EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 Content Update October 25th


Check out our CHEL notes with our October Patch update here.

An Update on Gameplay Feedback + Action Plan

Replies

  • NHLDev
    1356 posts NHL Developer
    edited January 8
    SpillGal wrote: »
    This is so to the core of how the game is/could be tuned, that I really thinks it needs the extra focus. What are the D doing when they are not forcing offense to be creative, then? Have they gone of the ice?
    Of course not. They would be in their prefered positions, having an easy time playing together as a team, since they’re not being challenged.
    The statement that it is on the Defense to force Offense to be creative, and not the other way around, is a dangerous philosophy to have as grounds for a hockeygame.
    I don't understand what you mean by a dangerous philosophy and that it should be the other way around. The Offense already is forcing the defense to play in certain ways. They are doing that in every action as they are driving the play by being in control of the puck until the defense makes them alter their plan. However, if the defense doesn't shut them down in such a way that they feel they need to switch up their game to have success, they are going to keep doing the same thing.

    There are two camps on the negative side. One says that they have no tools to defend and the other says they can defend it all day but it is boring. If they are defending it all day but the offense still isn't changing things up, there isn't much you can do other than start to see the fun in frustrating a one trick pony. For those that say that defense doesn't have any tools, we start to look at players that aren't having trouble on defense as examples of what should be possible for everyone if they adapt.

    If they can no longer score on the short side shot regardless if you defend it or not and still keeping taking it over and over to try and/or move to skating down trying a cross crease pass over and over, will it be any less boring? The reason why I say that the defense has to drive this is that they are the only ones that can force the offense to switch up their game and even then, they may not choose to.

    I am not sure why when a puck carrier enters the zone and curls towards the boards and/or down away into the corner why the defense follows them to the point they over commit. They have already eliminated themselves as a threat all on their own and they have to expose the puck to you at some point if they want to take the puck towards the net.

    Even with the current tuning, we don't see many true short side shots where the puck carrier has the puck to the outside as they are kept outside. So, how are those defenders then in a position where they are chasing from behind from the outside towards the middle as the puck carrier heads with the puck exposed heading in towards the slot? Where is the defender goal side to disrupt that puck?

    And before you all think this is a stance I am making that we shouldn't tune things or that I was against the previous tuning, if you remember, I stood behind the tuning 3 months ago as well when people said you couldn't score, especially with nice hockey plays and had posted this video of goals scored in my games at the time:
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    SpillGal wrote: »
    This is so to the core of how the game is/could be tuned, that I really thinks it needs the extra focus. What are the D doing when they are not forcing offense to be creative, then? Have they gone of the ice?
    Of course not. They would be in their prefered positions, having an easy time playing together as a team, since they’re not being challenged.
    The statement that it is on the Defense to force Offense to be creative, and not the other way around, is a dangerous philosophy to have as grounds for a hockeygame.
    I don't understand what you mean by a dangerous philosophy and that it should be the other way around. The Offense already is forcing the defense to play in certain ways. They are doing that in every action as they are driving the play by being in control of the puck until the defense makes them alter their plan. However, if the defense doesn't shut them down in such a way that they feel they need to switch up their game to have success, they are going to keep doing the same thing.

    There are two camps on the negative side. One says that they have no tools to defend and the other says they can defend it all day but it is boring. If they are defending it all day but the offense still isn't changing things up, there isn't much you can do other than start to see the fun in frustrating a one trick pony. For those that say that defense doesn't have any tools, we start to look at players that aren't having trouble on defense as examples of what should be possible for everyone if they adapt.

    If they can no longer score on the short side shot regardless if you defend it or not and still keeping taking it over and over to try and/or move to skating down trying a cross crease pass over and over, will it be any less boring? The reason why I say that the defense has to drive this is that they are the only ones that can force the offense to switch up their game and even then, they may not choose to.

    I am not sure why when a puck carrier enters the zone and curls towards the boards and/or down away into the corner why the defense follows them to the point they over commit. They have already eliminated themselves as a threat all on their own and they have to expose the puck to you at some point if they want to take the puck towards the net.

    Even with the current tuning, we don't see many true short side shots where the puck carrier has the puck to the outside as they are kept outside. So, how are those defenders then in a position where they are chasing from behind from the outside towards the middle as the puck carrier heads with the puck exposed heading in towards the slot? Where is the defender goal side to disrupt that puck?

    And before you all think this is a stance I am making that we shouldn't tune things or that I was against the previous tuning, if you remember, I stood behind the tuning 3 months ago as well when people said you couldn't score, especially with nice hockey plays and had posted this video of goals scored in my games at the time:

    I don't really think they are two camps so much as one "camp" is the logical extension of the first.

    Both sides agree defense have no tools, but one camp can still "defend" by trying to block shots and cause incidental contact.

    The important takeaway is that both of those camps agree they have no tools. I'm in the first camp. I believe @WainGretSki is in the other camp but will agree with me that his camp also agrees defense has no tools.
  • The computer goalies in this game are GARBAGE. How about make the AI watch the puck and not the player as much?

    It just seems like the easiest goals go in yet the harder ones to save don't go in.

    How do that make any sense?
  • I don't really think they are two camps so much as one "camp" is the logical extension of the first.

    Both sides agree defense have no tools, but one camp can still "defend" by trying to block shots and cause incidental contact.

    The important takeaway is that both of those camps agree they have no tools. I'm in the first camp. I believe @WainGretSki is in the other camp but will agree with me that his camp also agrees defense has no tools.
    Hah, alright. Maybe there are 3 camps then =)

    My main point was more about the details of those thoughts than number of camps though. An interesting thing is the camps who feel they have no tools only lost strength in tools that have to do with chasing the puck carrier from behind. Even if we increase the effectiveness of those pieces, I highly suggest those camps work more on staying goal side.

  • NHLDev wrote: »
    I don't really think they are two camps so much as one "camp" is the logical extension of the first.

    Both sides agree defense have no tools, but one camp can still "defend" by trying to block shots and cause incidental contact.

    The important takeaway is that both of those camps agree they have no tools. I'm in the first camp. I believe @WainGretSki is in the other camp but will agree with me that his camp also agrees defense has no tools.
    Hah, alright. Maybe there are 3 camps then =)

    My main point was more about the details of those thoughts than number of camps though. An interesting thing is the camps who feel they have no tools only lost strength in tools that have to do with chasing the puck carrier from behind. Even if we increase the effectiveness of those pieces, I highly suggest those camps work more on staying goal side.

    In my experience, the stick left is virtually useless from any angle. Including directly in front of someone which should be one of the easier position to stick lift from. And as far as hitting goes, I prefer the easier hitting, because I never really found after the beta tuner that you could bump someone off from behind when you shouldn't. I never see that in 1.00 when I play offline.

    I think if it was easier to take the puck away with stick tools, people would complain less about weaker hitting from behind.

  • In my experience, the stick left is virtually useless from any angle. Including directly in front of someone which should be one of the easier position to stick lift from. And as far as hitting goes, I prefer the easier hitting, because I never really found after the beta tuner that you could bump someone off from behind when you shouldn't. I never see that in 1.00 when I play offline.

    I think if it was easier to take the puck away with stick tools, people would complain less about weaker hitting from behind.

    Ratings play in as well but the best time to stick lift is when your stick is perpendicular to theirs for the best leverage. So if you are behind and they expose their stick, you can lift it quite easily from that side of their body. Possibly if you time it when they deke over to their forehand or backhand exposing the stick to you.

    From the front, any body contact will separate the player from the puck so it is best to stand them up if you are that close to them and incidental contact with stick and body will separate the puck as well so unless the gap is bigger and you are using a poke or dss, you should be good and don't need a stick lift from the front where you are more likely to have a more parallel angle to their stick or if they are creating a perpendicular angle, you would basically be standing on top of their skates to get the leverage and may as well shove them in the chest if you are right there anyways.

    Would have to see examples if I am not understanding what you are saying.
  • Game's biggest issue's is still goal tending. Sad that to this day 2k8 still had the best goalies ( once you tuned sliders )
  • NHLDev wrote: »

    In my experience, the stick left is virtually useless from any angle. Including directly in front of someone which should be one of the easier position to stick lift from. And as far as hitting goes, I prefer the easier hitting, because I never really found after the beta tuner that you could bump someone off from behind when you shouldn't. I never see that in 1.00 when I play offline.

    I think if it was easier to take the puck away with stick tools, people would complain less about weaker hitting from behind.

    Ratings play in as well but the best time to stick lift is when your stick is perpendicular to theirs for the best leverage. So if you are behind and they expose their stick, you can lift it quite easily from that side of their body. Possibly if you time it when they deke over to their forehand or backhand exposing the stick to you.

    From the front, any body contact will separate the player from the puck so it is best to stand them up if you are that close to them and incidental contact with stick and body will separate the puck as well so unless the gap is bigger and you are using a poke or dss, you should be good and don't need a stick lift from the front where you are more likely to have a more parallel angle to their stick or if they are creating a perpendicular angle, you would basically be standing on top of their skates to get the leverage and may as well shove them in the chest if you are right there anyways.

    Would have to see examples if I am not understanding what you are saying.

    you do realize in real hockey "stick lifts" don't really ever result in a penalty. the right and wrong time to stick lift should just result in missed stick lifts. also fix the animation, it's so far from reality it might as well be a golf swing. stick lifts don't come more than a couple feet off the ice, hence why they don't lead to penalties. when you "miss" a stick lift you are basically standing straight up swinging the stick and the opponents face.

    stick checking is in a pretty good place right now. get stick lifts to same level. stick checking penalties still aren't anywhere near realistic but it's a good compromise.

    btw i can't believe you are rolling back to beta as it was. worst idea ever. there's been so many improvements that no one is complaining about. namely the terrible poke check in beta release. any benefits in the beta version will be overshadowed by some of the horrible issues it had... again.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    I don't really think they are two camps so much as one "camp" is the logical extension of the first.

    Both sides agree defense have no tools, but one camp can still "defend" by trying to block shots and cause incidental contact.

    The important takeaway is that both of those camps agree they have no tools. I'm in the first camp. I believe @WainGretSki is in the other camp but will agree with me that his camp also agrees defense has no tools.
    Hah, alright. Maybe there are 3 camps then =)

    My main point was more about the details of those thoughts than number of camps though. An interesting thing is the camps who feel they have no tools only lost strength in tools that have to do with chasing the puck carrier from behind. Even if we increase the effectiveness of those pieces, I highly suggest those camps work more on staying goal side.

    I don't chase raggers into the corner, I try to stay goal side, as you say. The problem is with the nerfed skating since 1.02 I can't make the small adjustments needed to keep the ragger contained. I try to make a small adjustment and my player over-commits and I'm toast.
  • MikeyAU630
    156 posts Member
    edited January 8
    NHLDev wrote: »

    From the front, any body contact will separate the player from the puck so it is best to stand them up if you are that close to them and incidental contact with stick and body will separate the puck

    That's all well and good for a player that will let you do that. Raggers constantly right-stick turn away from you when you get close, meaning you can't check (they'll bounce right off) or use incident contact, and poking or stick lifting would be a (deserved) penalty. At the same, your AI isn't allowed to help out.

    If I sounds like I'm a little salty, I am. I just got the snot beat out of me in a HUT game by a guy who'd obviously never seen a hockey game... he was great at ragging and ragging and ragging until the short side or cross-crease became available, nothing else. He's 23-2 in HUT online seasons, playing in a way that doesn't even slightly resemble hockey. Is that really the kind of play you want to reward?
  • NHLDev
    1356 posts NHL Developer
    edited January 8
    you do realize in real hockey "stick lifts" don't really ever result in a penalty. the right and wrong time to stick lift should just result in missed stick lifts. also fix the animation, it's so far from reality it might as well be a golf swing. stick lifts don't come more than a couple feet off the ice, hence why they don't lead to penalties. when you "miss" a stick lift you are basically standing straight up swinging the stick and the opponents face.

    stick checking is in a pretty good place right now. get stick lifts to same level. stick checking penalties still aren't anywhere near realistic but it's a good compromise.

    btw i can't believe you are rolling back to beta as it was. worst idea ever. there's been so many improvements that no one is complaining about. namely the terrible poke check in beta release. any benefits in the beta version will be overshadowed by some of the horrible issues it had... again.
    Stick lifts only come up half the distance if met with the resistance of the puck carriers stick. To lift a players stick you need some force and are optimistic you are going to be getting stick on stick but when you don't and you only get air, that is when it comes way up as there wasn't the resistance of the other players stick you were expecting and that is how/why players get people in the teeth and get high sticking calls with missed stick lifts. Penalties don't get posted all over youtube but you can look up Ho-Sang on Giroux, Bollig on Cogliano, Grant against McKinnon or Kane against Crosby as some examples that I found with a quick search as some examples.

    The real issues with stick lifts are that they should have less assistance like the change we made to pokes so that when you try to lift and the stick moves in that time, you miss to space rather than getting assistance towards the stick and thus sometime get a penalty rather than just miss as well as we should not count stick on body contact during the first few frames of the blend in window as well as not count the legs. We have those and a couple other things noted for when we get to actually look back at the code for stick lifts to improve the logic rather than just tune around what we have.

    And I don't disagree that we are in a way better spot overall from the Beta tuning but many of your peers don't agree and doing another fine tuning was never going to get us past the recollections of the glory days of the Beta, so when it was proposed to do the rollback with feedback opportunities, I understood the goals even though I feel I can take the feedback we have and fine tune from where we are at.

    So with this, I think we can use the rollback and more feedback as a positive towards justifying what we do for the next official tuner and we will learn things seeing the Beta tuning played now that players are more experienced with the product and are settled into more accurate ranks to their skill level where they are playing other players around their relative skill more often which wouldn't have been the case during the Beta and at launch on as consistent of a basis as what we will see now.
  • TheNitwitable7
    68 posts Member
    edited January 8
    I'm thrilled to hear that you're returning back to the Beta tuners. Hopefully we can find a happy medium fixing some of the obvious stuff and keep a tuner like it around for the rest of the year. Currently, the game feels like NHL 18 with refined skating. The Beta showed so much more potential.

    Promoting team play and limiting the ability of puck raggers should be a priority, especially for EASHL.
  • MikeyAU630 wrote: »
    That's all well and good for a player that will let you do that. Raggers constantly right-stick turn away from you when you get close, meaning you can't check (they'll bounce right off) or use incident contact, and poking or stick lifting would be a (deserved) penalty. At the same, your AI isn't allowed to help out.

    If I sounds like I'm a little salty, I am. I just got the snot beat out of me in a HUT game by a guy who'd obviously never seen a hockey game... he was great at ragging and ragging and ragging until the short side or cross-crease became available, nothing else. He's 23-2 in HUT online seasons, playing in a way that doesn't even slightly resemble hockey. Is that really the kind of play you want to reward?
    Well, that is the part of the discussion around 'what type of play do we want to encourage' that I was getting into aside from if players can play defense or not. We are listening to what players are saying and as I said before, we had a tuner that was almost ready to go that had tuning around goalies challenging pucks short side, fine tuning around low relative speeds and a few other things but then the Beta rollback was proposed so I have parked that tuner for now and will see how feedback aligns with what we were trying in that tuner as well as be able to get feedback on the Beta tuning now that players are settled into their respective CR ranges and playing even competition more often against players that are now more experienced with this years game which will probably change how the Beta tuning is perceived as well and give us some unique feedback to consider relative to where we are now.
  • Se7ensWild wrote: »
    Will this revert to beta change anything about how easy it is for turnovers to happen? It seems like all that has to happen for the puck to be turned over is another player has to be somewhat close to you. No poke check or stick lift, the puck just automatically shakes loose. Does anyone else have issues with this?

    Yup...and it’s great...if anything...the puck has been to glued to skaters sticks in the past.
    We need this incidental contact... as it encourages puck movement and team play.
    Pass or dump the puck!
  • At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter which tuner you work on, provided you make the right calls. You can easily salvage the current tuner too, or restart from the beta, I don't really care.

    The main thing is to keep working on the tuners, and make them promote good hockey. The main complaint about the current tuner is that it doesn't promote good hockey, so there's gotta be something wrong with it, right? Maybe the beta tuner will help us see what it is.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    I don't really think they are two camps so much as one "camp" is the logical extension of the first.

    Both sides agree defense have no tools, but one camp can still "defend" by trying to block shots and cause incidental contact.

    The important takeaway is that both of those camps agree they have no tools. I'm in the first camp. I believe @WainGretSki is in the other camp but will agree with me that his camp also agrees defense has no tools.
    Hah, alright. Maybe there are 3 camps then =)

    My main point was more about the details of those thoughts than number of camps though. An interesting thing is the camps who feel they have no tools only lost strength in tools that have to do with chasing the puck carrier from behind. Even if we increase the effectiveness of those pieces, I highly suggest those camps work more on staying goal side.

    It's all the same camp. The lack of tools causes defenders to do the opposite of what is logical to have success.

    You should be trying to push the offense to the outside and choke out their space while keeping them at angles the goalie can easily save until you leave them nowhere to go and take the puck from them.

    Short side snipe and high slot curl are so unrealistically successful that you instead do the opposite positioning on defense, taking away the outside and high shots. Then you couple that with the inability to stick lift or bump at any angle that isn't straight on and you're no longer applying pressure on defense, you sit and wait to block/intercept/rebound because that is what's most successful right now.

    Sure it CAN be effective against the illogical offense that this tuner creates, but you're left just watching the game, which is boring. Hence you see nothing but OD and PMD because you may as well be better on attack since your defensive attributes and actions don't matter.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    .
    LeFury_27 wrote: »

    I can tell you me and my club have the same feeling when it comes to beta vs current tuner. We honestly couldn't wait for release to play after playing the beta. I can't remember the last time I was so excited for a game to come out. But now we all feel the same, the game is boring as hell even when you win. It's just not fun like the beta was.

    Eagerly awaiting the beta tuner still, hope it's this week. ;p
    At what point did your club lose interest? Right at launch or after a certain tuner?

    For me tuner 1.02 was the beginning of the end, so to speak. I mean, I wasn't crazy about the tuning to better reflect builds/build size. It did have a certain logic to it, but it didn't please me to be honest. I think instead of tuning down certain builds, you should have increased agility for certain builds, like danglers and snipers.

    But I accepted it for the reason that I stated above, that it had a certain logic. But it did bring down the fun factor a notch or two. The original tuner felt crisp and snappy whereas 1.02 brought me an in between feeling of TPS and RPM. Meaning, it felt better than TPS, but not as crisp and responsive as RPM during the beta.

    1.03 was the kill shot for me. Right then and there my interest was lower than NHL 18. The whole "we tuned only nudges from behind" doesn't make sense to me because in essence you killed all low speed contact with the "minor change". It completely changed the dynamic of the game and returned selfish players that get rewarded for it. Now to have a successful body check you have to walk that thin line of charging or boarding unless it is a pure north-south hit. As a couple have stated before, a good puck carrier feels no stress whatsoever when a defender comes at him. Having the puck should not equate a comfort zone.

    Anyways, long story short, 1.02 diminished my fun by a bit while 1.03 pretty much killed it.

    I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us here and seriously, I tip my hat to you guys for willing to go back to the beta and to try and get a good and balanced reset. It is the only reason why I have an interest in this game at this time. Future tuning will decide if we part ways or not, but I still appreciate the effort on your team's part. Thank-you.
  • Se7ensWild wrote: »
    Will this revert to beta change anything about how easy it is for turnovers to happen? It seems like all that has to happen for the puck to be turned over is another player has to be somewhat close to you. No poke check or stick lift, the puck just automatically shakes loose. Does anyone else have issues with this?

    What do you mean by "issues" ? Not being able to skate through a player with the puck is just plain logic.
  • WainGretSki
    3021 posts Member
    edited January 8
    NHLDev wrote: »
    I don't really think they are two camps so much as one "camp" is the logical extension of the first.

    Both sides agree defense have no tools, but one camp can still "defend" by trying to block shots and cause incidental contact.

    The important takeaway is that both of those camps agree they have no tools. I'm in the first camp. I believe @WainGretSki is in the other camp but will agree with me that his camp also agrees defense has no tools.
    Hah, alright. Maybe there are 3 camps then =)

    My main point was more about the details of those thoughts than number of camps though. An interesting thing is the camps who feel they have no tools only lost strength in tools that have to do with chasing the puck carrier from behind. Even if we increase the effectiveness of those pieces, I highly suggest those camps work more on staying goal side.

    Why do you keep saying we only lost strength from nudges from behind? There were no player bubbles at all prior to 1.03. What we are trying to tell you is your nudge from behind fix killed low speed physical plays from all angles. I really am confused by your response vs what I see when I play the game.

    Also, as for which camp I am in...

    I sincerely believe that defenders have lost alot of our defensive tools. And honestly I don't care about the nudges from behind. I may be a defender, but I feel that if you got burned, you should get burned and not have a mechanic bail you out. I however cannot endorse the way it was fixed due to the wonkiness in every aspect of low speed physical play. I would rather see less incidental contact, but more force on body checks. Incidental contact doesn't take skill, but a body check requires user input, which should be the focus of all mechanics within the game. More user input, less animations and more consistency.

    As for defensive builds, they are not tuned with the same balance as forward builds. I find defensive builds are pretty limited to what their description says and what strengths they have. An Enforcer, for example, has decent body checking, good fighting, hard but not a precise slap shot. Funny thing though, as a forward an Enforcer has pretty decent wrist shot accuracy. Why? Shouldn't he be pretty much as useless with shooting as an Enforcer D? Boring thing though, even Enforcers struggle alot with low speed physical play. They have become borderline useless unless you play below average forwards in dropins. For club play, it is a suicide build that does pretty much nothing to help his team.

    OFD or PMD are only good for passing or shooting but are effective because of the mobility they offer and pretty much the main reason they are used in club play.

    When it comes to forwards though, other than the slight clunkiness of the skating ability of the Enforcer, every single build feels like they play above their rating's capabilities. The Sniper is a little easy to smack around, but most times they just kneel down when in fact they should be laid out. As soon as a carrier curls his stick back he gets this "being settled" accuracy bonus that goes above their shooting capabilities. Defense has none of this. We get what we have, even for pokechecks. Their is no "being settled" bonuses, or a factor that gives us better hitting, or pass interceptions if a certain condition is met. Instead, we have to be very passive, hope our player intercepts a pass or picks up a lose puck before an attacker and try to cover 2 areas at one time. Gotta cover the short side snipe while also trying to cover a cross crease pass. There is a goalie in there that is supposed to cover the carrier, which he doesn't for the most part and it kills our abilities in our own zone.

    So yea, long story short, I can play D. Just I am extremely limited in the way it needs to be played and while I can use the defensive tools, there is absolutely room for improvement. I also need to chose between a good zone D class, or a mobile D class depending on the team I will face. Sadly, almost all forwards are very mobile and certainly agile.
    Post edited by WainGretSki on
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    MikeyAU630 wrote: »
    That's all well and good for a player that will let you do that. Raggers constantly right-stick turn away from you when you get close, meaning you can't check (they'll bounce right off) or use incident contact, and poking or stick lifting would be a (deserved) penalty. At the same, your AI isn't allowed to help out.

    If I sounds like I'm a little salty, I am. I just got the snot beat out of me in a HUT game by a guy who'd obviously never seen a hockey game... he was great at ragging and ragging and ragging until the short side or cross-crease became available, nothing else. He's 23-2 in HUT online seasons, playing in a way that doesn't even slightly resemble hockey. Is that really the kind of play you want to reward?
    Well, that is the part of the discussion around 'what type of play do we want to encourage' that I was getting into aside from if players can play defense or not. We are listening to what players are saying and as I said before, we had a tuner that was almost ready to go that had tuning around goalies challenging pucks short side, fine tuning around low relative speeds and a few other things but then the Beta rollback was proposed so I have parked that tuner for now and will see how feedback aligns with what we were trying in that tuner as well as be able to get feedback on the Beta tuning now that players are settled into their respective CR ranges and playing even competition more often against players that are now more experienced with this years game which will probably change how the Beta tuning is perceived as well and give us some unique feedback to consider relative to where we are now.

    That is nice to hear, but not even 2 weeks ago you said yourself right here on these forums that no tunings or patches we to be foreseen in the near future. Maybe had you said something along these lines at that time, less talk about reverting back to the beta. I for one would have liked to see that tuner before going back to the beta. I think it may very well bring back some needed balance to this game based on your description.
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!