EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 CHEL NOTES - Deep dive


Follow Gurn Sumal, game modes producer for NHL 20 on his deep dive, check it out & discuss it here.

An Update on Gameplay Feedback + Action Plan

Replies

  • 2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams
  • LeFury_27
    200 posts Member
    edited January 10
    Well there was only 1 Wayne Gretzky, not multiple. I guess the “it’s a video game” argument can be used for a lot of things.

  • 2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    so what's your solution?

    scores of games in LG resemble that of a full length NHL game. players play the full length of those games so hence they have inflated stats to their real life counterparts.

    the biggest stat that doesn't translate would easily be shots on goal. is that because of game tuning, or is that because the majority of players would rather set up a sure thing then just firing pucks on net? in real hockey theres a lot of chances that would be referred to as "turd shots" by the majority of people that play. but if both teams played that style I think youd see game stats be even more closely resembled to that of a real game.

    I dont really understand what you think the better option is, to have a full length LG game resemble that of a 12 minute game of real hockey?
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    Exactly.
    If it was leaned towards more realistic....goals would be way down...because there is less time than a NHL game.

    Pretty simple math.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    so what's your solution?

    scores of games in LG resemble that of a full length NHL game. players play the full length of those games so hence they have inflated stats to their real life counterparts.

    the biggest stat that doesn't translate would easily be shots on goal. is that because of game tuning, or is that because the majority of players would rather set up a sure thing then just firing pucks on net? in real hockey theres a lot of chances that would be referred to as "turd shots" by the majority of people that play. but if both teams played that style I think youd see game stats be even more closely resembled to that of a real game.

    I dont really understand what you think the better option is, to have a full length LG game resemble that of a 12 minute game of real hockey?

    The full length of those games is anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the average TOI of a top 6 NHLer. Yet their top guys stats are roughly twice that of most NHLers.

    The point is, top LG players have such inflated stats because the tuning rewards puck hogging danglers, not team oriented players. Points in LG are so much more top heavy than real life because the NHL requires much more teamwork to score than NHL 19 does.

    Meaning the tuning is not currently set up in a realistic fashion
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    so what's your solution?

    scores of games in LG resemble that of a full length NHL game. players play the full length of those games so hence they have inflated stats to their real life counterparts.

    the biggest stat that doesn't translate would easily be shots on goal. is that because of game tuning, or is that because the majority of players would rather set up a sure thing then just firing pucks on net? in real hockey theres a lot of chances that would be referred to as "turd shots" by the majority of people that play. but if both teams played that style I think youd see game stats be even more closely resembled to that of a real game.

    I dont really understand what you think the better option is, to have a full length LG game resemble that of a 12 minute game of real hockey?

    The full length of those games is anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the average TOI of a top 6 NHLer. Yet their top guys stats are roughly twice that of most NHLers.

    The point is, top LG players have such inflated stats because the tuning rewards puck hogging danglers, not team oriented players. Points in LG are so much more top heavy than real life because the NHL requires much more teamwork to score than NHL 19 does.

    Meaning the tuning is not currently set up in a realistic fashion

    and youd rather see it more realistic? last year the Tampa bay lightning had 296 gf and 236 ga...the top scoring team in lg had 262gf and 173 ga...unless your argument is that lgs team totals for a full season should be 1/5th of that of a real nhl team due to period lengths.

    the top point getter in LG had 90 pts in 28 games. that's the equivalent of 2520 minutes played by his virtual skater (60 min per game). McDavid had 108 in 82 at say 22 minutes per game, or 1804 minutes.

    the stats aren't that far off...if you're saying you have a problem that he can put up 90ts in 12 minutes a game in 28 games, than I ask, what is your solution?

    if they tune the game to resemble a 1 to 1 replica of the nhl, every game would end 1-0.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    so what's your solution?

    scores of games in LG resemble that of a full length NHL game. players play the full length of those games so hence they have inflated stats to their real life counterparts.

    the biggest stat that doesn't translate would easily be shots on goal. is that because of game tuning, or is that because the majority of players would rather set up a sure thing then just firing pucks on net? in real hockey theres a lot of chances that would be referred to as "turd shots" by the majority of people that play. but if both teams played that style I think youd see game stats be even more closely resembled to that of a real game.

    I dont really understand what you think the better option is, to have a full length LG game resemble that of a 12 minute game of real hockey?

    The full length of those games is anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the average TOI of a top 6 NHLer. Yet their top guys stats are roughly twice that of most NHLers.

    The point is, top LG players have such inflated stats because the tuning rewards puck hogging danglers, not team oriented players. Points in LG are so much more top heavy than real life because the NHL requires much more teamwork to score than NHL 19 does.

    Meaning the tuning is not currently set up in a realistic fashion

    and youd rather see it more realistic? last year the Tampa bay lightning had 296 gf and 236 ga...the top scoring team in lg had 262gf and 173 ga...unless your argument is that lgs team totals for a full season should be 1/5th of that of a real nhl team due to period lengths.

    the top point getter in LG had 90 pts in 28 games. that's the equivalent of 2520 minutes played by his virtual skater (60 min per game). McDavid had 108 in 82 at say 22 minutes per game, or 1804 minutes.

    the stats aren't that far off...if you're saying you have a problem that he can put up 90ts in 12 minutes a game in 28 games, than I ask, what is your solution?

    if they tune the game to resemble a 1 to 1 replica of the nhl, every game would end 1-0.

    I'm not really sure how else to explain this for you. 90 points in 28 games is 3.21 ppg. Beyond unrealistic. And that's 12 minutes per game. Not 60. Periods are 4 minutes long, not 20. Meaning he played 336 real minutes.

    If McDavid had 108 in 1804 minutes, that means McDavid played 5.37x as many minutes as your guy. If your top LG player played as many minutes as McDavid then your LG guy would have 483 points. Over 4x as good as McDavid.

    Do you see the problem?
  • GiveMeDaPuck
    283 posts Member
    edited January 10
    but then every games score would be 1-0...how is that better?

    should the goal of the game be to reflect what the real sport does in 1/5th of the time, or a direct representation of the real world?
  • VeNOM2099
    2414 posts Member
    edited January 10
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    so what's your solution?

    scores of games in LG resemble that of a full length NHL game. players play the full length of those games so hence they have inflated stats to their real life counterparts.

    the biggest stat that doesn't translate would easily be shots on goal. is that because of game tuning, or is that because the majority of players would rather set up a sure thing then just firing pucks on net? in real hockey theres a lot of chances that would be referred to as "turd shots" by the majority of people that play. but if both teams played that style I think youd see game stats be even more closely resembled to that of a real game.

    I dont really understand what you think the better option is, to have a full length LG game resemble that of a 12 minute game of real hockey?

    "Turd shots"?? You mean shots that don't automatically result in a goal don't count? In a real hockey game, shots on net serve a very specific purpose; sometimes teams will take shots that don't necessarily have a high percentage of going in, but they have a very good chance of creating some chaos by forcing the d-men or the goalie to move out of position.

    I think I've said this before, but Shooting on net doesn't necessarily equal a chance to score. In the average NHL game, you'll see maybe 10 good chances to score all game. If both teams have a strong defense, maybe even less. It's not uncommon to see a team rack up 30+ shots, but only 10 really good scoring chances per side and the game score ends up 2-1 or 4-3.

    That's because A) Sometimes players miss the net on good scoring chances. Or they get the shot blocked by the d-men. and B ) Goalies "don't get sniped sometimes". They can actually make saves, which is their job. Not allow pucks to go through just because... If this game was tuned in such a way that made defense and goalies play like they should, you'd probably see a lot more passing plays, a lot more shots on net and fewer goals.

    That's hockey. That's what makes it exciting: the content. It's how you get to score, not the end result that counts and makes it enjoyable.

    Think of it like a puzzle. Is it enjoyable because you solved it? Or is the enjoyment you get out of it from HOW you solved it? How long it took you and the different solutions you had to come up with to solve it??

    For me, and I think for many others, it's the latter. Sure, winning a game 3-1 is nice. But setting up those goals and keeping the other team off the score sheet is what gives me (us) the most enjoyment.

    That just doesn't happen in NHL 19. Or any of the other EA NHL games in the past... And now here we are. Going back to the BETA settings because people complained they're bored of the game with the current tuning.

    SPOILER ALERT: nothing will change.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    so what's your solution?

    scores of games in LG resemble that of a full length NHL game. players play the full length of those games so hence they have inflated stats to their real life counterparts.

    the biggest stat that doesn't translate would easily be shots on goal. is that because of game tuning, or is that because the majority of players would rather set up a sure thing then just firing pucks on net? in real hockey theres a lot of chances that would be referred to as "turd shots" by the majority of people that play. but if both teams played that style I think youd see game stats be even more closely resembled to that of a real game.

    I dont really understand what you think the better option is, to have a full length LG game resemble that of a 12 minute game of real hockey?

    "Turd shots"?? You mean shots that don't automatically result in a goal don't count? In a real hockey game, shots on net serve a very specific purpose; sometimes teams will take shots that don't necessarily have a high percentage of going in, but they have a very good chance of creating some chaos by forcing the d-men or the goalie to move out of position.

    I think I've said this before, but Shooting on net doesn't necessarily equal a chance to score. In the average NHL game, you'll see maybe 10 good chances to score all game. If both teams have a strong defense, maybe even less. It's not uncommon to see a team rack up 30+ shots, but only 10 really good scoring chances per side and the game score ends up 2-1 or 4-3.

    That's because A) Sometimes players miss the net on good scoring chances. Or they get the shot blocked by the d-men. and B ) Goalies "don't get sniped sometimes". They can actually make saves, which is their job. Not allow pucks to go through just because... If this game was tuned in such a way that made defense and goalies play like they should, you'd probably see a lot more passing plays, a lot more shots on net and fewer goals.

    That's hockey. That's what makes it exciting: the content. It's how you get to score, not the end result that counts and makes it enjoyable.

    Think of it like a puzzle. Is it enjoyable because you solved it? Or is the enjoyment you get out of it from HOW you solved it? How long it took you and the different solutions you had to come up with to solve it??

    For me, and I think for many others, it's the latter. Sure, winning a game 3-1 is nice. But setting up those goals and keeping the other team off the score sheet is what gives me (us) the most enjoyment.

    That just doesn't happen in NHL 19. Or any of the other EA NHL games in the past... And now here we are. Going back to the BETA settings because people complained they're bored of the game with the current tuning.

    SPOILER ALERT: nothing will change.

    hey man, you're not going to get any argument from me that the game could be tuned differently to make it more fun. I also enjoy the strategic way of playing as opposed to the rinse, wash, repeat way that a lot of people play these games. I also play vast majority of my games on d, so I love shutting the other teams down as much as the next guy.

    my whole point is that if they tune it to be a direct comparison to real hockey, youd see a lot of 1-0 games in the 12 minutes we get to play, which would become just as boring for a lot of people.
  • From my experience with NHL 19 this is exactly what happened with the tuners. 1.0 and 1.01 felt great. They felt the closest we have gotten to what felt like real hockey. Not just felt real it felt natural and fluid.
    Around 1.02 you could feel the skating getting sluggish like a wet sponge. The game slowly started to feel like NHL 18. It very much felt like a step back.

    THIS! This is exactly how I've felt about the skating in this game. In 1.00 and 1.01 it just felt "right", there was no disconnect between what I was trying to do, skating-wise, and what would actually happen on the screen. 1.02 came along and it felt just like NHL 18 again, sluggish and unresponsive at times, over-responsive at other times.
  • GOW_LIKE_A_BOSS
    533 posts Member
    edited January 10
    but then every games score would be 1-0...how is that better?

    should the goal of the game be to reflect what the real sport does in 1/5th of the time, or a direct representation of the real world?

    No, it wouldn't be. If there are 5 players on the ice, and all forwards average 1 gpg, that's still three goals in a game for that team.

    I'm not saying the goals overall should be lowered through tuning. I'm saying tuning is needed to more evenly distribute the goals that are scored already. No more one man dangle-shows. We need to have to use teamwork to score.
  • but then every games score would be 1-0...how is that better?

    should the goal of the game be to reflect what the real sport does in 1/5th of the time, or a direct representation of the real world?

    No, it wouldn't be. If there are 5 players on the ice, and all forwards average 1 gpg, that's still three goals in a game for that team.

    I'm not saying the goals overall should be lowered through tuning. I'm saying tuning is needed to more evenly distribute the goals that are scored already. No more one man dangle-shows. We need to have to use teamwork to score.

    Teamwork? In a team-based sport? That's just silly :trollface:
  • VeNOM2099
    2414 posts Member
    edited January 10
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    so what's your solution?

    scores of games in LG resemble that of a full length NHL game. players play the full length of those games so hence they have inflated stats to their real life counterparts.

    the biggest stat that doesn't translate would easily be shots on goal. is that because of game tuning, or is that because the majority of players would rather set up a sure thing then just firing pucks on net? in real hockey theres a lot of chances that would be referred to as "turd shots" by the majority of people that play. but if both teams played that style I think youd see game stats be even more closely resembled to that of a real game.

    I dont really understand what you think the better option is, to have a full length LG game resemble that of a 12 minute game of real hockey?

    "Turd shots"?? You mean shots that don't automatically result in a goal don't count? In a real hockey game, shots on net serve a very specific purpose; sometimes teams will take shots that don't necessarily have a high percentage of going in, but they have a very good chance of creating some chaos by forcing the d-men or the goalie to move out of position.

    I think I've said this before, but Shooting on net doesn't necessarily equal a chance to score. In the average NHL game, you'll see maybe 10 good chances to score all game. If both teams have a strong defense, maybe even less. It's not uncommon to see a team rack up 30+ shots, but only 10 really good scoring chances per side and the game score ends up 2-1 or 4-3.

    That's because A) Sometimes players miss the net on good scoring chances. Or they get the shot blocked by the d-men. and B ) Goalies "don't get sniped sometimes". They can actually make saves, which is their job. Not allow pucks to go through just because... If this game was tuned in such a way that made defense and goalies play like they should, you'd probably see a lot more passing plays, a lot more shots on net and fewer goals.

    That's hockey. That's what makes it exciting: the content. It's how you get to score, not the end result that counts and makes it enjoyable.

    Think of it like a puzzle. Is it enjoyable because you solved it? Or is the enjoyment you get out of it from HOW you solved it? How long it took you and the different solutions you had to come up with to solve it??

    For me, and I think for many others, it's the latter. Sure, winning a game 3-1 is nice. But setting up those goals and keeping the other team off the score sheet is what gives me (us) the most enjoyment.

    That just doesn't happen in NHL 19. Or any of the other EA NHL games in the past... And now here we are. Going back to the BETA settings because people complained they're bored of the game with the current tuning.

    SPOILER ALERT: nothing will change.

    hey man, you're not going to get any argument from me that the game could be tuned differently to make it more fun. I also enjoy the strategic way of playing as opposed to the rinse, wash, repeat way that a lot of people play these games. I also play vast majority of my games on d, so I love shutting the other teams down as much as the next guy.

    my whole point is that if they tune it to be a direct comparison to real hockey, youd see a lot of 1-0 games in the 12 minutes we get to play, which would become just as boring for a lot of people.

    But you're looking only at the end results of a game; "Scores will be 1-0". What about what happens in between? The passing? The plays? The shots? When you watch a hockey game, do you just skip to the end to see the score and stats? Or do you want to see the ACTUAL game and how both teams got to that score??

    I've seen many 1-0 games that were incredible nail biters. With both teams battling it out, back and forth on the ice, both goalies standing on their heads, big plays, big hits, big action. And then I've seen 10-0 blowouts where one team takes a dump on the other team in a one sided and decidedly boring match.

    In essence, scoring goals shouldn't be what's important.

    When I play any other game, whether it's Tomb Raider, or Street Fighter, or Assassin's Creed, my enjoyment comes from playing the game, not the end results. Sure winning is "fun", but HOW I get to the win is where I get the most enjoyment Even in a loss, if I played well and did my best and truly enjoyed my play time, then I'll just come back for more and then, maybe I'll win. If winning was all there was to enjoyment of a game, then might as well just use a cheat code to unlock everything and get all the rewards from the get go. Why waste time?
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game. There are no line changes top offensive players were likely be involved in 85% of the scoring on a high powered offense scoring 5 goals a game back in the day.

    Current gen defense is much easier so scoring is down. NHL 19, even with it's flaws, is even stronger defense and I'm sure scoring is the lowest it's ever been

    So, you think offense should be scoring four points per game for more realistic hockey? I think I see why you think defense is overpowered.

    You mentioned there are no line changes, which is true, so that would inflate stats. But the periods are only 20% as long as an actual hockey, which would deflate their stats. It breaks out about even. Plus, you say top offense of players would be involved in 85% of the scoring chances. That opinion once again shows that you are looking for a more unrealistic hockey game with lots of dangles and one man shows.

    It does not sound like you are looking for realistic team hockey based on the stats you think are realistic and the dominance by individual players you expect.

    if16nej628br.jpg

    That screenshot is the all-time leaders in points per game. Even Wayne Gretzky didn't score two points per game, and you are advocating the top LG players should score at a rate more twice as high as Wayne Gretzky for a realistic hockey game.

    I think it says a lot about how unrealistic a game you want when you belive scoring at a higher rate than Wayne Gretzky is "not much."

    Wayne Gretzky wasn't playing on the ice entire game either.

    No dog in this fight, but it's not exactly a direct comparison.

    That's true. Wayne Gretzky's TOI was probably around 22 minutes per game

    http://www.sciencewitness.com/the-wayne-gretzky-analysis/

    Compared to the 12 minutes TOI we get. So we're on the ice about half as much as Gretsky and scoring more ppg than he did. Which makes the game even more absurd actually.

    this is a terrible argument. if you look at it as were only playing 12 minutes per game, 95% of the games would finish 1-0 and most would need OT to find a winner.

    The real question is, how many goals a game could Wayne Gretzky score if he were on the ice for 60 minutes a game against the same dmen on the other side?

    We are actually discussing that top LG forwards should not be scoring at a better rate than the greatest scorer of all time at 2 ppg. And they certainly shouldn't be scoring 4 ppg as some people believe.

    There is a wide skill differential throughout this game. But when you pit the best vs the best, the games' players should have lower ppg rates than Gretsky, not more or double.

    I think you are on a different page. I am talking about ppg - which is a stat arrived at by averaging. If the game is tuned perfectly, the ppg of top LG players should resemble the ppg of top NHL players. Currently, top LG players have ppg more than double your current top NHLer. In fact, their ppg are better than the greatest NHL scorer of all time.

    This disparity represents a problem with the lack of strength of defending. We are using ppg of top LGers to show us if the current tuning is balanced to real life - and it is not. The point of only looking at top LGers is to remove the variable of player skill. Presumably all top LGers are good, and presumably they are playing against good defense. So if tuning is perfect, LG ppg game rates should mirror the NHL.

    yes, but where you lose the argument is that the top lgers are playing the video game equivalent to a 60 minute game...of course their ppg will be better than Gretzky, he wasn't on the ice for every goal his team scored. the bigger indicator would be to look at the top teams in LG and compare how their gf and ga compare to real Nhl teams

    No. You are losing the argument, because as GOW said, LG players are playing 12 minute games (in real time). Where Gretzky was averaging 22 minutes (real time).

    Again, the point is, this game is not tuned for realism. Not even a semblance of realism. Not even great sport games like NBA 2K are tuned for 100% realism, not out of the box. But no matter if you play 5 minute quarters or 12 minute quarters, the scores and averages stack up to real games. In NHL 19, even playing 4 minute periods, you still end up with incredibly bloated stats and averages.

    Less time to play should mean less time to set up and make plays, which in turn should mean less scoring chances and so less scoring. That's why there much less shooting in NHL 19 games, yet scoring is equal or greater than it is in a real NHL game... How does that "balance out to account for shorter time periods"???

    Doesn't make sense.

    so what's your solution?

    scores of games in LG resemble that of a full length NHL game. players play the full length of those games so hence they have inflated stats to their real life counterparts.

    the biggest stat that doesn't translate would easily be shots on goal. is that because of game tuning, or is that because the majority of players would rather set up a sure thing then just firing pucks on net? in real hockey theres a lot of chances that would be referred to as "turd shots" by the majority of people that play. but if both teams played that style I think youd see game stats be even more closely resembled to that of a real game.

    I dont really understand what you think the better option is, to have a full length LG game resemble that of a 12 minute game of real hockey?

    "Turd shots"?? You mean shots that don't automatically result in a goal don't count? In a real hockey game, shots on net serve a very specific purpose; sometimes teams will take shots that don't necessarily have a high percentage of going in, but they have a very good chance of creating some chaos by forcing the d-men or the goalie to move out of position.

    I think I've said this before, but Shooting on net doesn't necessarily equal a chance to score. In the average NHL game, you'll see maybe 10 good chances to score all game. If both teams have a strong defense, maybe even less. It's not uncommon to see a team rack up 30+ shots, but only 10 really good scoring chances per side and the game score ends up 2-1 or 4-3.

    That's because A) Sometimes players miss the net on good scoring chances. Or they get the shot blocked by the d-men. and B ) Goalies "don't get sniped sometimes". They can actually make saves, which is their job. Not allow pucks to go through just because... If this game was tuned in such a way that made defense and goalies play like they should, you'd probably see a lot more passing plays, a lot more shots on net and fewer goals.

    That's hockey. That's what makes it exciting: the content. It's how you get to score, not the end result that counts and makes it enjoyable.

    Think of it like a puzzle. Is it enjoyable because you solved it? Or is the enjoyment you get out of it from HOW you solved it? How long it took you and the different solutions you had to come up with to solve it??

    For me, and I think for many others, it's the latter. Sure, winning a game 3-1 is nice. But setting up those goals and keeping the other team off the score sheet is what gives me (us) the most enjoyment.

    That just doesn't happen in NHL 19. Or any of the other EA NHL games in the past... And now here we are. Going back to the BETA settings because people complained they're bored of the game with the current tuning.

    SPOILER ALERT: nothing will change.

    hey man, you're not going to get any argument from me that the game could be tuned differently to make it more fun. I also enjoy the strategic way of playing as opposed to the rinse, wash, repeat way that a lot of people play these games. I also play vast majority of my games on d, so I love shutting the other teams down as much as the next guy.

    my whole point is that if they tune it to be a direct comparison to real hockey, youd see a lot of 1-0 games in the 12 minutes we get to play, which would become just as boring for a lot of people.

    But you're looking only at the end results of a game; "Scores will be 1-0". What about what happens in between? The passing? The plays? The shots? When you watch a hockey game, do you just skip to the end to see the score and stats? Or do you want to see the ACTUAL game and how both teams got to that score??

    I've seen many 1-0 games that were incredible nail biters. With both teams battling it out, back and forth on the ice, both goalies standing on their heads, big plays, big hits, big action. And then I've seen 10-0 blowouts where one team takes a dump on the other team in a one sided and decidedly boring match.

    In essence, scoring goals shouldn't be what's important.

    When I play any other game, whether it's Tomb Raider, or Street Fighter, or Assassin's Creed, my enjoyment comes from playing the game, not the end results. Sure winning is "fun", but HOW I get to the win is where I get the most enjoyment Even in a loss, if I played well and did my best and truly enjoyed my play time, then I'll just come back for more and then, maybe I'll win. If winning was all there was to enjoyment of a game, then might as well just use a cheat code to unlock everything and get all the rewards from the get go. Why waste time?

    No kidding.

    When Team Canada seal clubs Team Japan 14-0, it is not really a great game to watch in all honesty. Not all that fun to watch a game where another team can't really fight back and stay in the game.
  • jiajji
    318 posts Member
    edited January 10
    ExSnake01 wrote: »
    jiajji wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game.

    I have no idea how you can claim 6s is more like "real hockey," then.

    i can't tell if you are trying to troll me or being serious. but you realize one has nothing to do with the other. you realize how many things affect scoring in a VIDEO GAME? If an elite VS player played you he would probably put up 20 goals. I absolutely guarantee you the top vs/hut players in the world are scoring just as much if not more in these modes than in EASHL. Also I was talking about older games.

    vs/hut is not real hockey because you have 10/12 skaters as programmed robots in a game that is more dynamic, changing on the fly, than any other sporting video game. They are so easy to exploit and learn exactly what they are going to do at any given time that the only answer EA has is to basically give them super abilities that then lead to skill zoning. so that gets taken away and now they are basically just pylons more often than not. so then you have to play the game of chasing the puck by constantly switching.

    5 human skaters that a) have good hockey iq and b) understand how to play this game can create a more authenticate hockey experience. i never said it was real hockey. god far from it. but that's based on limitations of the game and it's playerbase.

    scoring is down because defense is much better now than it used to be at end of previous gen console play. i personally find defense super easy and fwd the real challenge. prev gen it was other way around.

    You know the human can switch players right? And the AI changes its behavior based on what the human does?

    And you complain about the AI having "super abilities," but EA has disabled all AI actions in NHL 19. They won't poke, lift, or hit. It's obvious you've never played versus this year.

    Lastly, idk why you're talking about realism or "real hockey" when you think Wayne Gretzky's ppg rate is "not much" and you believe good players should score at more than double Gretzky's rate.

    1v1 is the furthest you can get from hockey. The reason you've got a problem with raggers is the delay in taking control of your bot. Its facing 1 direction or preforming an animation, you take control & input completely different commands. Obviously the person keeping control of one player is going to retain the initiative.

    Are you kidding me? It's actually the opposite. I stopped watching those top 6's teams playing because how badly they misrepresent hockey.

    What does puck ragging have to do with delay input? Someone experiences delay input so they start ragging the puck? No, they rag the puck because the game has been tuned for all offense and made playing defense very difficult.

    Put the puck on your backhand and go in circles to avoid most hits or wait till they trip you to get the power play. I know because I do this myself.

    It's not an input delay, it's a delay in the action of you taking control of one of your 5 bots and changing what it was going to do. The bots are programed to behave a certain way, when you take control you're changing the behavior, when you take control of the bot and change it's momentum, when it's reacting to a play and you want it to react differently. It is VERY easy to rag the puck in vs, I agree, then again, it's not hockey.

    Vs is literally 1v1, so no, I'm not kidding, it may as well be soccer.
  • jiajji wrote: »
    ExSnake01 wrote: »
    jiajji wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    2pts a game is not much. If defense wasnt so easy top players would be averaging 4 a game.

    I have no idea how you can claim 6s is more like "real hockey," then.

    i can't tell if you are trying to troll me or being serious. but you realize one has nothing to do with the other. you realize how many things affect scoring in a VIDEO GAME? If an elite VS player played you he would probably put up 20 goals. I absolutely guarantee you the top vs/hut players in the world are scoring just as much if not more in these modes than in EASHL. Also I was talking about older games.

    vs/hut is not real hockey because you have 10/12 skaters as programmed robots in a game that is more dynamic, changing on the fly, than any other sporting video game. They are so easy to exploit and learn exactly what they are going to do at any given time that the only answer EA has is to basically give them super abilities that then lead to skill zoning. so that gets taken away and now they are basically just pylons more often than not. so then you have to play the game of chasing the puck by constantly switching.

    5 human skaters that a) have good hockey iq and b) understand how to play this game can create a more authenticate hockey experience. i never said it was real hockey. god far from it. but that's based on limitations of the game and it's playerbase.

    scoring is down because defense is much better now than it used to be at end of previous gen console play. i personally find defense super easy and fwd the real challenge. prev gen it was other way around.

    You know the human can switch players right? And the AI changes its behavior based on what the human does?

    And you complain about the AI having "super abilities," but EA has disabled all AI actions in NHL 19. They won't poke, lift, or hit. It's obvious you've never played versus this year.

    Lastly, idk why you're talking about realism or "real hockey" when you think Wayne Gretzky's ppg rate is "not much" and you believe good players should score at more than double Gretzky's rate.

    1v1 is the furthest you can get from hockey. The reason you've got a problem with raggers is the delay in taking control of your bot. Its facing 1 direction or preforming an animation, you take control & input completely different commands. Obviously the person keeping control of one player is going to retain the initiative.

    Are you kidding me? It's actually the opposite. I stopped watching those top 6's teams playing because how badly they misrepresent hockey.

    What does puck ragging have to do with delay input? Someone experiences delay input so they start ragging the puck? No, they rag the puck because the game has been tuned for all offense and made playing defense very difficult.

    Put the puck on your backhand and go in circles to avoid most hits or wait till they trip you to get the power play. I know because I do this myself.

    It's not an input delay, it's a delay in the action of you taking control of one of your 5 bots and changing what it was going to do. The bots are programed to behave a certain way, when you take control you're changing the behavior, when you take control of the bot and change it's momentum, when it's reacting to a play and you want it to react differently. It is VERY easy to rag the puck in vs, I agree, then again, it's not hockey.

    Vs is literally 1v1, so no, I'm not kidding, it may as well be soccer.

    Well the AI used to be able to do things on their own, but people complained that was too hard to beat and they were getting skill zoned so EA disabled all the active abilities from AI players.

    It wasn't that way for the longest time. And it doesn't sound like you're just talking about the new AI lack of abilities, it sounds like you're talking about VS in general. And that was definitely not the case about ones when the AI could be useful.
  • Some good discussion here and depending on the lens all are valid.

    A hockey game with 4 minute periods can never be a full simulation. All of our game modes and game styles are a representation of hockey and tuned relative to what we know of the types of players that play those modes on average.

    All of our game styles use the same mechanics which were all designed around simulating realistic hockey but we can tune the mechanics to be more or less forgiving where attributes and error models can have more or less of an effect depending on how arcade or how simulation we want something to play.

    Online VS, HUT and EASHL all use Competitive game style. It is tuned with shorter period lengths in mind and due to that is overall just more forgiving and tighter than how you would want to tune a full simulation experience where period lengths are longer. Competitive definitely leans more heavily towards simulation though than a style like Traditional that is more of a classic hockey videogame style and leans to the arcade side.

    The big change for us was when we turned on incidental contact for stick on stick and stick on body for our simulation game styles. As soon as that came into effect, and the more we improved defensive mechanics when it came to how incidental contact would disrupt shots and pass receptions, etc. there were more loose pucks and that part of the game more fully resembled what you may tune for a simulation game. So that is why players that play strong defense, even though some of the offensive pieces may be a bit tighter and more forgiving, gave defensive players the tools they needed to not allow good chances and thus you do see teams held to very low shot totals and low goal totals getting closer to what you would see in 12 simulation minutes of hockey.

    Our error models on competitive simulate the bottom end fairly well and you see things like rushed shots with poorly skilled players missing the net often. It is just when you get a good player settled, they are pretty deadly and maybe in real life some of those shots would still go straight into the goalies logo more often. There are many examples like that where the real world game is just less tight. We know in competitive videogames that players don't like randomness though so when you do something right, the rate of success is higher on the more forgiving form of simulation hockey. A defender that gets you to go to your backhand or gets you to rush a shot or pass is still going to force more error and that should all feel relatively balanced to what people bring from what they know of the real world sport. Obviously we are talking about tuning in this thread and there are varying opinions on certain aspects of the game, as there always will be, but the general nature of defense is that there are players with the current and past tuning that feel they can use the tools to limit offenses and keep goal scoring down and force bad shots and opportunities and cause turnovers leading to high rates of success on defense -- many players getting shutouts and keeping average goal totals to less than 1.5 against. And as we have been discussing, there are ways to continue to tune gameplay to encourage players to get rid of the puck quicker which may force more less than ideal shots on net and lower the ability to wait for the perfect chance against more than just the top level defenders. Again all depends on where the skill gap lies and the type of gameplay that is encouraged through general mechanics.

    So that is where Competitive aligns with our goals. It should be a balanced game where offense and defense know the stakes and have the tools once learned to have success on both sides of the ice. It should favor a simulation of the game much more than feeling arcade and you should be able to take what you know of the real world sport into account with how the mechanics work overall.

    When you really dig in though and compare things 1 to 1, it won't be as close as those looking for a true full simulation would want it but that was all done by choice as we know we are playing 4 minute periods and don't want people feeling things are random once they know the mechanics.

    The game can be tuned to work with longer period lengths but overall, the current period lengths has been the consensus for what most people want from their hockey videogames online.
  • NHLDev wrote: »

    All of our game styles use the same mechanics which were all designed around simulating realistic hockey but we can tune the mechanics to be more or less forgiving where attributes and error models can have more or less of an effect depending on how arcade or how simulation we want something to play.

    Online VS, HUT and EASHL all use Competitive game style. It is tuned with shorter period lengths in mind and due to that is overall just more forgiving and tighter than how you would want to tune a full simulation experience where period lengths are longer. Competitive definitely leans more heavily towards simulation though than a style like Traditional that is more of a classic hockey videogame style and leans to the arcade side.

    The big change for us was when we turned on incidental contact for stick on stick and stick on body for our simulation game styles. As soon as that came into effect, and the more we improved defensive mechanics when it came to how incidental contact would disrupt shots and pass receptions, etc. there were more loose pucks and that part of the game more fully resembled what you may tune for a simulation game. So that is why players that play strong defense, even though some of the offensive pieces may be a bit tighter and more forgiving, gave defensive players the tools they needed to not allow good chances and thus you do see teams held to very low shot totals and low goal totals getting closer to what you would see in 12 simulation minutes of hockey.

    Our error models on competitive simulate the bottom end fairly well and you see things like rushed shots with poorly skilled players missing the net often. It is just when you get a good player settled, they are pretty deadly and maybe in real life some of those shots would still go straight into the goalies logo more often. There are many examples like that where the real world game is just less tight. We know in competitive videogames that players don't like randomness though so when you do something right, the rate of success is higher on the more forgiving form of simulation hockey. A defender that gets you to go to your backhand or gets you to rush a shot or pass is still going to force more error and that should all feel relatively balanced to what people bring from what they know of the real world sport. Obviously we are talking about tuning in this thread and there are varying opinions on certain aspects of the game, as there always will be, but the general nature of defense is that there are players with the current and past tuning that feel they can use the tools to limit offenses and keep goal scoring down and force bad shots and opportunities and cause turnovers leading to high rates of success on defense -- many players getting shutouts and keeping average goal totals to less than 1.5 against. And as we have been discussing, there are ways to continue to tune gameplay to encourage players to get rid of the puck quicker which may force more less than ideal shots on net and lower the ability to wait for the perfect chance against more than just the top level defenders. Again all depends on where the skill gap lies and the type of gameplay that is encouraged through general mechanics.

    So that is where Competitive aligns with our goals. It should be a balanced game where offense and defense know the stakes and have the tools once learned to have success on both sides of the ice. It should favor a simulation of the game much more than feeling arcade and you should be able to take what you know of the real world sport into account with how the mechanics work overall.

    When you really dig in though and compare things 1 to 1, it won't be as close as those looking for a true full simulation would want it but that was all done by choice as we know we are playing 4 minute periods and don't want people feeling things are random once they know the mechanics.

    Personally 5 minute periods are fine. One of the major things that I think is being over looked and is a question I have is how do you program these tuners? It seems this year playing 1.00 that you guys had new programing techniques for core mechanics that led to a more fluid and realistic feeling. Now with tuners 1.02 and 1.03 it feels very much like you plugged in values that worked with older games. For instance in EASHL now when someone on my team has a breakaway all I have to do at low speed is step in front of a guy chasing the puck carrier with my back facing him and once he makes contact with me it kills all his momentum and I just stand there fine just getting pushed down the ice a bit.

    Second you have spoken about the defense being the ones to force the offense to get more creative. I would argue that 1.00 1.01 kills any argument to anyone saying defense was to easy. In the first couple weeks I saw more goals that created through actual passing and spreading the defense. I would say the fact that defense finally felt like it had the tools counter the offense. In fact when you ran up against some guys who actually where varying what they where doing it was an actual challenge. It took away the one trick pony style of play. No longer could you get the defense on an island and go pick your poison you step up on my I pass for a cross crease, don't step up on me and Ill just snipe it short side.
    If you see Grammar or Spelling errors. I am starting to experience the long term effects of ten plus concussions.
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!