your own agenda. You obviously don't care to make the game better and would rather have seasoned vets abuse cheese goals that they have worked on perfecting for years against newer players.

    I've done it recently to players and made them message me profanity because they are upset about it being back in the game. So I stopped playing, because it's not fun. If you think it is, great, have it at it, enjoy.

    When those "go to short side goals" were not in game it was fun for both sides. Not once during beta or 1,0 tuner did I ever get someone message me with anger about "glitch goals". It was always good game, well played, close match, great game, good fun.

    Post edited by LeFury_27 on

  • If you're getting scored on 50% of the time from that spot, you are playing HORRIBLE defense.

    Of shots that successfully get to the net from the high slot? That's the comparison here. I fail to see how good/bad defense has anything to do with the percentage that goes in. If we're giving up ten of those a game that's bad defense. Holding a team to three or four shots from "the spot" to watch that high a percentage go in is terrible.
    So... a 'decent' player has a higher success rate at breakaways than your typical player? And that is an oddity because.....?

    Since the NHL introduced the shootout to solve overtime only 16 players have a success rate over 50% with ten or more attempts. Petteri Nummelin is the only one with a percentage greater than 62.5% and he only had ten attempts. Decent ( not great ) EA NHL players blow that percentage out of the water.
    And maybe giving up breakaways is a problem for you? 90% success on breakaways is a complete exaggeration for 99% of the people who play this game..

    Again, I don't see how the success percentage equals "a problem" with my team defense? In some modes ( EASHL 3s for example ) breakaways are an inevitability. I don't have a problem with the ones I give up. I have a problem with the goalies biting on the same exact move every time.

    lol wut? Players don't typically have time to 'see what the goalie is giving them' unless it's a completely uncontested shot. For the most part, shots on net are EXACTLY what you just described - get to a spot and put the puck on net in a fashion that makes the goalie move or results in a rebound.

    But that's not what happens in this game. It's "shoot short-side regardless of what's going on". There's no attempt to do anything else.
    Seriously.... the hyperbole doesn't help your case.

    What percentage do you think a decent player scores on a breakaway in this game?
    We want RNG, we don't want RNG. Which is it?

    Who are you arguing with here? All I've said is that the goalies are too predictable and some variation is needed. Where did I argue both sides?

    I really don't get the hostility here.


  • EA_Lanna
    177 posts EA Community Manager
    edited November 2018
    A wee reminder that you're free to disagree with others as long as you keep it polite and friendly
    Be polite and kind. Respect others even if they have a different opinion. If you disagree with someone, you are free to do so politely, but please don't make it personal. Respect also means you never harass, embarrass, or threaten other players.
  • LeFury_27 wrote: »
    The problem is that in EA's NHL games "high percentage" is outrageously high. And very predictable. The top of the circle is a "high percentage" spot, but against a set NHL goalie it's only going in 10-15% of the time. In EA NHL it's 50% plus.

    If you're getting scored on 50% of the time from that spot, you are playing HORRIBLE defense.

    It doesn't matter if he's playing the worst defense ever. Shots from the top of the circle shoudn't beat NHL goalies more than 10% of the time. And that's not even to mention the truly crappy goals that are routine in this year's game - the unscreened slapshots from well above the circles, and wristers from outside the faceoff dots. Those almost never (as in 1-2% of the time) go in against NHL goalies IRL. But it's a rare game this year that doesn't see at least 1 goal scored from those areas.

    And Ben's explanation of this in his interview is very interesting (and telling). He basically says, "Yes, those are weak goals, but you just have to recognize the game is going to let people score from there, and adapt," even though adapting means trying hard to stop shots that IRL the defense is happy to give up.


  • If you're getting scored on 50% of the time from that spot, you are playing HORRIBLE defense.

    Of shots that successfully get to the net from the high slot? That's the comparison here. I fail to see how good/bad defense has anything to do with the percentage that goes in. If we're giving up ten of those a game that's bad defense. Holding a team to three or four shots from "the spot" to watch that high a percentage go in is terrible.
    So... a 'decent' player has a higher success rate at breakaways than your typical player? And that is an oddity because.....?

    Since the NHL introduced the shootout to solve overtime only 16 players have a success rate over 50% with ten or more attempts. Petteri Nummelin is the only one with a percentage greater than 62.5% and he only had ten attempts. Decent ( not great ) EA NHL players blow that percentage out of the water.
    And maybe giving up breakaways is a problem for you? 90% success on breakaways is a complete exaggeration for 99% of the people who play this game..

    Again, I don't see how the success percentage equals "a problem" with my team defense? In some modes ( EASHL 3s for example ) breakaways are an inevitability. I don't have a problem with the ones I give up. I have a problem with the goalies biting on the same exact move every time.

    lol wut? Players don't typically have time to 'see what the goalie is giving them' unless it's a completely uncontested shot. For the most part, shots on net are EXACTLY what you just described - get to a spot and put the puck on net in a fashion that makes the goalie move or results in a rebound.

    But that's not what happens in this game. It's "shoot short-side regardless of what's going on". There's no attempt to do anything else.
    Seriously.... the hyperbole doesn't help your case.

    What percentage do you think a decent player scores on a breakaway in this game?
    We want RNG, we don't want RNG. Which is it?

    Who are you arguing with here? All I've said is that the goalies are too predictable and some variation is needed. Where did I argue both sides?

    I really don't get the hostility here.


    There was zero hostility.
  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    The problem is that in EA's NHL games "high percentage" is outrageously high. And very predictable. The top of the circle is a "high percentage" spot, but against a set NHL goalie it's only going in 10-15% of the time. In EA NHL it's 50% plus.

    If you're getting scored on 50% of the time from that spot, you are playing HORRIBLE defense.

    It doesn't matter if he's playing the worst defense ever. Shots from the top of the circle shoudn't beat NHL goalies more than 10% of the time. And that's not even to mention the truly crappy goals that are routine in this year's game - the unscreened slapshots from well above the circles, and wristers from outside the faceoff dots. Those almost never (as in 1-2% of the time) go in against NHL goalies IRL. But it's a rare game this year that doesn't see at least 1 goal scored from those areas.

    And Ben's explanation of this in his interview is very interesting (and telling). He basically says, "Yes, those are weak goals, but you just have to recognize the game is going to let people score from there, and adapt," even though adapting means trying hard to stop shots that IRL the defense is happy to give up.

    The problem here is that you keep bringing up real world statistics about shot %'s. Those simply don't apply in a videogame.

    In order to acheive NHL shot %'s that are identical to all of those little shot charts that people post - the people playing the game would have to mimic the NHL style of play 100%.

    That NEVER happens. At the end of the day, as much as we all like to lose ourselves in this virtual representation of the sport we all love - it will NEVER be exactly the same as the real sport because doing that is literally impossible.

    So, why hold this game to a statistical percentage that is only achievable by playing the game 100% identical to it's real-world counterpart?
  • The problem here is that you keep bringing up real world statistics about shot %'s. Those simply don't apply in a videogame.

    In order to acheive NHL shot %'s that are identical to all of those little shot charts that people post - the people playing the game would have to mimic the NHL style of play 100%.

    That NEVER happens. At the end of the day, as much as we all like to lose ourselves in this virtual representation of the sport we all love - it will NEVER be exactly the same as the real sport because doing that is literally impossible.

    So, why hold this game to a statistical percentage that is only achievable by playing the game 100% identical to it's real-world counterpart?

    It depends on what you're arguing.

    If your arguing that similar shots should go in at a much higher rate "because it's a game" I suspect most people will disagree.

    If you're saying that people take a higher percentage of high-danger shots in EA NHL therefore the overall shooting percentage is higher than in real NHL games I doubt you'd get much argument around here. There are certainly more prime chances ( breakaways, cross-crease plays, etc ) in an EA NHL game than a real-life game

    What people have been saying here is that the percentages for any given situation in-game should be pretty close to their real-life counterparts. For example, unscreened shots from the top of the circle shouldn't be 2-3 times more dangerous in EA NHL than they are in the NHL. I think that's a reasonable expectation.


  • In order to acheive NHL shot %'s that are identical to all of those little shot charts that people post - the people playing the game would have to mimic the NHL style of play 100%.

    That NEVER happens.

    So, why hold this game to a statistical percentage that is only achievable by playing the game 100% identical to it's real-world counterpart?

    No. This is a straightforward comparison - unscreened shots from above the circles/outside the dots. You don't have to mimic the NHL style of play to make the comparison apples-to-apples, because all we're talking about are shots taken by individual players where the goalie has a clear view of the puck. That's not hard for the game to represent correctly (or if it is, the game's coders need to find a new job). IRL, those shots almost never go in. In this game, they're good scoring chances. That's a problem.

    Of course, 4-minute periods mean that shot totals in this game are lower than IRL, which means if you want realistic scoring totals, goalies need to have lower save percentages than they do IRL. I'm fine with that. So let's say we want shots from distance to go in twice as often as in IRL. That'd be reasonable. Instead, they go in 4-5x as often, if not more.

    The goalie coding in this game just doesn't make sense: goalies' save percentages on shots where the puck crosses the Royal Road are reasonably close to real life, while their save percentages on high-slot wristers and shots from above the circle/outside the dots is much much lower than IRL. I realize this makes the game easier for casuals to play and score - since anyone can get a high-slot wrister off, let alone a 50-foot slapshot. But it's exactly the opposite of the way goalies should be coded.
  • I think it feels cheap. Three attacks in well under 10 min of gametime:

    Next attack:

    Since he can't trust his goalie, goes for the shooter:

  • Sinbin wrote: »
    I play hut and I get penalized for not even touching them. The Devs want video of it, why? If they just played the game in those game modes, they would see the stuff we see. Playing it on rookie to superstar there’s problems. Legends? My favorite is when the ai goes into seizures to escape my checks or poke checks. That’s totally normal in hockey, anybody notice the turning bug or it’s just normal? I was gonna post all these videos today, but no. Why should I do that for, they really don’t care!! If you need video and ask the community for it, a rational thinking person is gonna think. That you don’t play you’re own game!!

    They want videos because not everyone plays the same way. This post says the devs are nowhere to be seen, then you say they are to be seen and want videos, but, no, you're going to make things worse by not showing videos even when you already have them. If you want things to change, be part of the solution. Don't add to the problem. Ben has been here every day responding to people. It's incredibly obvious they play their own game. Quit being toxic and start being constructive. That will help make the changes you want rather than complaining.

    I noticed you didn’t say anything about the seizure escapes of the ai or the turning bug. Apparently it only happens on my copy of the game.

    According to the way you described those issues, I've never seen them.
  • LeFury_27 wrote: »
    I Guess it's hard for us not to be negative when you bring back toxic behavior of short side cheese goals and puck ragging in both ends of the ice. :smile:

    Because you know, a lot of us bought the game because either of those things weren't in it this year and they kind of screwed us by making us think they removed it for good.

    But it's fine kidshow, defend EA on this one like they didn't sell us a different game than what we have today.

    The short side is pretty easy to stop. They do the same thing every time. I hate it because it's boring, but they also will have a harder time winning going up against someone that knows how to stop it.

    Puck ragging is another issue. I hate it too, but no matter what they do, there will always be ways to exploit the game. If you give people a shortcut, they're going to use it almost every time. I'd love to see ragging stopped for good, but even before these changes, people still complained it was happening. Just not as bad.
  • In the that nhl gif with the Jets, that is bad defense. It’s was a nice shot. But you cannot let someone get in like that.

    I think people see complaining about that cheese from there is because it wasn’t as good earlier in the year. It’s obvious they nerfed the goalies to let that happen.
  • A few things;

    Everytime I score a short side cheese goal It almost feels weirdly cheap. A lot of times I almost don't want to do it but I know how effective it is.

    And a really confusing thing if you think about it is goalies are better at stopping 2 on 1s than a simple short side shot with no screen. It really makes no sense that they can make godly saves on impossible one timers but let a shot like that go in. Where is the balance? Like I'm not asking for goalies to be nerfed on 2 on 1s but give us some consistency. It makes no sense to have goalies suck so bad in one area that it's unrealistic and then have goalies on god mode for other things like one timers. Honestly, pick one. NHL goalies or minor league goalies.
  • SpillGal wrote: »
    I think it feels cheap. Three attacks in well under 10 min of gametime:

    Next attack:

    Since he can't trust his goalie, goes for the shooter:

    It's soft for the goalie to give up three of those in one game, but those are not the shots I'm complaining about. If you're giving up wristers from the hashmarks in the home-plate area, your goalie should get beat regularly. The real problem with the goalie coding is their vulnerability to shots above the circles and outside the hashmarks.
  • Sinbin wrote: »
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    I Guess it's hard for us not to be negative when you bring back toxic behavior of short side cheese goals and puck ragging in both ends of the ice. :smile:

    Because you know, a lot of us bought the game because either of those things weren't in it this year and they kind of screwed us by making us think they removed it for good.

    But it's fine kidshow, defend EA on this one like they didn't sell us a different game than what we have today.

    The short side is pretty easy to stop. They do the same thing every time. I hate it because it's boring, but they also will have a harder time winning going up against someone that knows how to stop it.

    Puck ragging is another issue. I hate it too, but no matter what they do, there will always be ways to exploit the game. If you give people a shortcut, they're going to use it almost every time. I'd love to see ragging stopped for good, but even before these changes, people still complained it was happening. Just not as bad.

    How did they exploit the beta? When they ragged they got hit off the puck. Passing?
  • Haven’t played in weeks, WAY too many penalties. A stiff breeze would knock Eric Lindros in this game. 2 mins tripping, That’s what they should rename this game two minutes tripping
  • Sinbin wrote: »
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    I Guess it's hard for us not to be negative when you bring back toxic behavior of short side cheese goals and puck ragging in both ends of the ice. :smile:

    Because you know, a lot of us bought the game because either of those things weren't in it this year and they kind of screwed us by making us think they removed it for good.

    But it's fine kidshow, defend EA on this one like they didn't sell us a different game than what we have today.

    The short side is pretty easy to stop. They do the same thing every time. I hate it because it's boring, but they also will have a harder time winning going up against someone that knows how to stop it.

    Puck ragging is another issue. I hate it too, but no matter what they do, there will always be ways to exploit the game. If you give people a shortcut, they're going to use it almost every time. I'd love to see ragging stopped for good, but even before these changes, people still complained it was happening. Just not as bad.

    How did they exploit the beta? When they ragged they got hit off the puck. Passing?

    I don't believe I have seen ragging once in 1.0 or beta. It would be great to see that again, unlikely though. Somehow ragging is a better alternative to having to think fast and make a good pass or dangle. Ragging and poor team play would get you shoved off the puck every time.
  • EpiCxOwNeD wrote: »
    In the that nhl gif with the Jets, that is bad defense. It’s was a nice shot. But you cannot let someone get in like that.

    I think people see complaining about that cheese from there is because it wasn’t as good earlier in the year. It’s obvious they nerfed the goalies to let that happen.

    Yes it's bad defense. That's precisely my point.

    No, goalies haven't been 'nerfed'.
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!