EA Forums - Banner

When is the next tuner coming?

Replies

  • Sega82mega wrote: »
    I would vote for contact with the leg should result in a tripping call(no second chance) but not on is way back.

    But nice answer 'dev' and fun to have you around. You explain things in a good understandable way.

    Agreed. Nice to see details on how the DSS-trip works. Very useful
  • Sega82mega wrote: »
    I would vote for contact with the leg should result in a tripping call(no second chance) but not on is way back.

    But nice answer 'dev' and fun to have you around. You explain things in a good understandable way.

    maybe its a language thing but I don't understand you or I just don't agree.

    the video in question is just a typical moment in hockey that happens all game long and has likely never caused a trip in the history of hockey. so why would we want it to cause one here? Once it hits the outside leg it should basically become invisible until it comes back "out" either outside like. even then it should stay invisible to physics for at least a good second or two.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    I wonder if things like this will be fixed


    Are things like this being looked into

    This is actually an interesting one. It is not intended to turn out this way but due to the design, it makes sense it could be possible.

    When in DSS, you only trip the player if you your stick goes through a single leg inside to out or through both legs. If it makes contact with one leg outside to in, it doesn't cause a trip as this is usually a player showing control and trying to reach around from the outside and similar to cases where the stick would just get blocked/pushed away from the lead leg if the stick were in physics. If the player has less control, they are more likely to hit the conditions that do cause trips with the DSS.

    If the stick goes through a leg, it does block it from making stick on stick or stick on puck contact to also simulate that the stick, if in physics, could not have got there. However, it only blocks it for a certain amount of future frames to simulate that the player would be able to then move their stick around the block and eventually get their stick to where they want it.

    In this scenario, it is obviously one of the worst edge cases that can result from those rules because the player was able to get their stick between the legs of the player and be there for enough frames without making contact with a leg again to reset that black out timer and also without triggering a trip condition before it then allowed contact again.

    If the stick is through the legs like this incidentally with a skating animation, we don't allow incidental stick on stick contact and only allow it for manual actions (pokes and dss) due to the risk you take in possibly tripping them.

    The best fix for this (other than getting the stick fully in physics) would probably be to find a way to ignore stick on stick contact if it happens from between the legs of the player after you go through a leg indefinitely until you fully exit DSS and go into it again. However, the reason the rule exists right now is in cases where you reach from the outside and make contact with the leg and realize it and move the stick to stay outside the leg, still in DSS after the contact, and want to be able to then make future contact with the stick or puck if you can hit it clean without having to exit DSS completely first. So that is why the blackout window is there and opens back up at all.

    We still continue to do prototypes of the stick in physics in these scenarios and it would avoid us from having to rely on rules like this but it presents it's own set of challenges around tensions of joints in the ik chains and getting realistic resolutions.

    I did see the video when you linked it before as well so appreciate the video so that we can discuss options similar to what I wrote above.

    I thought the change was made so that when the stick goes through the outside of the body, there was no trip but there was also no interactions from the stick with physics until such a time as it comes back through the "outside edge" of the body. In the case of legs, it could be either leg. Goes in one leg, invisible until it comes back out either leg. Even then there should be a timer like 1-2 secs before the stick is physical again after leaving the outside edge.

    Are you saying that as it goes through the outside of the leg and comes back out the inside (between the legs) it becomes physical again and can disrupt the puck?

    Maybe something that can be changed in the future? That would be huge to making it feel realistic. As you've stated, real physics would be the stick bouncing off the outside of the legs and not passing through but that seems to be a "bad result". To me this would be the next best thing. And it would solve the other situation, if you poke between the legs but don't hit the legs then it should not be a trip and should interact with the other physical items like sticks and pucks. The situations where that actually happens in a game like this is going to be so rare but would be nice if it was possible.

    I'd take either to be honest. If you are swiping your DSS through legs from the time it hits the outside edge until it leaves another outside edge (plus a little realistic time penalty for "recovery") your stick should not be able to interact physically with anything.
  • Sega82mega wrote: »
    I would vote for contact with the leg should result in a tripping call(no second chance) but not on is way back.

    But nice answer 'dev' and fun to have you around. You explain things in a good understandable way.

    maybe its a language thing but I don't understand you or I just don't agree.

    the video in question is just a typical moment in hockey that happens all game long and has likely never caused a trip in the history of hockey. so why would we want it to cause one here? Once it hits the outside leg it should basically become invisible until it comes back "out" either outside like. even then it should stay invisible to physics for at least a good second or two.

    I think that is what Dev was getting at though. They are trying to have the stick not be able to make contact with the puck while it phases and only causes a trip when the DSSer is not in control. I assume that means waving it around. I cant imagine that is easy to program and develop. If they had the stick hit leg I assume it would make the players contort real strangelike. I get what you are saying though. In hockey that is a protected puck with the leg and doesnt result in a trip. The flip side says that this is an attempt to balance poke check spam as well.

    Make sense?
  • Sega82mega wrote: »
    I would vote for contact with the leg should result in a tripping call(no second chance) but not on is way back.

    But nice answer 'dev' and fun to have you around. You explain things in a good understandable way.

    maybe its a language thing but I don't understand you or I just don't agree.

    the video in question is just a typical moment in hockey that happens all game long and has likely never caused a trip in the history of hockey. so why would we want it to cause one here? Once it hits the outside leg it should basically become invisible until it comes back "out" either outside like. even then it should stay invisible to physics for at least a good second or two.

    "If it makes contact with one leg outside to in, it doesn't cause a trip as this is usually a player showing control and trying to reach around from the outside"

    Because of that.. I think it gives more 'room' to be fierce with the DSS.

    I agree a stick against the outside of the skate should not be a trip.. But beacuse sticks can't just bounce away from the skates.. I dont see any other solution then to be more hard against thoose that miss the poke.

    I would not complain if there was some more tripping calls, to clean up the worst DSS' ers.

    But I know im probebly pretty alone to think that.
  • @KidShowtime1867

    1. So game ratings by users and customers are irrelevant? Okay...

    I don't disagree with everything you are saying but I take "user ratings" on video games with a grain of salt. Especially major sports titles other than golf and baseball. It feels like the only people that take the time to submit ratings on those games are **** players. Go check for many years all the ratings on NHL, FIFA, Madden, 2K sports, UFC, etc.. They are all horrible. And you will likely not see hardly any actual ratings. 100 here, 200 there. Not like there are 10s of 1000s.

    While I agree there's plenty issues in this game and you make valid points and have a right to your opinions... these ratings are not fair ratings by any means and not really worth mentioning.
  • @KidShowtime1867

    1. So game ratings by users and customers are irrelevant? Okay...

    I don't disagree with everything you are saying but I take "user ratings" on video games with a grain of salt. Especially major sports titles other than golf and baseball. It feels like the only people that take the time to submit ratings on those games are 🎃🎃🎃🎃 players. Go check for many years all the ratings on NHL, FIFA, Madden, 2K sports, UFC, etc.. They are all horrible. And you will likely not see hardly any actual ratings. 100 here, 200 there. Not like there are 10s of 1000s.

    While I agree there's plenty issues in this game and you make valid points and have a right to your opinions... these ratings are not fair ratings by any means and not really worth mentioning.

    Maybe you are right. From what I see though the ratings are way lower than usual and there are more critical reviews by user. It may not be relevant but this game has dipped in the size of the community and overall product since 14. That is my point I guess.

    Thanks for having a conversation about it rather than doing what so and so does. Disagreements do not have to get nasty. Cheers
  • Pretty much no changes to human goalies in upcoming patch..and no tuner in sight. Ig they think human goalie mode is actually in a balanced state right now...

    @Mods can you perma ban me from here please? Or do I need to be say super toxic stuff to get the perma ban?

  • We pay money for a product.

    Yes, but that product is considered art. An interpretation of reality - in this case - the sport of hockey.

    Just because the artist (EA developers) and their representation of the sport of hockey isn't exactly the same as what YOU deem to be the proper interpretation of hockey in the virtual world does not mean you were screwed out of owning or using the 'product' you bought - it just means you don't like it.
    Some of us are not wealthy where 60-100$ means something to us. When we find the product is incomplete or doesnt work properly we are upset by this.

    I want you to provide me a list of every game that has ever been released that didn't have a bug in it.

    I also want you to show a bug in the game that is preventing you from executing the feature as advertised.

    I understand that there are bugs that make the game an unreasonable representation of hockey in your opinion, and that there are hiccups with the new BAP conversations and career-trajectory - but there isn't anything in the game right now that makes it literally unplayble (aside from network connection issues) - just things that make it not enjoyable for those who demand the game fit their view of what hockey is.
    A multi billion dollar company is basically abusing its clientele. Bugs and broken things within franchise. BAP was hyped to no end and is now disappointing. Online play is a troll fest. INCOMPLETE product.

    Aside from the bugs in franchise (which don't make the mode unplayble) - everything you've listed is just your opinion. BAP may be disappointing, but it's not unplaybale....
    There is a reason why they dont tell us anything...if we knew the truth about what was being released hundreds and thousands of people would not buy this game. The way information is passed on by the parent company is done by very intelligent design.


    This doesn't even make sense. What the heck is EA hiding from us?

    Did you read my list of bugs above or what? Is it not okay to think that way?

    It's perfectly fine to think your opinion of how hockey should be represented on the console is better than EA's execution. Nobody has said it's wrong to have that opinion.

    However, it is NOT okay to say the developers of the game are 'lazy' or 'don't know hockey' and it's NOT okay to berate a developer for providing technical insight in to the under-the-hood mechanics at play during certain scenarios.

    Again - to say the developers of the game are WRONG about the game they develop is very cringe.

    I have no idea who you are or why you choose to be rude and put words in my mouth but I will do what I can to have a conversation with you I guess.

    1. The game has a 2.4 rating on metacritic. This is not just me or a few people on the forums. This is reddit, operation sports, the forums, general opinions by a large amount of people. A LOT of people do not like this game and share the opinion that it is incomplete and not worth a regular price tag.
    2. There is a difference between a bug and a broken mess. Every game has bugs. That is not the issue. What is the issue is that people who play offline had to wait 6 weeks to be able to play franchise due to a ton of freezing issues and bugs that caused the game to crash. Online had issues with DC losses and pause glitches that have existed for years now.
    3. As far as bugs to prevent me from playing. Sure.
    A. Chemistry, coaching styles, scouting, potential are all busted in franchise. How am I supposed to "be a gm" when I cant execute this stuff? These have been an issue for years now and have not been addressed. Upon release you couldnt even edit your lines after an injury.
    B. When I play online this game and this game alone is the only one I own that has bad lag. I have a wired connection, high speed internet, and a gaming router. Yet NHL is the only one I have problems with.
    C. BAP was revamped and hyped up. When you play the mode it is only worth a single season of playing. Nothing is engaging after the rookie year and the conversations are weird. Plus, floating heads, incomplete UI graphics are completely broke.
    4. My opinion is shared by thousands...
    5. If EA was honest from the start that these things were broken and there would be so many issues upon release then a lot of people would have either waited or not purchased the game at all. Instead, everything was marketed to look fantastic but people who play these modes have found out that is not reality.
    6. I never said anyone is lazy. I never said anyone doesnt know hockey. I never berated anyone. I simply joined to forums to vent frustration over a game I paid 60$ that is incomplete. I never said any of that actually.

    Please, feel free to discuss but if you continue to be rude I will have no choice than to block you.

    Awesome job here! Imagine defending the fact that I bought this game 2 months ago and still can’t play it because franchise mode has bugs that make it unplayable, bugs that somehow went unnoticed? And that I’m waiting for the game’s THIRD update to be able to play it? And that after the last update, you couldn’t replace injured players without the game freezing LOL okay. I almost hope they add something micro-transactional to franchise mode, then these things won’t happen. Pietrangelo’s line chemistry has him maxed out on Forward Line 1, game’s not broken though. Get outtttttttta here.
  • Cote12 wrote: »

    We pay money for a product.

    Yes, but that product is considered art. An interpretation of reality - in this case - the sport of hockey.

    Just because the artist (EA developers) and their representation of the sport of hockey isn't exactly the same as what YOU deem to be the proper interpretation of hockey in the virtual world does not mean you were screwed out of owning or using the 'product' you bought - it just means you don't like it.
    Some of us are not wealthy where 60-100$ means something to us. When we find the product is incomplete or doesnt work properly we are upset by this.

    I want you to provide me a list of every game that has ever been released that didn't have a bug in it.

    I also want you to show a bug in the game that is preventing you from executing the feature as advertised.

    I understand that there are bugs that make the game an unreasonable representation of hockey in your opinion, and that there are hiccups with the new BAP conversations and career-trajectory - but there isn't anything in the game right now that makes it literally unplayble (aside from network connection issues) - just things that make it not enjoyable for those who demand the game fit their view of what hockey is.
    A multi billion dollar company is basically abusing its clientele. Bugs and broken things within franchise. BAP was hyped to no end and is now disappointing. Online play is a troll fest. INCOMPLETE product.

    Aside from the bugs in franchise (which don't make the mode unplayble) - everything you've listed is just your opinion. BAP may be disappointing, but it's not unplaybale....
    There is a reason why they dont tell us anything...if we knew the truth about what was being released hundreds and thousands of people would not buy this game. The way information is passed on by the parent company is done by very intelligent design.


    This doesn't even make sense. What the heck is EA hiding from us?

    Did you read my list of bugs above or what? Is it not okay to think that way?

    It's perfectly fine to think your opinion of how hockey should be represented on the console is better than EA's execution. Nobody has said it's wrong to have that opinion.

    However, it is NOT okay to say the developers of the game are 'lazy' or 'don't know hockey' and it's NOT okay to berate a developer for providing technical insight in to the under-the-hood mechanics at play during certain scenarios.

    Again - to say the developers of the game are WRONG about the game they develop is very cringe.

    I have no idea who you are or why you choose to be rude and put words in my mouth but I will do what I can to have a conversation with you I guess.

    1. The game has a 2.4 rating on metacritic. This is not just me or a few people on the forums. This is reddit, operation sports, the forums, general opinions by a large amount of people. A LOT of people do not like this game and share the opinion that it is incomplete and not worth a regular price tag.
    2. There is a difference between a bug and a broken mess. Every game has bugs. That is not the issue. What is the issue is that people who play offline had to wait 6 weeks to be able to play franchise due to a ton of freezing issues and bugs that caused the game to crash. Online had issues with DC losses and pause glitches that have existed for years now.
    3. As far as bugs to prevent me from playing. Sure.
    A. Chemistry, coaching styles, scouting, potential are all busted in franchise. How am I supposed to "be a gm" when I cant execute this stuff? These have been an issue for years now and have not been addressed. Upon release you couldnt even edit your lines after an injury.
    B. When I play online this game and this game alone is the only one I own that has bad lag. I have a wired connection, high speed internet, and a gaming router. Yet NHL is the only one I have problems with.
    C. BAP was revamped and hyped up. When you play the mode it is only worth a single season of playing. Nothing is engaging after the rookie year and the conversations are weird. Plus, floating heads, incomplete UI graphics are completely broke.
    4. My opinion is shared by thousands...
    5. If EA was honest from the start that these things were broken and there would be so many issues upon release then a lot of people would have either waited or not purchased the game at all. Instead, everything was marketed to look fantastic but people who play these modes have found out that is not reality.
    6. I never said anyone is lazy. I never said anyone doesnt know hockey. I never berated anyone. I simply joined to forums to vent frustration over a game I paid 60$ that is incomplete. I never said any of that actually.

    Please, feel free to discuss but if you continue to be rude I will have no choice than to block you.

    Awesome job here! Imagine defending the fact that I bought this game 2 months ago and still can’t play it because franchise mode has bugs that make it unplayable, bugs that somehow went unnoticed? And that I’m waiting for the game’s THIRD update to be able to play it? And that after the last update, you couldn’t replace injured players without the game freezing LOL okay. I almost hope they add something micro-transactional to franchise mode, then these things won’t happen. Pietrangelo’s line chemistry has him maxed out on Forward Line 1, game’s not broken though. Get outtttttttta here.

    I would worry less about the defense of the game and the things trolls say on here - put him on ignore he brings nothing to the table and is trying to get people disciplined on purpose we can all see it - and more about how to make it manageable.

    As a mostly franchise player I hate to say it but turning off morale and chemistry is the only way right now. Both systems are bugged and do not make the game better. Until they are fixed we have to get them out.

    For gameplay you can try this - I turn game speed up to 6 and skating speed to 20 - acceleration to 30 and agility to 30. Makes the game animations keep up with the skating speed.

    That is the best I can do. I will continue adding detailed information to my construction thread as times goes on.
  • @KidShowtime1867

    1. So game ratings by users and customers are irrelevant? Okay...

    I don't disagree with everything you are saying but I take "user ratings" on video games with a grain of salt. Especially major sports titles other than golf and baseball. It feels like the only people that take the time to submit ratings on those games are 🎃🎃🎃🎃 players. Go check for many years all the ratings on NHL, FIFA, Madden, 2K sports, UFC, etc.. They are all horrible. And you will likely not see hardly any actual ratings. 100 here, 200 there. Not like there are 10s of 1000s.

    While I agree there's plenty issues in this game and you make valid points and have a right to your opinions... these ratings are not fair ratings by any means and not really worth mentioning.

    Maybe you are right. From what I see though the ratings are way lower than usual and there are more critical reviews by user. It may not be relevant but this game has dipped in the size of the community and overall product since 14. That is my point I guess.

    Thanks for having a conversation about it rather than doing what so and so does. Disagreements do not have to get nasty. Cheers

    yeah all those sports games keep dipping. FIFA and Madden are by far the worst at this point.

    I absolutely agree with you. HUT is the only thing keeping this game alive. So many people are addicted to that style of gaming.
  • @KidShowtime1867

    1. So game ratings by users and customers are irrelevant? Okay...

    I don't disagree with everything you are saying but I take "user ratings" on video games with a grain of salt. Especially major sports titles other than golf and baseball. It feels like the only people that take the time to submit ratings on those games are 🎃🎃🎃🎃 players. Go check for many years all the ratings on NHL, FIFA, Madden, 2K sports, UFC, etc.. They are all horrible. And you will likely not see hardly any actual ratings. 100 here, 200 there. Not like there are 10s of 1000s.

    While I agree there's plenty issues in this game and you make valid points and have a right to your opinions... these ratings are not fair ratings by any means and not really worth mentioning.

    Maybe you are right. From what I see though the ratings are way lower than usual and there are more critical reviews by user. It may not be relevant but this game has dipped in the size of the community and overall product since 14. That is my point I guess.

    Thanks for having a conversation about it rather than doing what so and so does. Disagreements do not have to get nasty. Cheers

    yeah all those sports games keep dipping. FIFA and Madden are by far the worst at this point.

    I absolutely agree with you. HUT is the only thing keeping this game alive. So many people are addicted to that style of gaming.

    It makes sense if you think about it. From what we can assume it seems like sales have dipped but the loss in revenue from that is made up for in things like HUT and FUT and MUT. In theory - especially for NHL - HUT is saving this game from being discontinued. I dont like that gameplay myself but we should probably be happy others do.
  • NHLDev
    1680 posts EA NHL Developer
    edited December 2020
    NHLDev wrote: »
    I wonder if things like this will be fixed


    Are things like this being looked into

    This is actually an interesting one. It is not intended to turn out this way but due to the design, it makes sense it could be possible.

    When in DSS, you only trip the player if you your stick goes through a single leg inside to out or through both legs. If it makes contact with one leg outside to in, it doesn't cause a trip as this is usually a player showing control and trying to reach around from the outside and similar to cases where the stick would just get blocked/pushed away from the lead leg if the stick were in physics. If the player has less control, they are more likely to hit the conditions that do cause trips with the DSS.

    If the stick goes through a leg, it does block it from making stick on stick or stick on puck contact to also simulate that the stick, if in physics, could not have got there. However, it only blocks it for a certain amount of future frames to simulate that the player would be able to then move their stick around the block and eventually get their stick to where they want it.

    In this scenario, it is obviously one of the worst edge cases that can result from those rules because the player was able to get their stick between the legs of the player and be there for enough frames without making contact with a leg again to reset that black out timer and also without triggering a trip condition before it then allowed contact again.

    If the stick is through the legs like this incidentally with a skating animation, we don't allow incidental stick on stick contact and only allow it for manual actions (pokes and dss) due to the risk you take in possibly tripping them.

    The best fix for this (other than getting the stick fully in physics) would probably be to find a way to ignore stick on stick contact if it happens from between the legs of the player after you go through a leg indefinitely until you fully exit DSS and go into it again. However, the reason the rule exists right now is in cases where you reach from the outside and make contact with the leg and realize it and move the stick to stay outside the leg, still in DSS after the contact, and want to be able to then make future contact with the stick or puck if you can hit it clean without having to exit DSS completely first. So that is why the blackout window is there and opens back up at all.

    We still continue to do prototypes of the stick in physics in these scenarios and it would avoid us from having to rely on rules like this but it presents it's own set of challenges around tensions of joints in the ik chains and getting realistic resolutions.

    I did see the video when you linked it before as well so appreciate the video so that we can discuss options similar to what I wrote above.

    I thought the change was made so that when the stick goes through the outside of the body, there was no trip but there was also no interactions from the stick with physics until such a time as it comes back through the "outside edge" of the body. In the case of legs, it could be either leg. Goes in one leg, invisible until it comes back out either leg. Even then there should be a timer like 1-2 secs before the stick is physical again after leaving the outside edge.

    Are you saying that as it goes through the outside of the leg and comes back out the inside (between the legs) it becomes physical again and can disrupt the puck?

    Maybe something that can be changed in the future? That would be huge to making it feel realistic. As you've stated, real physics would be the stick bouncing off the outside of the legs and not passing through but that seems to be a "bad result". To me this would be the next best thing. And it would solve the other situation, if you poke between the legs but don't hit the legs then it should not be a trip and should interact with the other physical items like sticks and pucks. The situations where that actually happens in a game like this is going to be so rare but would be nice if it was possible.

    I'd take either to be honest. If you are swiping your DSS through legs from the time it hits the outside edge until it leaves another outside edge (plus a little realistic time penalty for "recovery") your stick should not be able to interact physically with anything.

    That is essentially how it already works (if you go through geometry with your stick, it can't make stick or puck contact until after a certain amount of frames expire) and I describe in my previous post how seeing a situation like this leads me to believe we need a bit more additional logic or to increase that black out period (or invisible as you call it) to fix these edge cases.

    However, in most situations the current tuning works and is the right amount of time when you just make slight contact with the outside leg (where it would bounce off in physics) and can make another attempt.

    I think the best thing to look at is not allowing stick stick or stick on puck contact if it is coming through the legs from behind the player like we do with incidental contact even if you are in a poke or dss but especially if you went through a leg first and leave the blackout frames for the cases where the collisions would occur outside the legs or front only. The only reason we allowed it so far was since there was a high risk of penalty and if you happened to get the stick or puck clean, it was deserved disruption. But it definitely isn't a common defensive play from the real world sport that we necessarily have to reward anyways risk or not since it is poor positioning.

    I sent the video to other members of the team to chat about it as well.
  • MaskedMan2014
    124 posts Member
    edited December 2020
    NHLDev wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    I wonder if things like this will be fixed


    Are things like this being looked into

    This is actually an interesting one. It is not intended to turn out this way but due to the design, it makes sense it could be possible.

    When in DSS, you only trip the player if you your stick goes through a single leg inside to out or through both legs. If it makes contact with one leg outside to in, it doesn't cause a trip as this is usually a player showing control and trying to reach around from the outside and similar to cases where the stick would just get blocked/pushed away from the lead leg if the stick were in physics. If the player has less control, they are more likely to hit the conditions that do cause trips with the DSS.

    If the stick goes through a leg, it does block it from making stick on stick or stick on puck contact to also simulate that the stick, if in physics, could not have got there. However, it only blocks it for a certain amount of future frames to simulate that the player would be able to then move their stick around the block and eventually get their stick to where they want it.

    In this scenario, it is obviously one of the worst edge cases that can result from those rules because the player was able to get their stick between the legs of the player and be there for enough frames without making contact with a leg again to reset that black out timer and also without triggering a trip condition before it then allowed contact again.

    If the stick is through the legs like this incidentally with a skating animation, we don't allow incidental stick on stick contact and only allow it for manual actions (pokes and dss) due to the risk you take in possibly tripping them.

    The best fix for this (other than getting the stick fully in physics) would probably be to find a way to ignore stick on stick contact if it happens from between the legs of the player after you go through a leg indefinitely until you fully exit DSS and go into it again. However, the reason the rule exists right now is in cases where you reach from the outside and make contact with the leg and realize it and move the stick to stay outside the leg, still in DSS after the contact, and want to be able to then make future contact with the stick or puck if you can hit it clean without having to exit DSS completely first. So that is why the blackout window is there and opens back up at all.

    We still continue to do prototypes of the stick in physics in these scenarios and it would avoid us from having to rely on rules like this but it presents it's own set of challenges around tensions of joints in the ik chains and getting realistic resolutions.

    I did see the video when you linked it before as well so appreciate the video so that we can discuss options similar to what I wrote above.

    I thought the change was made so that when the stick goes through the outside of the body, there was no trip but there was also no interactions from the stick with physics until such a time as it comes back through the "outside edge" of the body. In the case of legs, it could be either leg. Goes in one leg, invisible until it comes back out either leg. Even then there should be a timer like 1-2 secs before the stick is physical again after leaving the outside edge.

    Are you saying that as it goes through the outside of the leg and comes back out the inside (between the legs) it becomes physical again and can disrupt the puck?

    Maybe something that can be changed in the future? That would be huge to making it feel realistic. As you've stated, real physics would be the stick bouncing off the outside of the legs and not passing through but that seems to be a "bad result". To me this would be the next best thing. And it would solve the other situation, if you poke between the legs but don't hit the legs then it should not be a trip and should interact with the other physical items like sticks and pucks. The situations where that actually happens in a game like this is going to be so rare but would be nice if it was possible.

    I'd take either to be honest. If you are swiping your DSS through legs from the time it hits the outside edge until it leaves another outside edge (plus a little realistic time penalty for "recovery") your stick should not be able to interact physically with anything.

    That is essentially how it already works (if you go through geometry with your stick, it can't make stick or puck contact until after a certain amount of frames expire) and I describe in my previous post how seeing a situation like this leads me to believe we need a bit more additional logic or to increase that black out period (or invisible as you call it) to fix these edge cases.

    However, in most situations the current tuning works and is the right amount of time when you just make slight contact with the outside leg (where it would bounce off in physics) and can make another attempt.

    I think the best thing to look at is not allowing stick stick or stick on puck contact if it is coming through the legs from behind the player like we do with incidental contact even if you are in a poke or dss but especially if you went through a leg first and leave the blackout frames for the cases where the collisions would occur outside the legs or front only. The only reason we allowed it so far was since there was a high risk of penalty and if you happened to get the stick or puck clean, it was deserved disruption. But it definitely isn't a common defensive play from the real world sport that we necessarily have to reward anyways risk or not since it is poor positioning.

    I sent the video to other members of the team to chat about it as well.

    @NHLDev

    Is there anyway to test this mechanic outside of playing a Play Now game vs the CPU? Meaning that if I wanted to test the limits of DSS and see the threshold for a penalty and or puck contact - for example - can I accomplish this in free skate with 2 HUM controlled players? Its really hard to be able to test this as a user in game because you need exact circumstance. If that is not an option would you consider adding in something like penalty simulation in the free skate someday?
  • high risk of penalty don't necessary mean it's bad for the game. It's about adapting to whats best for the generally gameplay.

    Penalties is defenetly a good way to adapt abit faster.

    Only problem as I see it, is that defensive skill vs offensive skill should match equal.

    And it feels like offens has a little advantage against defense.

    But to be more 'forgiving' with the pokes just because of that, is not right way to go.

    I would more go to one timers and offensive puck movements. Thats especially what gives the offense an advantage over defense. Offens is more automatically, easier to handle by your own.
  • NHLDev
    1680 posts EA NHL Developer
    NHLDev wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    I wonder if things like this will be fixed


    Are things like this being looked into

    This is actually an interesting one. It is not intended to turn out this way but due to the design, it makes sense it could be possible.

    When in DSS, you only trip the player if you your stick goes through a single leg inside to out or through both legs. If it makes contact with one leg outside to in, it doesn't cause a trip as this is usually a player showing control and trying to reach around from the outside and similar to cases where the stick would just get blocked/pushed away from the lead leg if the stick were in physics. If the player has less control, they are more likely to hit the conditions that do cause trips with the DSS.

    If the stick goes through a leg, it does block it from making stick on stick or stick on puck contact to also simulate that the stick, if in physics, could not have got there. However, it only blocks it for a certain amount of future frames to simulate that the player would be able to then move their stick around the block and eventually get their stick to where they want it.

    In this scenario, it is obviously one of the worst edge cases that can result from those rules because the player was able to get their stick between the legs of the player and be there for enough frames without making contact with a leg again to reset that black out timer and also without triggering a trip condition before it then allowed contact again.

    If the stick is through the legs like this incidentally with a skating animation, we don't allow incidental stick on stick contact and only allow it for manual actions (pokes and dss) due to the risk you take in possibly tripping them.

    The best fix for this (other than getting the stick fully in physics) would probably be to find a way to ignore stick on stick contact if it happens from between the legs of the player after you go through a leg indefinitely until you fully exit DSS and go into it again. However, the reason the rule exists right now is in cases where you reach from the outside and make contact with the leg and realize it and move the stick to stay outside the leg, still in DSS after the contact, and want to be able to then make future contact with the stick or puck if you can hit it clean without having to exit DSS completely first. So that is why the blackout window is there and opens back up at all.

    We still continue to do prototypes of the stick in physics in these scenarios and it would avoid us from having to rely on rules like this but it presents it's own set of challenges around tensions of joints in the ik chains and getting realistic resolutions.

    I did see the video when you linked it before as well so appreciate the video so that we can discuss options similar to what I wrote above.

    I thought the change was made so that when the stick goes through the outside of the body, there was no trip but there was also no interactions from the stick with physics until such a time as it comes back through the "outside edge" of the body. In the case of legs, it could be either leg. Goes in one leg, invisible until it comes back out either leg. Even then there should be a timer like 1-2 secs before the stick is physical again after leaving the outside edge.

    Are you saying that as it goes through the outside of the leg and comes back out the inside (between the legs) it becomes physical again and can disrupt the puck?

    Maybe something that can be changed in the future? That would be huge to making it feel realistic. As you've stated, real physics would be the stick bouncing off the outside of the legs and not passing through but that seems to be a "bad result". To me this would be the next best thing. And it would solve the other situation, if you poke between the legs but don't hit the legs then it should not be a trip and should interact with the other physical items like sticks and pucks. The situations where that actually happens in a game like this is going to be so rare but would be nice if it was possible.

    I'd take either to be honest. If you are swiping your DSS through legs from the time it hits the outside edge until it leaves another outside edge (plus a little realistic time penalty for "recovery") your stick should not be able to interact physically with anything.

    That is essentially how it already works (if you go through geometry with your stick, it can't make stick or puck contact until after a certain amount of frames expire) and I describe in my previous post how seeing a situation like this leads me to believe we need a bit more additional logic or to increase that black out period (or invisible as you call it) to fix these edge cases.

    However, in most situations the current tuning works and is the right amount of time when you just make slight contact with the outside leg (where it would bounce off in physics) and can make another attempt.

    I think the best thing to look at is not allowing stick stick or stick on puck contact if it is coming through the legs from behind the player like we do with incidental contact even if you are in a poke or dss but especially if you went through a leg first and leave the blackout frames for the cases where the collisions would occur outside the legs or front only. The only reason we allowed it so far was since there was a high risk of penalty and if you happened to get the stick or puck clean, it was deserved disruption. But it definitely isn't a common defensive play from the real world sport that we necessarily have to reward anyways risk or not since it is poor positioning.

    I sent the video to other members of the team to chat about it as well.

    @NHLDev

    Is there anyway to test this mechanic outside of playing a Play Now game vs the CPU? Meaning that if I wanted to test the limits of DSS and see the threshold for a penalty and or puck contact - for example - can I accomplish this in free skate with 2 HUM controlled players?

    There aren't tripping penalties in practice so you don't quite get those results. You will see a player stumble if they would have tripped at times due to some unique logic in practice mode but we have logic in there that if a penalty won't be called, we don't trip the player so that it doesn't create a balance problem in modes with less penalties or penalties off.

    You can definitely try out the stick on stick and stick on puck collisions and how going through a leg on route to a stick or puck should not allow contact. Just make sure you use a preset that that has incidental contact fully on for it to behave like online (ie using Competitive game style will be what you see in Online VS, HUT and EASHL)
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    I wonder if things like this will be fixed


    Are things like this being looked into

    This is actually an interesting one. It is not intended to turn out this way but due to the design, it makes sense it could be possible.

    When in DSS, you only trip the player if you your stick goes through a single leg inside to out or through both legs. If it makes contact with one leg outside to in, it doesn't cause a trip as this is usually a player showing control and trying to reach around from the outside and similar to cases where the stick would just get blocked/pushed away from the lead leg if the stick were in physics. If the player has less control, they are more likely to hit the conditions that do cause trips with the DSS.

    If the stick goes through a leg, it does block it from making stick on stick or stick on puck contact to also simulate that the stick, if in physics, could not have got there. However, it only blocks it for a certain amount of future frames to simulate that the player would be able to then move their stick around the block and eventually get their stick to where they want it.

    In this scenario, it is obviously one of the worst edge cases that can result from those rules because the player was able to get their stick between the legs of the player and be there for enough frames without making contact with a leg again to reset that black out timer and also without triggering a trip condition before it then allowed contact again.

    If the stick is through the legs like this incidentally with a skating animation, we don't allow incidental stick on stick contact and only allow it for manual actions (pokes and dss) due to the risk you take in possibly tripping them.

    The best fix for this (other than getting the stick fully in physics) would probably be to find a way to ignore stick on stick contact if it happens from between the legs of the player after you go through a leg indefinitely until you fully exit DSS and go into it again. However, the reason the rule exists right now is in cases where you reach from the outside and make contact with the leg and realize it and move the stick to stay outside the leg, still in DSS after the contact, and want to be able to then make future contact with the stick or puck if you can hit it clean without having to exit DSS completely first. So that is why the blackout window is there and opens back up at all.

    We still continue to do prototypes of the stick in physics in these scenarios and it would avoid us from having to rely on rules like this but it presents it's own set of challenges around tensions of joints in the ik chains and getting realistic resolutions.

    I did see the video when you linked it before as well so appreciate the video so that we can discuss options similar to what I wrote above.

    I thought the change was made so that when the stick goes through the outside of the body, there was no trip but there was also no interactions from the stick with physics until such a time as it comes back through the "outside edge" of the body. In the case of legs, it could be either leg. Goes in one leg, invisible until it comes back out either leg. Even then there should be a timer like 1-2 secs before the stick is physical again after leaving the outside edge.

    Are you saying that as it goes through the outside of the leg and comes back out the inside (between the legs) it becomes physical again and can disrupt the puck?

    Maybe something that can be changed in the future? That would be huge to making it feel realistic. As you've stated, real physics would be the stick bouncing off the outside of the legs and not passing through but that seems to be a "bad result". To me this would be the next best thing. And it would solve the other situation, if you poke between the legs but don't hit the legs then it should not be a trip and should interact with the other physical items like sticks and pucks. The situations where that actually happens in a game like this is going to be so rare but would be nice if it was possible.

    I'd take either to be honest. If you are swiping your DSS through legs from the time it hits the outside edge until it leaves another outside edge (plus a little realistic time penalty for "recovery") your stick should not be able to interact physically with anything.

    That is essentially how it already works (if you go through geometry with your stick, it can't make stick or puck contact until after a certain amount of frames expire) and I describe in my previous post how seeing a situation like this leads me to believe we need a bit more additional logic or to increase that black out period (or invisible as you call it) to fix these edge cases.

    However, in most situations the current tuning works and is the right amount of time when you just make slight contact with the outside leg (where it would bounce off in physics) and can make another attempt.

    I think the best thing to look at is not allowing stick stick or stick on puck contact if it is coming through the legs from behind the player like we do with incidental contact even if you are in a poke or dss but especially if you went through a leg first and leave the blackout frames for the cases where the collisions would occur outside the legs or front only. The only reason we allowed it so far was since there was a high risk of penalty and if you happened to get the stick or puck clean, it was deserved disruption. But it definitely isn't a common defensive play from the real world sport that we necessarily have to reward anyways risk or not since it is poor positioning.

    I sent the video to other members of the team to chat about it as well.

    @NHLDev

    Is there anyway to test this mechanic outside of playing a Play Now game vs the CPU? Meaning that if I wanted to test the limits of DSS and see the threshold for a penalty and or puck contact - for example - can I accomplish this in free skate with 2 HUM controlled players?

    There aren't tripping penalties in practice so you don't quite get those results. You will see a player stumble if they would have tripped at times due to some unique logic in practice mode but we have logic in there that if a penalty won't be called, we don't trip the player so that it doesn't create a balance problem in modes with less penalties or penalties off.

    You can definitely try out the stick on stick and stick on puck collisions and how going through a leg on route to a stick or puck should not allow contact. Just make sure you use a preset that that has incidental contact fully on for it to behave like online (ie using Competitive game style will be what you see in Online VS, HUT and EASHL)

    Thank you! I will give it a shot. At the least I should be able to get a good grip on the frame timer for sticks going through legs vs making stick or puck contact. Appreciated
  • belair_col wrote: »
    Shots from defensemen are far too weak in this game. Not only are they getting blocked frequently, but the opposing player doesn't even get stifled when blocking the shot. They're immediately in possession heading the other direction at full speed.

    EA, how frequently do odd man rushes occur off of blocked shots in the NHL?

    It's not that they are weak but they get blocked WAY too often or hits bodies it front because EA wants position players to play goalie than the actual goalie. That's why they upped the screen effect for human goalies so much. As a goalie I hate so much how many shots from the points gets blocked.

    9 out of 10 point shots are super slow and weak looking.

    Half the time it looks like it plays the animation where he whiffs, but still gets the shot off. Its like ok dude, next time just whack it with your purse.

    First game I'm playing after the update, and d to d 1 timers feel good again.
  • There wont be any tuners for 21? Since there have been 0 tuners since the game launched.
  • Would it even matter , when they won't fix the real issues in the game
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!