EA Forums - Banner

Why does a.i. do this?

1235Next

Replies

  • JetsNY81
    4 posts New member
    I also want to preface by saying I love the NHL Series, I don't like being negative of it, this is the game that used to rarely leave my console. Even to this day, I play the heck out of it, so I get my money's worth, in my opinion. To that, I want to say thank you to the devs, the game isn't horrendous, it's fun to play even though there is a frustration level mixed in from time to time. And honestly, for all we know, the devs are doing the best we can with what they have to work with, including a limited time frame being that the game releases every year.

    I just wish the series started with a framework in 15 and kept building up from there. Rather, sometimes the game feels different from year to year just for the sake of 16 needing to play different from 15, and so on and so forth. So, for instance, I wish AI behavior/mechanics were constantly being built upon and improved from year to year. The series would most benefit, in my opinion, if it were treated like an MMORPG where each year we added to the game instead of feeling like a random game mechanic that worked in previous editions now has to be fixed in the current version.

    Just my two cents, but appreciate the devs coming on the forums and engaging in discussion with us. That is always a good thing!
  • Treatmentworke66
    977 posts Member
    edited March 2020
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    I'm not trying to sound like a contrarian on purpose and I mostly agree with Venom as well but catering to some NHL 'elite' is starting to sound really conspiracy theorish. That's probably not the case.

    I don't particularly like that notion myself. It's too easy of an "out" to blame the devs of only listening to the "elites" out there. However, many of the things they have/ at one time or another, complained about have been taken care of via an update.

    Remember back when they cried about the backup goaltenders in HUT? That option was removed soon after. A few years back, when they complained about the scoring being too difficult. Goalies got nerfed. When they complained the AI was too good and was bailing out "bad players" and "skillzoners", AI got hit.

    Let's say (hypothetically) someone like Nasher complaining alone can't sway EA's mind, but what if half of his 465K youtube subcribers decided to flud EA's facebook and/or twitter acc with said complaint. Would EA listen? I think so...

    Again, it's a little unfair to simply foist this off on their laps and blame them. But you can't underestimate the influence they have over thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands who may or may not know any better than to parrot what they utter on stream or elsewhere. And whether it's directly or indirectly, they ARE responsible for some of the changes we've seen affect this game. Sometimes for the better, but sometimes... maybe even often times, for the worse.

    There you go Mr Venom always on point they nerfed the goalies because the elite couldn't score their go to moves over and over again and let's not forget the D to D they got nerfed this year as well because the elite thought that it wasn't skillfull to score from the point ,so we're left with the ballarina hockey type game, and also as a friend of mine pointed out the also didn't like the fact the goalies covered the puck way to much ,that's probably why the goalies this year almost refuse to cover the puck
  • EA_Aljo
    3020 posts EA Community Manager
    edited March 2020
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    I'm not trying to sound like a contrarian on purpose and I mostly agree with Venom as well but catering to some NHL 'elite' is starting to sound really conspiracy theorish. That's probably not the case.

    I don't particularly like that notion myself. It's too easy of an "out" to blame the devs of only listening to the "elites" out there. However, many of the things they have/ at one time or another, complained about have been taken care of via an update.

    Remember back when they cried about the backup goaltenders in HUT? That option was removed soon after. A few years back, when they complained about the scoring being too difficult. Goalies got nerfed. When they complained the AI was too good and was bailing out "bad players" and "skillzoners", AI got hit.

    Let's say (hypothetically) someone like Nasher complaining alone can't sway EA's mind, but what if half of his 465K youtube subcribers decided to flud EA's facebook and/or twitter acc with said complaint. Would EA listen? I think so...

    Again, it's a little unfair to simply foist this off on their laps and blame them. But you can't underestimate the influence they have over thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands who may or may not know any better than to parrot what they utter on stream or elsewhere. And whether it's directly or indirectly, they ARE responsible for some of the changes we've seen affect this game. Sometimes for the better, but sometimes... maybe even often times, for the worse.

    There you go Mr Venom always on point they nerfed the goalies because the elite couldn't score their go to moves over and over again and let's not forget the D to D they got nerfed this year as well because the elite thought that it wasn't skillfull to score from the point ,so we're left with the ballarina hockey type game, and also as a friend of mine pointed out the also didn't like the fact the goalies covered the puck way to much ,that's probably why the goalies this year almost refuse to cover the puck

    When are you seeing goalies not cover the puck? I rarely ever have my goalie toss it back out. Once in our AI goalie in EASHL will kick it out without calling for it, but it's really rare.

    D to D shots kinda needed to change. They were pretty easy to score with. Now, they're not near as common, but certainly not impossible.
  • EA_Blueberry
    4633 posts EA Community Manager
    JetsNY81 wrote: »
    I also want to preface by saying I love the NHL Series, I don't like being negative of it, this is the game that used to rarely leave my console. Even to this day, I play the heck out of it, so I get my money's worth, in my opinion. To that, I want to say thank you to the devs, the game isn't horrendous, it's fun to play even though there is a frustration level mixed in from time to time. And honestly, for all we know, the devs are doing the best we can with what they have to work with, including a limited time frame being that the game releases every year.

    I just wish the series started with a framework in 15 and kept building up from there. Rather, sometimes the game feels different from year to year just for the sake of 16 needing to play different from 15, and so on and so forth. So, for instance, I wish AI behavior/mechanics were constantly being built upon and improved from year to year. The series would most benefit, in my opinion, if it were treated like an MMORPG where each year we added to the game instead of feeling like a random game mechanic that worked in previous editions now has to be fixed in the current version.

    Just my two cents, but appreciate the devs coming on the forums and engaging in discussion with us. That is always a good thing!

    To be real with you, every time I see a negative comment it's viewed as an opportunity to improve upon something. Never see it as a rant. There are obviously some things that will be mentioned that's complete nonsense in the lines of trolling which we'll take care of, but for the most part a lot of the feedback we get here is fantastic and extremely valuable for our team to review for future updates. We sense a ton of passion in many of you that participate frequently. For those lurking these boards just waiting to jump into the mix: let's hear what you have to say, don't be shy. ;) . We love to talking about the game to help make it even better. Coolest job in the world. It's important to find out where the blind spots are and how we can make it more fun for everyone. We also have to make sure we identify issues that unexpectedly pop up in game and quickly inform the team. AT times they can be obvious where we'll even see them and at other times it's from the help of the community in which we're eternally grateful for. Thank you!

    Anyways, just wanted to say thank you for the feedback and agree with you on how awesome it is to have the devs here participate too.

    It's Friday by the way so tonight should be fun. I know what I'll be playing. B)
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    I'm not trying to sound like a contrarian on purpose and I mostly agree with Venom as well but catering to some NHL 'elite' is starting to sound really conspiracy theorish. That's probably not the case.

    I don't particularly like that notion myself. It's too easy of an "out" to blame the devs of only listening to the "elites" out there. However, many of the things they have/ at one time or another, complained about have been taken care of via an update.

    Remember back when they cried about the backup goaltenders in HUT? That option was removed soon after. A few years back, when they complained about the scoring being too difficult. Goalies got nerfed. When they complained the AI was too good and was bailing out "bad players" and "skillzoners", AI got hit.

    Let's say (hypothetically) someone like Nasher complaining alone can't sway EA's mind, but what if half of his 465K youtube subcribers decided to flud EA's facebook and/or twitter acc with said complaint. Would EA listen? I think so...

    Again, it's a little unfair to simply foist this off on their laps and blame them. But you can't underestimate the influence they have over thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands who may or may not know any better than to parrot what they utter on stream or elsewhere. And whether it's directly or indirectly, they ARE responsible for some of the changes we've seen affect this game. Sometimes for the better, but sometimes... maybe even often times, for the worse.

    There you go Mr Venom always on point they nerfed the goalies because the elite couldn't score their go to moves over and over again and let's not forget the D to D they got nerfed this year as well because the elite thought that it wasn't skillfull to score from the point ,so we're left with the ballarina hockey type game, and also as a friend of mine pointed out the also didn't like the fact the goalies covered the puck way to much ,that's probably why the goalies this year almost refuse to cover the puck

    When are you seeing goalies not cover the puck? I rarely ever have my goalie toss it back out. Once in our AI goalie in EASHL will kick it out without calling for it, but it's really rare.

    D to D shots kinda needed to change. They were pretty easy to score with. Now, they're not near as common, but certainly not impossible.

    IMO, D to D one-timers were OP due to the AI refusing to actually cover their assignments when using the “tight point” strategy. There would be legitimate risk/reward to using that strategy if it were implemented right, but unfortunately we never saw the AI competently able to cover the weakside dman, therefore they nerfed that play.

    Hopefully next-gen can offer better AI play so that skilled plays like that don’t need to be so watered-down.
  • NHLDev
    1680 posts EA NHL Developer
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    I just start to think after reading this that we have some pretty fundamental disagreements on what the purpose of the AI is and how it's behavior should relate to the players actions. I'm aware that there could be some language barrier going on and I'm actually just misunderstanding but what I'm reading between the lines is this:

    1. The AI is considering a lot of lower priority things that are affecting it's judgement and causing it to make odd desicions. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things but IMO in the defesive zone the AI has two jobs: recognize the man it's supposed to cover and stay between him and the net, I as the player will take care of the rest to best of my abilities.

    2. The AI's performance is heavily affected by the actions of the player. If the player is playing out of position, the AI will play worse and it's intended to be that way. If this is correct the obvious follow up question is how the AI wants me to play then? What is the perfect way to play to maximize the performance of the AI? There's probably as many 'correct' ways to play as there are NHL 20 players so wouldn't the easier path to decent defensive AI be that the AI wouldn't give a crap how the player plays and just do the job assigned to the individual player it currently operates? Like a real hockey player.

    Or am I misunderstanding something?

    We have multiple needs for the ai in the game. Sometimes they are controlling every player on a team, sometimes they are players on a team along with other locked human players and sometimes they are on a team playing their role under ai control until a human switches into them and takes over and visa versa.

    In all cases, the ai are impacted by the decisions of their ai teammates or human players, not because we programmed them to make mistakes if the human did, just that they have more to worry about if they are in a 2 on 1 than a 2 on 2.

    We are looking to improve issues where they make blatant incorrect choices but when they decide to commit a bit too much to a pass option or to a puck carrier and leave a pass option open, these are things we can still see on a nightly basis in the real world NHL. All of those players aren't programmed to make mistakes, they can just happen relative to what your opponent does on the other side based on how you respond to the play in front of you. I don't believe they are considering too many low priority things. They may in some cases be prioritizing something too much but at some point, all of the pieces they consider are valid and are meant to only matter when they matter. On a two on one, a player isn't to a fault always going to cover the pass option as they drive passed the net while the puck carrier then cuts into the slot now the best chance of the two to score without thinking of making a defensive play on them. We have seen cases where the ai prioritizes the puck carrier too heavily but we also see cases where they stick with their player and break up a forced one timer pass -- unfortunately players remember the goals against more than the times they are bailed out. And then the other side is that we expect human players in non locked games to take control over that lone ai player if they want to have control of the outcome of their game. And that is why blatant mistakes like jumping forward trying to cover a pass lane incorrectly should be corrected -- but those are pieces that aren't by design so we have to separate those pieces from the intention.

    In games where you can switch into players and aren't locked, our goal was to have the ai play positional and play off puck defense well (intercepting/breaking up passes/pass receptions, etc.) but to only play positional against the puck carrier rather than perform defensive actions (which was in response to skill zone and increasing the skill gap on defense for competitive play).

    So I think we are all after the same things and we are always going to try and improve. But when I see a User jump and miss their assignment blatantly and then blame the ai for then doing the same thing when left hung out to dry, I am still going to call it out as it is a double standard. That is isolated from us wanting to continue to improve the ai though, which will never stop.
  • jrago73
    691 posts Member
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »

    If done right, the ai shouldn't be perfect, they should make decisions based on what they see in front of them and make organic realistic mistakes. In that programming, they can also make some unnatural and weird mistakes

    Is this really the creative direction you guys are going for? I’m not a video game coder but to my layman brain this seems like a terrible choice for a competitive game. Shouldn’t the AI in 1vs1 online gameplay rather be predictable and consistent so it leaves the max amount of the outcome to the players?

    Honestly the last thing I want as a player is the AI making simulated human errors. I just want the AI to be predictable so when I make a mistake I can be 100% sure where my other players are so I can cover up for my own mistake. And if I end up screwing up I can blame myself and not have this gray area of the AI being weird constantly.

    You are basically leaving intentional room for exploits and frustrating inconsistensies to happen with this aproach.

    No wonder the defense feels like AI babysitting.

    We aren't coding random error to the ai. They are consistent overall but there are more variables than you make out. There isn't just a puck carrier and a weak side pass option -- There are players on their forehand or backhand, gliding ready to pass/shoot vs skating to or away from the net, different velocities/future positions, more or less teammate support, etc.. so even consistency across those pieces when they all line up the same will have variance.

    What has been called out so far in this thread is actually that the ai is consistently blowing their coverage when the human blows their coverage. So you are correct that the ai could be in a better spot for you to then switch into and have a second chance to make up for your mistakes but it is still driven off a human error in a lot of cases in the first place (either directly through a missed play, or giving your opponent more time for your team to get out of place, etc.). And I am only saying that in response to your comment about how it should leave the max amount of outcome to the players as we see that consistently the same players are having success and do know how to consistently have success.

    We still want to improve the ai. Nothing said above takes away from how they can be improved. Their desire to worry more about pass lane coverage rather than stay goal side of the weak side player is a big one that contributes to some of the issues as well as their scoring for where the biggest threats are but a human player playing proper defense themselves definitely limits the errors with the ai as well.

    No... No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!

    The AI is ALWAYS out of position because it's what the "elite" asked for. They don't want the AI to be a factor in bailing out humans for their mistakes. It would work as intended if the AI didn't make more mistakes by itself than the human does. Either it allows the opponent to get behind them in their zone (allowing forced passes to get through for easy scoring chances) or following the USER around when the user is in good position just because it's programmed to chase the puck.

    They lack basic hockey awareness. What position they play. What area they are responsible for. If they would just pick up their man and stick to him and NOT allow him to get behind, human defense would improve by a significant amount. Instead, because you have to babysit the AI you're forced into this ballet of playing a mix of skillzoning with on puck defense and hoping to baby jeebus that the AI does what it's supposed to (which it doesn't).

    Agree 1000% ,19 was proof of this and certainly in 20 they continue to cater to the elite , while the rest of us are simply ignored and are told to adapt

    I'm not trying to sound like a contrarian on purpose and I mostly agree with Venom as well but catering to some NHL 'elite' is starting to sound really conspiracy theorish. That's probably not the case.

    What I get from Ben's responses (even though he claimed that I'm misunderstanding him) is that the AI just has way too much on it's plate and it's making weird decisions because it's losing it's priorities.
    NHLDev wrote: »
    They are consistent overall but there are more variables than you make out. There isn't just a puck carrier and a weak side pass option -- There are players on their forehand or backhand, gliding ready to pass/shoot vs skating to or away from the net, different velocities/future positions, more or less teammate support, etc.. so even consistency across those pieces when they all line up the same will have variance.

    What has been called out so far in this thread is actually that the ai is consistently blowing their coverage when the human blows their coverage. So you are correct that the ai could be in a better spot for you to then switch into and have a second chance to make up for your mistakes but it is still driven off a human error in a lot of cases in the first place (either directly through a missed play, or giving your opponent more time for your team to get out of place, etc.).

    I just start to think after reading this that we have some pretty fundamental disagreements on what the purpose of the AI is and how it's behavior should relate to the players actions. I'm aware that there could be some language barrier going on and I'm actually just misunderstanding but what I'm reading between the lines is this:

    1. The AI is considering a lot of lower priority things that are affecting it's judgement and causing it to make odd desicions. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things but IMO in the defesive zone the AI has two jobs: recognize the man it's supposed to cover and stay between him and the net, I as the player will take care of the rest to best of my abilities.

    2. The AI's performance is heavily affected by the actions of the player. If the player is playing out of position, the AI will play worse and it's intended to be that way. If this is correct the obvious follow up question is how the AI wants me to play then? What is the perfect way to play to maximize the performance of the AI? There's probably as many 'correct' ways to play as there are NHL 20 players so wouldn't the easier path to decent defensive AI be that the AI wouldn't give a crap how the player plays and just do the job assigned to the individual player it currently operates? Like a real hockey player.

    Or am I misunderstanding something?

    As for how to play better with your AI, I would suggest playing the position of the player you are controlling. For example, if you are in control of your RW, then your main focus should be to protect the right side point (or cover the opponents LD for example). If you are pulling every and any player you can gain control of to the high slot for example, then your AI has to scramble every other player and relocate them. Better to switch to the player that is in the vicinity of where you want to control rather than pulling any player you are controlling to that area. It isn't a perfect solution, but it will greatly help the AI do its job rather than focusing on moving everybody around to compensate for you pulling everyone out of position. Will also help you if you want to player switch to another area. It will be better if you could switch to a player that is already there rather than switching to a player your AI is trying to relocate into a better position.

    Everything you said is correct and the problems usually arise when you're forced out of that into non ideal situations . Like in your example I were to bring the RW to the same side corner to help pressuring the puck carrier and then the AI would insist on bringing the center to replace the RW on the point even though it's not needed and the center's original position was a much more important one to take care of. I'm not sure if this particular example actually happens but it kinda shows what type of situations I mean.

    Or another example that I know that actually happens fairly often... The puck carrier is circling around between the right corner and behind the net (from the goalie's perspective) but you don't want to go chase or hit him for some reason with the RD. You just take away his chances of cutting to the middle. Then the AI controlled LD will come stand right next to you and leaves the backdoor open because I assume the AI wants you to go chase the puck carrier.

    I know there are fundamentals flaws with the AI. I see it as well when I play 6s in EASHL being the LD and I see my RD partner quit and leave me with an AI partner.

    On every single rush, the AI RD will actually impose himself on me and break out all the way up the left side. He will also literally stand 1 foot away from me in the offensive zone for about 3 seconds before realizing either I got it, or he should be elsewhere. The only time he won't do it is if I break out very aggressively and practically go ahead of my wingers which is to say, the dumbest thing to do as a defender under most circumstances.

    Every.

    Single.

    Time.

    This is why I always play RD unless I'm partnering up with a buddy.
  • untouchable_BF1
    1447 posts Member
    edited March 2020
    NHLDev wrote: »
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    I just start to think after reading this that we have some pretty fundamental disagreements on what the purpose of the AI is and how it's behavior should relate to the players actions. I'm aware that there could be some language barrier going on and I'm actually just misunderstanding but what I'm reading between the lines is this:

    1. The AI is considering a lot of lower priority things that are affecting it's judgement and causing it to make odd desicions. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things but IMO in the defesive zone the AI has two jobs: recognize the man it's supposed to cover and stay between him and the net, I as the player will take care of the rest to best of my abilities.

    2. The AI's performance is heavily affected by the actions of the player. If the player is playing out of position, the AI will play worse and it's intended to be that way. If this is correct the obvious follow up question is how the AI wants me to play then? What is the perfect way to play to maximize the performance of the AI? There's probably as many 'correct' ways to play as there are NHL 20 players so wouldn't the easier path to decent defensive AI be that the AI wouldn't give a crap how the player plays and just do the job assigned to the individual player it currently operates? Like a real hockey player.

    Or am I misunderstanding something?

    We have multiple needs for the ai in the game. Sometimes they are controlling every player on a team, sometimes they are players on a team along with other locked human players and sometimes they are on a team playing their role under ai control until a human switches into them and takes over and visa versa.

    In all cases, the ai are impacted by the decisions of their ai teammates or human players, not because we programmed them to make mistakes if the human did, just that they have more to worry about if they are in a 2 on 1 than a 2 on 2.

    We are looking to improve issues where they make blatant incorrect choices but when they decide to commit a bit too much to a pass option or to a puck carrier and leave a pass option open, these are things we can still see on a nightly basis in the real world NHL. All of those players aren't programmed to make mistakes, they can just happen relative to what your opponent does on the other side based on how you respond to the play in front of you. I don't believe they are considering too many low priority things. They may in some cases be prioritizing something too much but at some point, all of the pieces they consider are valid and are meant to only matter when they matter. On a two on one, a player isn't to a fault always going to cover the pass option as they drive passed the net while the puck carrier then cuts into the slot now the best chance of the two to score without thinking of making a defensive play on them. We have seen cases where the ai prioritizes the puck carrier too heavily but we also see cases where they stick with their player and break up a forced one timer pass -- unfortunately players remember the goals against more than the times they are bailed out. And then the other side is that we expect human players in non locked games to take control over that lone ai player if they want to have control of the outcome of their game. And that is why blatant mistakes like jumping forward trying to cover a pass lane incorrectly should be corrected -- but those are pieces that aren't by design so we have to separate those pieces from the intention.

    In games where you can switch into players and aren't locked, our goal was to have the ai play positional and play off puck defense well (intercepting/breaking up passes/pass receptions, etc.) but to only play positional against the puck carrier rather than perform defensive actions (which was in response to skill zone and increasing the skill gap on defense for competitive play).

    So I think we are all after the same things and we are always going to try and improve. But when I see a User jump and miss their assignment blatantly and then blame the ai for then doing the same thing when left hung out to dry, I am still going to call it out as it is a double standard. That is isolated from us wanting to continue to improve the ai though, which will never stop.

    I definitely agree that the AI have the ability to make the correct reads, but I also think that there should be a double standard when it comes to AI positioning in 1v1 modes as the weakside AI is way too quick to leave their position to “cover” for the strong-side D even if the strong-side isn’t that out of position.

    Scenarios where the strong-side D steps up at their own blue line and forces the attacker wide should not result in the AI weakside dman literally coming to a complete stop and opening up the passing lane. It’s a legitimate strategy to step up and force the attacker wide along the boards because if you’re able to maintain leverage on the attackers inside hip, you’re not going to get beat inside. This is especially true when you have a forward supplying back pressure on the puck (this also needs to be more consistent in this game) because even if you step and miss, you cause the attacker to make a lateral move should allow your forward enough time to catch and angle the attacker back to the boards, so again the weakside should never see that scenario and alter assignments.

    This gets into playing the game the way the AI wants you to play vs playing the way the real sport is played. IMO the AI can’t handle just how complex these scenarios are and in-turn make egregious mistakes due to the fact that they aren’t human. I don’t think it’s a coding error nor intentional, I think it’s just the current limitations of AI. I think this is why either having a more statically-programmed weakside defensemen would be beneficial, or at least drastically tone down their desire to leave their assignments because it seems like they really panic in scenarios where there’s absolutely no reason too.

    And of course us humans are going to remember the bad outcomes way more than the good ones and that’s obviously an unfair spot for you as a developer as you’re AI certainly make correct reads a lot of the time.

    I also think these blunders are magnified due to how immersed you can be with sliders offline when everything is going right, because this game does play a great game of hockey a lot of the time. So if that’s any consolation to you, I’ll gladly say it. The game is to a point where it’s got such a great foundation, that immersion-breaking moments are that much more scrutinized, you know?
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Juppo1996 wrote: »
    I'm not trying to sound like a contrarian on purpose and I mostly agree with Venom as well but catering to some NHL 'elite' is starting to sound really conspiracy theorish. That's probably not the case.

    I don't particularly like that notion myself. It's too easy of an "out" to blame the devs of only listening to the "elites" out there. However, many of the things they have/ at one time or another, complained about have been taken care of via an update.

    Remember back when they cried about the backup goaltenders in HUT? That option was removed soon after. A few years back, when they complained about the scoring being too difficult. Goalies got nerfed. When they complained the AI was too good and was bailing out "bad players" and "skillzoners", AI got hit.

    Let's say (hypothetically) someone like Nasher complaining alone can't sway EA's mind, but what if half of his 465K youtube subcribers decided to flud EA's facebook and/or twitter acc with said complaint. Would EA listen? I think so...

    Again, it's a little unfair to simply foist this off on their laps and blame them. But you can't underestimate the influence they have over thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands who may or may not know any better than to parrot what they utter on stream or elsewhere. And whether it's directly or indirectly, they ARE responsible for some of the changes we've seen affect this game. Sometimes for the better, but sometimes... maybe even often times, for the worse.

    There you go Mr Venom always on point they nerfed the goalies because the elite couldn't score their go to moves over and over again and let's not forget the D to D they got nerfed this year as well because the elite thought that it wasn't skillfull to score from the point ,so we're left with the ballarina hockey type game, and also as a friend of mine pointed out the also didn't like the fact the goalies covered the puck way to much ,that's probably why the goalies this year almost refuse to cover the puck

    When are you seeing goalies not cover the puck? I rarely ever have my goalie toss it back out. Once in our AI goalie in EASHL will kick it out without calling for it, but it's really rare.

    D to D shots kinda needed to change. They were pretty easy to score with. Now, they're not near as common, but certainly not impossible.

    IMO, D to D one-timers were OP due to the AI refusing to actually cover their assignments when using the “tight point” strategy. There would be legitimate risk/reward to using that strategy if it were implemented right, but unfortunately we never saw the AI competently able to cover the weakside dman, therefore they nerfed that play.

    Hopefully next-gen can offer better AI play so that skilled plays like that don’t need to be so watered-down.

    Thank you ,yes last year tight point would help almost negate the d to d ,but this year almost everyone plays collapsing and protect the net including myself, because d to d are almost rare
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!