EA Forums - Banner

Forcing tripping

Prev13456789
EA. Please get rid of this nonsense. I know you want less poke checks, but forcing trips when this game is already defensively gimped is bonkers. This is not DSS. This is a straight poke check. I've been snapping short videos of a lot of these lately. I've got another good one, I just need it to render.

OJm2pg5.gif

Replies

  • TheMajjam
    794 posts Member
    edited July 2020
    LOL. My head just hurts thinking about the crap show '21 is going to be like.

    uzUW5k9.gif

    I wonder if I'll even be lucky enough for an explanation on just why you'd want to do this to players not even out of position.
    Post edited by TheMajjam on
  • Follisimo
    1345 posts Member
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

  • Follisimo wrote: »
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

    1) It's slowed down. This is a tap poke check. And cut him off and do what? It's a 2 v 2 with the AI as the other D. It's a chance worth taking because, uh, had the poke just went forward it would've hit.

    3) The puck is literally right in front of me. It's another easy poke. My feet are still going in the right direction, but you see the upper body go straight for the feet. It's forcing it. Stop fighting EA's battles.
  • Follisimo wrote: »
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

    1. Umm no, the guy is gliding. Nobody IRL is missing that poke by 10 feet and jamming his stick into a guy’s legs who isn’t even pumping his feet. If he’s holding the puck out, that means he’s sacrificing speed for balance and reach to avoid the stick, and 11 out of 10 times a defender IRL is “reaching” here and attacking the stick.

    2. What do you mean by “poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it’s going to be” because these pokes are straight RB/R1 pokes. So naturally, they’re always going to be “in the moment of where the puck is at” as that poke is initiated instantly on button press. Sure, DSS could mitigate these issues, but should DSS really need to be used to prevent egregious misses like this? I don’t mind a missed auto-poke if you have low DA/stick checking attributes, but does every miss justify a penalty? The answer is no. The poking risk/reward in its current state is simply unacceptable. It’s not even remotely realistic and the reward is not nearly consistent enough.
  • Follisimo
    1345 posts Member
    edited July 2020
    Follisimo wrote: »
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

    1. Umm no, the guy is gliding. Nobody IRL is missing that poke by 10 feet and jamming his stick into a guy’s legs who isn’t even pumping his feet. If he’s holding the puck out, that means he’s sacrificing speed for balance and reach to avoid the stick, and 11 out of 10 times a defender IRL is “reaching” here and attacking the stick.

    2. What do you mean by “poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it’s going to be” because these pokes are straight RB/R1 pokes. So naturally, they’re always going to be “in the moment of where the puck is at” as that poke is initiated instantly on button press. Sure, DSS could mitigate these issues, but should DSS really need to be used to prevent egregious misses like this? I don’t mind a missed auto-poke if you have low DA/stick checking attributes, but does every miss justify a penalty? The answer is no. The poking risk/reward in its current state is simply unacceptable. It’s not even remotely realistic and the reward is not nearly consistent enough.

    1.) Watch the poke and watch the player pull the stick back. That is why the poke changes it's path.

    2.) Imo he should have poked a bit in front of the skater instead it looks like he is poking directly across at the puck.

    I don't care how people feel it should be... it's what is the game offering that matters. It existed all of NHL 20 with no changes so in my book it's working as intended to them. Will things get tweaked in NHL 21? Your guess is as good as mine but I'm sure you have a gut feeling on the answer

    We obviously never agree on things. You got your POV and I got mine. If I want changes I make a video and go into details of how I feel it should go. Other things I just accept it's part of EA's game

  • TheMajjam
    794 posts Member
    edited July 2020
    For the last time. The only actions I'm doing here is skating and poking. There's no DSS. There's no moving my right stick to change the direction of the poke. The skaters are skating in a straight line and I am in the perfect intercept angles for a poke. The stick only needs to continue on its straight forward trajectory and it'll have enough force to knock the puck away.

    But this is EA NHL we're talking about here. The player would've magnetically gained the puck back anyway and because you are DDSing, you slide right on by and out of the play. Oh, you know, like this. The skater literally has to do nothing and the puck returns back on their stick.

    8ov8b5w.gif


    In any case, for some reason, the game forces my stick to turn straight towards the feet. In motion this all is happening very fast and even I'm not that accurate to turn my upper body and go straight towards the skate.

    You want DSS. Here are some games tonight where I actually use DSS and it's NEVER in the situation above. It's mostly in desperation to keep skaters from gunning into the slot or skaters that take too much time on their breakaways (and if they're left-handed, even better).

    Ex1dvtQ.gif

    RQPVgFT.gif

    nZ14wIw.gif


    It sounds like you've given up fighting for a better game and that's okay. I'm tired of hearing "adjust to the mechanics" or "that's just how the game is". If you give EA an inch on fixing things or allow them to take advantage tilting the mechanics, they will take a mile. As long as I am playing this, I am going to fight for a better game. AN EQUAL GAME.
  • Follisimo wrote: »
    Follisimo wrote: »
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

    1. Umm no, the guy is gliding. Nobody IRL is missing that poke by 10 feet and jamming his stick into a guy’s legs who isn’t even pumping his feet. If he’s holding the puck out, that means he’s sacrificing speed for balance and reach to avoid the stick, and 11 out of 10 times a defender IRL is “reaching” here and attacking the stick.

    2. What do you mean by “poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it’s going to be” because these pokes are straight RB/R1 pokes. So naturally, they’re always going to be “in the moment of where the puck is at” as that poke is initiated instantly on button press. Sure, DSS could mitigate these issues, but should DSS really need to be used to prevent egregious misses like this? I don’t mind a missed auto-poke if you have low DA/stick checking attributes, but does every miss justify a penalty? The answer is no. The poking risk/reward in its current state is simply unacceptable. It’s not even remotely realistic and the reward is not nearly consistent enough.

    1.) Watch the poke and watch the player pull the stick back. That is why the poke changes it's path.

    2.) Imo he should have poked a bit in front of the skater instead it looks like he is poking directly across at the puck.

    I don't care how people feel it should be... it's what is the game offering that matters. It existed all of NHL 20 with no changes so in my book it's working as intended to them. Will things get tweaked in NHL 21? Your guess is as good as mine but I'm sure you have a gut feeling on the answer

    We obviously never agree on things. You got your POV and I got mine. If I want changes I make a video and go into details of how I feel it should go. Other things I just accept it's part of EA's game

    1. So every time a player pokes in what should be a relatively “safe” situation, a simple, unskilled action should manipulate the defender into taking a penalty? Idk if that’s good for game balance.I’ll have to disagree here.

    2. Again, this is a simple RB/R1 poke so this an auto-aimed poke so there’s no “aiming” on the user’s side. Sure, he could use DSS + R3 to mitigate the poor aiming, but should it really be required here? I’d argue if you haven’t removed simple poking from the game yet, that there’s an expectation that this control will be a somewhat viable/consistent method to use. In this video, it clearly shows a control used at a relatively safe spot to not only fail at getting the puck, but actually go as far as to punish the user which is not good for the game imo. He’s wanting his auto-aimed pole to not egregiously miss when the puck is left relatively unprotected which I’d have to agree with. A miss? Sure, I could live with that. A penalty here? Idk doesn’t seem great for balance imo.Guy didn’t have him beat, wasn’t from behind, this was a pretty safe position where an auto-aimed poke should probably unsuccessful at worst.

    For the “PS” part, isn’t that what he’s doing? Making a video to show what he wants corrected? I mean obviously “what the game offers is what matters” because these decisions force everyone to conform to the meta the game balances want. That’s exactly why he made this video because neither situation is accurate/simulation/realistic nor balanced from a game balance perspective.

    When simple “RS” flicks can lead to defenders taking penalties, not simply being unsuccessful, that’s not a proper balance point. This is a great video for people to offer their perspectives and discuss the game balance. For me, I will always argue for a game that’s inviting, easy to pick up and hard to master, consistent, fun, and somewhat based in reality. Situations like this are inconsistent, not enjoyable, and not based in reality. We need “poke spamming” to be combated by something more than egregious misses that lead to trips.
  • Follisimo wrote: »
    Follisimo wrote: »
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

    1. Umm no, the guy is gliding. Nobody IRL is missing that poke by 10 feet and jamming his stick into a guy’s legs who isn’t even pumping his feet. If he’s holding the puck out, that means he’s sacrificing speed for balance and reach to avoid the stick, and 11 out of 10 times a defender IRL is “reaching” here and attacking the stick.

    2. What do you mean by “poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it’s going to be” because these pokes are straight RB/R1 pokes. So naturally, they’re always going to be “in the moment of where the puck is at” as that poke is initiated instantly on button press. Sure, DSS could mitigate these issues, but should DSS really need to be used to prevent egregious misses like this? I don’t mind a missed auto-poke if you have low DA/stick checking attributes, but does every miss justify a penalty? The answer is no. The poking risk/reward in its current state is simply unacceptable. It’s not even remotely realistic and the reward is not nearly consistent enough.

    1.) Watch the poke and watch the player pull the stick back. That is why the poke changes it's path.

    2.) Imo he should have poked a bit in front of the skater instead it looks like he is poking directly across at the puck.

    I don't care how people feel it should be... it's what is the game offering that matters. It existed all of NHL 20 with no changes so in my book it's working as intended to them. Will things get tweaked in NHL 21? Your guess is as good as mine but I'm sure you have a gut feeling on the answer

    We obviously never agree on things. You got your POV and I got mine. If I want changes I make a video and go into details of how I feel it should go. Other things I just accept it's part of EA's game

    1. So every time a player pokes in what should be a relatively “safe” situation, a simple, unskilled action should manipulate the defender into taking a penalty? Idk if that’s good for game balance.I’ll have to disagree here.

    2. Again, this is a simple RB/R1 poke so this an auto-aimed poke so there’s no “aiming” on the user’s side. Sure, he could use DSS + R3 to mitigate the poor aiming, but should it really be required here? I’d argue if you haven’t removed simple poking from the game yet, that there’s an expectation that this control will be a somewhat viable/consistent method to use. In this video, it clearly shows a control used at a relatively safe spot to not only fail at getting the puck, but actually go as far as to punish the user which is not good for the game imo. He’s wanting his auto-aimed pole to not egregiously miss when the puck is left relatively unprotected which I’d have to agree with. A miss? Sure, I could live with that. A penalty here? Idk doesn’t seem great for balance imo.Guy didn’t have him beat, wasn’t from behind, this was a pretty safe position where an auto-aimed poke should probably unsuccessful at worst.

    For the “PS” part, isn’t that what he’s doing? Making a video to show what he wants corrected? I mean obviously “what the game offers is what matters” because these decisions force everyone to conform to the meta the game balances want. That’s exactly why he made this video because neither situation is accurate/simulation/realistic nor balanced from a game balance perspective.

    When simple “RS” flicks can lead to defenders taking penalties, not simply being unsuccessful, that’s not a proper balance point. This is a great video for people to offer their perspectives and discuss the game balance. For me, I will always argue for a game that’s inviting, easy to pick up and hard to master, consistent, fun, and somewhat based in reality. Situations like this are inconsistent, not enjoyable, and not based in reality. We need “poke spamming” to be combated by something more than egregious misses that lead to trips.

    Yeesh. I don't think I could've said it any better than this.
  • TheMajjam wrote: »
    Follisimo wrote: »
    Follisimo wrote: »
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

    1. Umm no, the guy is gliding. Nobody IRL is missing that poke by 10 feet and jamming his stick into a guy’s legs who isn’t even pumping his feet. If he’s holding the puck out, that means he’s sacrificing speed for balance and reach to avoid the stick, and 11 out of 10 times a defender IRL is “reaching” here and attacking the stick.

    2. What do you mean by “poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it’s going to be” because these pokes are straight RB/R1 pokes. So naturally, they’re always going to be “in the moment of where the puck is at” as that poke is initiated instantly on button press. Sure, DSS could mitigate these issues, but should DSS really need to be used to prevent egregious misses like this? I don’t mind a missed auto-poke if you have low DA/stick checking attributes, but does every miss justify a penalty? The answer is no. The poking risk/reward in its current state is simply unacceptable. It’s not even remotely realistic and the reward is not nearly consistent enough.

    1.) Watch the poke and watch the player pull the stick back. That is why the poke changes it's path.

    2.) Imo he should have poked a bit in front of the skater instead it looks like he is poking directly across at the puck.

    I don't care how people feel it should be... it's what is the game offering that matters. It existed all of NHL 20 with no changes so in my book it's working as intended to them. Will things get tweaked in NHL 21? Your guess is as good as mine but I'm sure you have a gut feeling on the answer

    We obviously never agree on things. You got your POV and I got mine. If I want changes I make a video and go into details of how I feel it should go. Other things I just accept it's part of EA's game

    1. So every time a player pokes in what should be a relatively “safe” situation, a simple, unskilled action should manipulate the defender into taking a penalty? Idk if that’s good for game balance.I’ll have to disagree here.

    2. Again, this is a simple RB/R1 poke so this an auto-aimed poke so there’s no “aiming” on the user’s side. Sure, he could use DSS + R3 to mitigate the poor aiming, but should it really be required here? I’d argue if you haven’t removed simple poking from the game yet, that there’s an expectation that this control will be a somewhat viable/consistent method to use. In this video, it clearly shows a control used at a relatively safe spot to not only fail at getting the puck, but actually go as far as to punish the user which is not good for the game imo. He’s wanting his auto-aimed pole to not egregiously miss when the puck is left relatively unprotected which I’d have to agree with. A miss? Sure, I could live with that. A penalty here? Idk doesn’t seem great for balance imo.Guy didn’t have him beat, wasn’t from behind, this was a pretty safe position where an auto-aimed poke should probably unsuccessful at worst.

    For the “PS” part, isn’t that what he’s doing? Making a video to show what he wants corrected? I mean obviously “what the game offers is what matters” because these decisions force everyone to conform to the meta the game balances want. That’s exactly why he made this video because neither situation is accurate/simulation/realistic nor balanced from a game balance perspective.

    When simple “RS” flicks can lead to defenders taking penalties, not simply being unsuccessful, that’s not a proper balance point. This is a great video for people to offer their perspectives and discuss the game balance. For me, I will always argue for a game that’s inviting, easy to pick up and hard to master, consistent, fun, and somewhat based in reality. Situations like this are inconsistent, not enjoyable, and not based in reality. We need “poke spamming” to be combated by something more than egregious misses that lead to trips.

    Yeesh. I don't think I could've said it any better than this.

    I think it’s important to highlight videos where people are actually offering constructive video evidence of things that should change for a more enjoyable game experience. I hope your video gets reviewed because I don’t think your pokes being punished in either video are examples of an acceptable game balance.

    Hockey will be back in a week. We’ll see 100’s of “poke checks” and 100’s of examples of defenders attacking the shaft of sticks via “reaching” that will not result in penalties in a single game. Heck, we’ll even multiple examples of people ACTUALLY TRIPPING or “stumbling” via a stick that will NOT result in a tripping penalty.

    I get that the “spam” needed to be addressed, but your videos are great examples that show this year went WAY too far in the other way. You should be able to successfully have an active stick in a hockey game. Playing “zone” defense and relying on pass interceptions is not how hockey is actually played. That’s why defenders play extremely tight gaps in the NHL. Passes are too well played and too fast to simply stand in passing lanes and expect clean interceptions.

    Thanks for sharing.
  • Sega82mega
    4307 posts Member
    My opinion on both clips, the D has a clear advantage to cut off the FW, no spam, no uncontrolled movement, sure hit the skates, but in a soft tap, a perfect exampel were I had love if the stick could just bounce back when it hit the skates. The D clearly deserve a second chance here because he's positioning play. That what it should be all about.
  • Sega82mega wrote: »
    My opinion on both clips, the D has a clear advantage to cut off the FW, no spam, no uncontrolled movement, sure hit the skates, but in a soft tap, a perfect exampel were I had love if the stick could just bounce back when it hit the skates. The D clearly deserve a second chance here because he's positioning play. That what it should be all about.

    Exactly. This isn’t combatting “spam” this is penalizing a player who is in-control and in a relatively safe spot to attack the puck. As a defender playing hockey, I shouldn’t be afraid that the smallest error with my stick will result in a penalty. It might result in not getting the puck, or if I’m really reaching it might leave me flat-footed resulting in me getting beat, but a really small error will not leave me in the box.

    This is not spam. This is not fun. This is not hockey.
  • EA_Blueberry
    4769 posts EA Community Manager
    Follisimo wrote: »
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

    I'd say #2 is spot on. Sorry you had some rough luck there, @TheMajjam, but the stick went directly into the puck carriers legs both time and it wasn't even a borderline call, it was blatant. I'm surprised you didn't go for hit in those spots because of the angle you had. Not the end result you wanted, I get that, and I hope you're willing to be open minded on what others are trying to explain what they recommend doing instead in those game situations to avoid penalties going forward. As for where I think you want an actual game balance change to happen, is what Untouchable_BF1 mentioned below something you agree with?
    Follisimo wrote: »

    When simple “RS” flicks can lead to defenders taking penalties, not simply being unsuccessful, that’s not a proper balance point. This is a great video for people to offer their perspectives and discuss the game balance. For me, I will always argue for a game that’s inviting, easy to pick up and hard to master, consistent, fun, and somewhat based in reality. Situations like this are inconsistent, not enjoyable, and not based in reality. We need “poke spamming” to be combated by something more than egregious misses that lead to trips.
  • untouchable_BF1
    1528 posts Member
    edited July 2020
    Just a heads up, he’s not arguing that tripping shouldn’t have happened in relation to where the stick hit, he’s wondering why his auto-aimed poke egregiously missed the supposed target (puck) and went straight into the attacker’s legs. I understand the confusion, just wanted to make that clear so the discussion can move forward.

    So, as I tried to explain in my response to the original analysis of the second poke which you agreed with, this is a simple RB/R1 poke. There is no “aiming” from the user here. This analysis doesn’t really logically explain why he took a penalty here. He can’t aim an automatically-aimed poke at all, let alone “better” in this scenario. This is not a DSS + R3 poke check where user error would logically explain the punishment.

    Here are the facts: The poke is auto-aimed, he’s not behind the player, he’s not spamming, and he’s not egregiously close to the skater.

    If I were to give you that bulleted list without seeing a video, would you agree that the decision to request an auto-aimed poke should result in a penalty? Me personally, I’d say 100% no. I don’t think there’s really any room for user improvement here other than using DSS + R3 to avoid the rather inconsistent aiming that comes with using simple RB/R1 pokes. To this point, why even have that control anymore if this outcome is deemed as logical? Just phase the simple pokes out and make people use DSS + R3 to poke.
  • jrago73
    748 posts Member
    And you wonder why people don't want to post videos. Every example gets "explained" away with some kind of excuse no matter how invalid or illogical it may be at times. "Oh your guy just temporarily went completely blind and lost all bodily control".
  • untouchable_BF1
    1528 posts Member
    edited July 2020
    jrago73 wrote: »
    And you wonder why people don't want to post videos. Every example gets "explained" away with some kind of excuse no matter how invalid or illogical it may be at times. "Oh your guy just temporarily went completely blind and lost all bodily control".

    You’d wish legitimate videos like this would get debated more. I mean, I can handle that someone doesn’t agree with me when providing evidence or articulated thoughts on the matter, but it is somewhat discouraging to see us as a whole, the entire community, not actively debating videos like this were I really think the poke check issues are shown quite clearly. It’s why I added the “checklist” because as a gamer, I don’t think my checklist was overly lenient on the defender. All of those check marks were hit yet a penalty, not just a miss, was the result of the play.

    I know that there’s many instances of videos on the interwebs of people complaining about penalties or the “penalty button” after poking from behind or super close to the carrier which dilutes the legitimate videos, but all the more reason we really need to dig into good videos as a community. Here’s to hoping we get a lot of responses and opinions here, because I think there’s certainly a middle ground to be reached when it comes to “spamming” being allowed and a play like this getting penalized.
  • IceLion68
    1624 posts Member
    TheMajjam wrote: »
    For the last time. The only actions I'm doing here is skating and poking. There's no DSS. There's no moving my right stick to change the direction of the poke. The skaters are skating in a straight line and I am in the perfect intercept angles for a poke. The stick only needs to continue on its straight forward trajectory and it'll have enough force to knock the puck away.

    Oddly enough, I feel like the in the first clip you should have been successful and the other two should have resulted in a tripping penalty... or is that what you were suggesting?
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    TheMajjam wrote: »
    For the last time. The only actions I'm doing here is skating and poking. There's no DSS. There's no moving my right stick to change the direction of the poke. The skaters are skating in a straight line and I am in the perfect intercept angles for a poke. The stick only needs to continue on its straight forward trajectory and it'll have enough force to knock the puck away.

    Oddly enough, I feel like the in the first clip you should have been successful and the other two should have resulted in a tripping penalty... or is that what you were suggesting?

    I didn’t find either to really be egregious to a point where they should be in the box. All he was saying was that both of these pokes were simple RB/R1 pokes (so not a manually aimed DSS + R3 poke) from pretty benign positions that probably shouldn’t have resulted in a trip.

    He’s trying to start a conversation with the facts:

    Not behind the skater, not too close to the skater, not spamming the poke button, and not manually aiming the poke. These facts right here should rule out “user error” from the equation so that we can all actually debate the situation and the outcome.

    We have multiple people here that agree with the trips due to poor aim, but you’d think that’d naturally lead to a discussion about simple RB/R1 aiming and success rates considering this wasn’t manually aimed. This is like a perfect scenario to debate because there isn’t an objectively right answer, this would be getting into the nitty-gritty of game balance/meta and how close or far from we are to the sweet spot. Unfortunately this thread has kind of just died.
  • The first one looks really bad. It looks like the sick is being pulled to the skate, I dont like it at all. I don't why it happend, but it definitely shouldn't.

    The 2nd looks like it trips him on the way back, I though the devs said that's couldn't happen.

    If this doesn't show an offensive bias, I don't know what does. It's like the poke doesn't have power to dislodge the puck, but the slightest touch to the skate and it completely wrecks a guy. It just don't make sense to me.
  • Follisimo wrote: »
    1.) Reaching across the body and holding out the stick is 100% on you. Wasn't really needed since you had a good cutoff on him already.

    2.) Sucks you missed the poke. Honestly feels like you are poking in the moment where the puck is at instead of where it's going to be.

    I'd say #2 is spot on. Sorry you had some rough luck there, @TheMajjam, but the stick went directly into the puck carriers legs both time and it wasn't even a borderline call, it was blatant. I'm surprised you didn't go for hit in those spots because of the angle you had. Not the end result you wanted, I get that, and I hope you're willing to be open minded on what others are trying to explain what they recommend doing instead in those game situations to avoid penalties going forward. As for where I think you want an actual game balance change to happen, is what Untouchable_BF1 mentioned below something you agree with?
    Follisimo wrote: »

    When simple “RS” flicks can lead to defenders taking penalties, not simply being unsuccessful, that’s not a proper balance point. This is a great video for people to offer their perspectives and discuss the game balance. For me, I will always argue for a game that’s inviting, easy to pick up and hard to master, consistent, fun, and somewhat based in reality. Situations like this are inconsistent, not enjoyable, and not based in reality. We need “poke spamming” to be combated by something more than egregious misses that lead to trips.

    Yikes. Kinda shocked and a wee bit disheartening to read that. The guy is in a decent place to make the play ... and a VERY low risk to take a penalty.

    Then instead of admitting flaws in the mechanics, suggest to change play? Why can’t a poke be good In that scenario? Isn’t that a hockey play? It’s been said that the developers don’t want to force players play a certain way on offense. Must we play the same on defense?
  • johnny2fingaz
    322 posts Member
    edited July 2020
    @EA_Blueberry
    Yikes. Kinda shocked and a wee bit disheartening to read that. The guy is in a decent place to make the play ... and (in real life) a VERY low risk to take a penalty.

    Then instead of admitting flaws in the mechanics, suggest to change play? Why can’t a poke be good In that scenario? Isn’t that a hockey play? It’s been said that the developers don’t want to force players play a certain way on offense. Must we play the same on defense?

    I hope 21 has some forgiveness for tripping
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.