EA Forums - Banner

Can we please make AI players a pro level at best?

Why do we get punished for players leaving and their team becomes godlike? Winning by a bunch of goals in the first, lose by 1 or 2 by the time the AI's destroy everyone. Especially when the forwards leave.

They should be equivalent to a 500 CR level player, pro level at best. Not amazing.

Brutal

Replies

  • I just quit playing for the night and maybe week because of a cpu completely shutting me down. He was just ALWAYS on me. It wasn't even fun finishing the game. I wanted to stop playing positional hockey just to get away! The CPU is insanely good. They never commit penalties, will poke check behind you and take it away, hit like a big guy but skate like a little guy, and put perfect shots on esp vs human goalies. Imagine how much more fun this game would be if the made the CPU bad and people actually WANTED to play with humans because of it!

    As far as CPU being ~500 cr I wouldn't even wanna give them that! If a player with 300 cr drops out should they get a 500cr CPU? I'd say the CPU should be as bad as some of the worst players. Look how 2k CPU players play, it's bad if you can't find a last guy in Pro-Am/rec. Having bad CPU promotes more players wanting to hook up with other players and play. This in turn gets more people to buy the game (I would ask more of my friends to purchase if the CPU wasn't so good) and separates bad players from good players a bit more because the CPU won't help fill gaps so often.

    Lower their speed a lot, lower their durability, lower their ability to pick off passes (a lot!!) and lower their shooting power and accuracy.. that would be a great start. Also if it wouldn't be too hard to program I'd say to just have them play their position and not fill gaps.

    The mascots in threes is even more insane because on top of them being godlike they have a stick that is prob longer than an enforcer and can pick off any pass that goes across the goalie. Not having a cpu in that mode is just a handicap!

    I would LOVE for one developer to get on here and explain why it makes sense to have such good CPU players in EASHL where you ideally want mostly human players playing. If I wanna play with CPU I will play offline or HUT. Just explain what went into the decision making process of making them as effective as top rated players. I was winning a game 6-0 and we lost due to all but 2 guys quitting. Their CPU's made every goal. I'm sick of seeing clubs of 2 guys in any mode who rely on CPU to play defense as they cherry pick. I'm sick of CPU players standing in the middle of the ice completely shutting almost everything down just because they're in the vicinity of a pass, this is my BIGGEST problem with NHL. If I made a game mode that was almost entirely online with all human players I can't think of ANY reason to have good CPU players. It also teaches new players that they don't have to cover their zones because the CPU players will pick it up.. then they play with you and expect you to replicate it haha. I'm just so confused with the decision making process...
  • I completely agree with that. When one team is loosing and therefore some guys have disconnected, they should be replaced by rookie AI players! Do NOT make a balance of the game play automatically by adding superstar AI players!
  • In my opinion the AI only appears better because they actually play their positions and cover for others when needed.
  • Kuus2 wrote: »
    In my opinion the AI only appears better because they actually play their positions and cover for others when needed.

    I would argue being the fastest player on the ice, and the best checker on the ice, and most check proof player on the ice... simultaneously, is a factor.
  • I would also add not getting penalties despite poking or stock lifting from behind, winning puck battles more often, not ever miss aiming a pass, and intercepting anything that comes near them better than a DD too. I play good positional hockey, if a cpu plays up on me and really aggressive I'm not going to be able to make much happen unless I try to cheese the system by skating in weird ways or playing extremely aggressive in threes and knocking them to the ice/holding them down (but none of that is fun, and I play the game to have fun) so the question remains why make them so good???
  • Oboeee wrote: »
    Why do we get punished for players leaving and their team becomes godlike? Winning by a bunch of goals in the first, lose by 1 or 2 by the time the AI's destroy everyone. Especially when the forwards leave.

    They should be equivalent to a 500 CR level player, pro level at best. Not amazing.

    Brutal

    Ive been arguing this point for years and EA refuses to change it.

    The problem is that on the flip side you have people saying that the "defensive AI is trash" and gives up all the goals for THEIR mistakes...

    I think it should be obvious that when somebody just puts their controller down and literally does nothing and the AI just takes over and becomes godlike , that the AI is a bit overpowered...

    I mean when I play online, I want to challenge and be challenged by a human player, not have the cpu play the game for them, its beyond dumb sometimes...

    The only exception should be for the goalies obviously but all the defensive AI players that are back-spinning and making one-handed pass interceptions has to stop.

  • Well, do you think we should punish the players that DO stay in the game? If they did what you wanted, everybody would just quit, as soon as one quits? And what about games where you start with CPU players? What level should they be then? I think it's hard enought to find a full 6v6 games in drop ins as it is.

    At the end of the day, arent' you just looking for easy wins? Maybe you're not that good if you can't beat the CPU when you lead the game... what difficulty do you use in single-player?



  • They should have a 5 minute time out period for quitting games like rocket league does. This would discourage quitting early.
  • So I suggest the following change to EASHL rules:

    1. At least 4 players required on each side (not 2) to play 6vs6.

  • Sgt_Kelso wrote: »
    Well, do you think we should punish the players that DO stay in the game? If they did what you wanted, everybody would just quit, as soon as one quits? And what about games where you start with CPU players? What level should they be then? I think it's hard enought to find a full 6v6 games in drop ins as it is.

    At the end of the day, arent' you just looking for easy wins? Maybe you're not that good if you can't beat the CPU when you lead the game... what difficulty do you use in single-player?



    One could argue the opposite and say wanting good CPU's are looking for easy wins.. or not being able to carry a bad CPU means you're not good.. I'd be more happy if one quit they all quit. I don't wanna have the team that's winning get punished..
  • Ampereturn wrote: »
    So I suggest the following change to EASHL rules:

    1. At least 4 players required on each side (not 2) to play 6vs6.

    I am okay with 3. 2 is too little. Especially when the AIs are forwards. All three forwards being AIs are just instant losses for the most part. My CR is in the 800s, and its incredibly difficult for me... i feel bad for more casual players. Its game over. Especially considering it typically happens in the first period. I don't really care about CR, but don't penalize players who stay for the completion of the game. Or minimally penalize players that stay on the losing team.
  • Sgt_Kelso wrote: »
    Well, do you think we should punish the players that DO stay in the game? If they did what you wanted, everybody would just quit, as soon as one quits? And what about games where you start with CPU players? What level should they be then? I think it's hard enought to find a full 6v6 games in drop ins as it is.

    At the end of the day, arent' you just looking for easy wins? Maybe you're not that good if you can't beat the CPU when you lead the game... what difficulty do you use in single-player?



    One could argue the opposite and say wanting good CPU's are looking for easy wins.. or not being able to carry a bad CPU means you're not good.. I'd be more happy if one quit they all quit. I don't wanna have the team that's winning get punished..

    Wired crazy is notorious for that. Get his team to quit so he can do whatever the hell he wants with the AIs. Trolls are looking to do that. So i agree with your statement here.
  • flyextacy wrote: »
    They should have a 5 minute time out period for quitting games like rocket league does. This would discourage quitting early.


    Penalizing players for leaving is a necessity.
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!