EA Forums - Banner

EA wants gameplay videos of problems, I will start posting them

Replies

  • You don't need to follow the side of the board.

    You could cut into the middle, and Coffey goes behind you on the right side. 2 on 1.

    But ofc the CPU thinks diffrent then you sometimes.
  • jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Look at this one. A 2 on 1 rush in overtime, Rivals game. I made a pass to Coffey but he decided to quit the rush and I lost the game.


    He was about to cut in behind of you... To your right side.

    Wasen't gonna change.

    It was your pass to 'no one' that screw this up.

    Cut behind me on a 2 on 1 rush. Are you *******ing serious? Have you ever played a real game of hockey? Show me a video of an NHL game where this kind a thing happened. Good luck finding one. Tell you what, a guy that does that in a real NHL game will end up on waivers the next morning.

    Lol what? You’ve never seen a drop-pass utilized on a 2-on-1? Especially in the scenario you’re in (on the wall with space on your strong side) it makes sense for the carrier to cut in while the guy in the middle cuts towards the puck, behind the carrier (to shield the puck), get a drop pass, and it creates a huge, exploitable gap between the new carrier and the defenseman plus it sets up the return pass, and especially in this case it gets both offensive players onto their off-wings which means both options are in prime shooting positions lol.

    If all you’ve ever been taught on a 2-on-1 is to mindlessly skate in a straight line like you’re a bubble hockey player on a rail, then you haven’t been coached well.
  • jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Look at this one. A 2 on 1 rush in overtime, Rivals game. I made a pass to Coffey but he decided to quit the rush and I lost the game.


    He was about to cut in behind of you... To your right side.

    Wasen't gonna change.

    It was your pass to 'no one' that screw this up.

    Cut behind me on a 2 on 1 rush. Are you *******ing serious? Have you ever played a real game of hockey? Show me a video of an NHL game where this kind a thing happened. Good luck finding one. Tell you what, a guy that does that in a real NHL game will end up on waivers the next morning.

    Lol what? You’ve never seen a drop-pass utilized on a 2-on-1? Especially in the scenario you’re in (on the wall with space on your strong side) it makes sense for the carrier to cut in while the guy in the middle cuts towards the puck, behind the carrier (to shield the puck), get a drop pass, and it creates a huge, exploitable gap between the new carrier and the defenseman plus it sets up the return pass, and especially in this case it gets both offensive players onto their off-wings which means both options are in prime shooting positions lol.

    If all you’ve ever been taught on a 2-on-1 is to mindlessly skate in a straight line like you’re a bubble hockey player on a rail, then you haven’t been coached well.

    LOL I'm not going to waste my time arguing this with you since your hockey IQ seems to be very low.
    I’ve played **** AAA by the way.
  • Hehe I wouldn’t question Bf1 hockey IQ if I were you. But im not, and you do what you want.

    He and I, is not defending the game, were just trying to describe a pretty common way to get the upper hand in a 2 vs 1 situation like this in the video, especially when the defender gave you surface like that to step in to the middle.

    bubble hockey player on a rail, is never a good thing in hockey, it gets pretty predictable for defenders to read that play, when they come for the hundredth time in the same 'rail'.
  • jplavoie96 wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Look at this one. A 2 on 1 rush in overtime, Rivals game. I made a pass to Coffey but he decided to quit the rush and I lost the game.

    Man do I ever hate when this happens.

    A.I. should be able to recognize a rush and negate a pending line change.

    Yeah but if look carefully, Coffey stayed on the ice the whole time. He’s still on the ice when I got scored.

    oh wow so it's even worse lmao!
  • Sega82mega wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Look at this one. A 2 on 1 rush in overtime, Rivals game. I made a pass to Coffey but he decided to quit the rush and I lost the game.


    He was about to cut in behind of you... To your right side.

    Wasen't gonna change.

    It was your pass to 'no one' that screw this up.
    Dude. No.

    The pass was "to no one" because the AI did an unthinkable and unpredictable move. It's probably easy to judge this that way in slo mo but at full speed on the rush he was passing the puck where he assumed the AI was going to be. There is no reason to anticipate the move he did. The AI's decision here is absolutely mind-numbingly stupid.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Look at this one. A 2 on 1 rush in overtime, Rivals game. I made a pass to Coffey but he decided to quit the rush and I lost the game.


    He was about to cut in behind of you... To your right side.

    Wasen't gonna change.

    It was your pass to 'no one' that screw this up.
    Dude. No.

    The pass was "to no one" because the AI did an unthinkable and unpredictable move. It's probably easy to judge this that way in slo mo but at full speed on the rush he was passing the puck where he assumed the AI was going to be. There is no reason to anticipate the move he did. The AI's decision here is absolutely mind-numbingly stupid.

    Thank you man. Finally an argument that make sense.
  • jplavoie96 wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Look at this one. A 2 on 1 rush in overtime, Rivals game. I made a pass to Coffey but he decided to quit the rush and I lost the game.


    He was about to cut in behind of you... To your right side.

    Wasen't gonna change.

    It was your pass to 'no one' that screw this up.

    Cut behind me on a 2 on 1 rush. Are you *******ing serious? Have you ever played a real game of hockey? Show me a video of an NHL game where this kind a thing happened. Good luck finding one. Tell you what, a guy that does that in a real NHL game will end up on waivers the next morning.

    Lol what? You’ve never seen a drop-pass utilized on a 2-on-1? Especially in the scenario you’re in (on the wall with space on your strong side) it makes sense for the carrier to cut in while the guy in the middle cuts towards the puck, behind the carrier (to shield the puck), get a drop pass, and it creates a huge, exploitable gap between the new carrier and the defenseman plus it sets up the return pass, and especially in this case it gets both offensive players onto their off-wings which means both options are in prime shooting positions lol.

    If all you’ve ever been taught on a 2-on-1 is to mindlessly skate in a straight line like you’re a bubble hockey player on a rail, then you haven’t been coached well.

    LOL I'm not going to waste my time arguing this with you since your hockey IQ seems to be very low.
    I’ve played **** AAA by the way.

    Yes, the guy that says “you can only skate in straight lanes” because of this healthy scratch AAA hockey experience is the guy I want to learn hockey from lol.

    Hockey is a dynamic sport, there’s endless possibilities to every situation. I’ve played and coached at a higher level than you, and I can with 100% certainty say we specifically practiced crossing on 2-on-1’s just to hammer that option in to our player’s heads. A 2-on-1 on rails is extremely predictable and in your scenario, the puck was ahead of your support by 2-3 steps with speed by the time you crossed the blueline which means the carrier needs to slowdown (you will get caught, defender takes passing option, easy breakup/turnover) a lot or risk losing a good shooting angle (deeper you drive, easier the angle for the goalie + D and goalie’s assignments are easy to read). Because of your speed this is a relatively easy read for the defender. Give you the outside, make sure you can’t pass diagonally back, then meet you around the near post once you’ve committed to shooting to ensure you can’t go far post. As a goalie, extremely easy read here if you’re going to play this like a 4th liner. I take my angle on you, my D does what I just described, and we either make a routine save and cover or maybe we even get an odd-man rush the other way after making a save on a rather shallow angle shot.

    If you were to use your gap and speed to laterally cut this forces the defender to respect your lateral drive, opens the drop pass opportunity, opens the return pass opportunity which opens either an off-wing one-timer opportunity or another pass back to another off-wing one-timer opportunity. So just to recap on today’s lesson of 2-on-1’s from someone who didn’t blindly follow nor coach static lane hockey, a lateral cut on this specific 2-on-1 would’ve resulted in 4 main “lines” of options whereas your bubble hockey technique only has 2. Bubble hockey is a necessary evil when back pressure is high and the middle of the ice isn’t readily open to be exploited, but I’ve never heard any coach worth their pay say “don’t go to the middle of the ice if it’s open” because everyone who is anyone knows going to middle and moving laterally opens exponentially more options than staying wide and straight.

    This same concept applies to breakouts. If you’re a wing and your first step is “up” after receiving the puck near the wall you just took away half of your options by choosing to up the boards. It’s pretty simple awareness and spatial recognition. This is why many good coaches are goalies. You see how inefficient, boring, and predictable “lane hockey” is. It’s a necessary evil at times, no denying that, but to simply say that a drop pass on a 2-on-1 is a stupid play without any context (or in this case, context that would easily defend a cross and a drop over bubble hockey) is nothing short of silly.

    This is hockey, not football. You don’t draw up a static play and run it regardless of context. You need to read the play and make dynamic decisions. Most highlight reel goals involve a player not “going hard to the net” or bubble hockey 2-on-1’s for this reason, they’re boring and predictable.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Look at this one. A 2 on 1 rush in overtime, Rivals game. I made a pass to Coffey but he decided to quit the rush and I lost the game.


    He was about to cut in behind of you... To your right side.

    Wasen't gonna change.

    It was your pass to 'no one' that screw this up.
    Dude. No.

    The pass was "to no one" because the AI did an unthinkable and unpredictable move. It's probably easy to judge this that way in slo mo but at full speed on the rush he was passing the puck where he assumed the AI was going to be. There is no reason to anticipate the move he did. The AI's decision here is absolutely mind-numbingly stupid.

    You shouldnt assume... And then do.. You see and then do.

    He's behavior reminds me of "everyone's" playstyle, skate as fast as you can and pass the puck as soon as you enter the zone.

    All tough that typical play happens to be pretty successful, it dosent mean it works everytime to just play on old habits. See were your own players are and in which direaction they have speed momentum.

    As you see in the clip, Coffey shows pretty early hes to go for the right side of him..

    Then blame it on 'bad changes'.. Yes sometimes it is, but not in this case.
  • jplavoie96 wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    Look at this one. A 2 on 1 rush in overtime, Rivals game. I made a pass to Coffey but he decided to quit the rush and I lost the game.


    He was about to cut in behind of you... To your right side.

    Wasen't gonna change.

    It was your pass to 'no one' that screw this up.

    Cut behind me on a 2 on 1 rush. Are you *******ing serious? Have you ever played a real game of hockey? Show me a video of an NHL game where this kind a thing happened. Good luck finding one. Tell you what, a guy that does that in a real NHL game will end up on waivers the next morning.

    Lol what? You’ve never seen a drop-pass utilized on a 2-on-1? Especially in the scenario you’re in (on the wall with space on your strong side) it makes sense for the carrier to cut in while the guy in the middle cuts towards the puck, behind the carrier (to shield the puck), get a drop pass, and it creates a huge, exploitable gap between the new carrier and the defenseman plus it sets up the return pass, and especially in this case it gets both offensive players onto their off-wings which means both options are in prime shooting positions lol.

    If all you’ve ever been taught on a 2-on-1 is to mindlessly skate in a straight line like you’re a bubble hockey player on a rail, then you haven’t been coached well.

    LOL I'm not going to waste my time arguing this with you since your hockey IQ seems to be very low.
    I’ve played **** AAA by the way.

    Yes, the guy that says “you can only skate in straight lanes” because of this healthy scratch AAA hockey experience is the guy I want to learn hockey from lol.

    Hockey is a dynamic sport, there’s endless possibilities to every situation. I’ve played and coached at a higher level than you, and I can with 100% certainty say we specifically practiced crossing on 2-on-1’s just to hammer that option in to our player’s heads. A 2-on-1 on rails is extremely predictable and in your scenario, the puck was ahead of your support by 2-3 steps with speed by the time you crossed the blueline which means the carrier needs to slowdown (you will get caught, defender takes passing option, easy breakup/turnover) a lot or risk losing a good shooting angle (deeper you drive, easier the angle for the goalie + D and goalie’s assignments are easy to read). Because of your speed this is a relatively easy read for the defender. Give you the outside, make sure you can’t pass diagonally back, then meet you around the near post once you’ve committed to shooting to ensure you can’t go far post. As a goalie, extremely easy read here if you’re going to play this like a 4th liner. I take my angle on you, my D does what I just described, and we either make a routine save and cover or maybe we even get an odd-man rush the other way after making a save on a rather shallow angle shot.

    If you were to use your gap and speed to laterally cut this forces the defender to respect your lateral drive, opens the drop pass opportunity, opens the return pass opportunity which opens either an off-wing one-timer opportunity or another pass back to another off-wing one-timer opportunity. So just to recap on today’s lesson of 2-on-1’s from someone who didn’t blindly follow nor coach static lane hockey, a lateral cut on this specific 2-on-1 would’ve resulted in 4 main “lines” of options whereas your bubble hockey technique only has 2. Bubble hockey is a necessary evil when back pressure is high and the middle of the ice isn’t readily open to be exploited, but I’ve never heard any coach worth their pay say “don’t go to the middle of the ice if it’s open” because everyone who is anyone knows going to middle and moving laterally opens exponentially more options than staying wide and straight.

    This same concept applies to breakouts. If you’re a wing and your first step is “up” after receiving the puck near the wall you just took away half of your options by choosing to up the boards. It’s pretty simple awareness and spatial recognition. This is why many good coaches are goalies. You see how inefficient, boring, and predictable “lane hockey” is. It’s a necessary evil at times, no denying that, but to simply say that a drop pass on a 2-on-1 is a stupid play without any context (or in this case, context that would easily defend a cross and a drop over bubble hockey) is nothing short of silly.

    This is hockey, not football. You don’t draw up a static play and run it regardless of context. You need to read the play and make dynamic decisions. Most highlight reel goals involve a player not “going hard to the net” or bubble hockey 2-on-1’s for this reason, they’re boring and predictable.

    Thanks for todays lesson!

    What will it be next time..? 🙄😏👍
  • KidShowtime1867
    1576 posts Member
    edited February 26
    jplavoie96 wrote: »
    LOL I'm not going to waste my time arguing this with you since your hockey IQ seems to be very low.
    I’ve played **** AAA by the way.

    untouchable likely has the highest hockey IQ amongst the group here, so maybe chill a bit.
  • Sega82mega wrote: »

    You shouldnt assume... And then do.. You see and then do.

    It's called "anticipation" LOL. It's what separates mediochre hockey plays from great hockey plays.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Sega82mega
    3052 posts Member
    edited February 26
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »

    You shouldnt assume... And then do.. You see and then do.

    It's called "anticipation" LOL. It's what separates mediochre hockey plays from great hockey plays.

    Yeah and when it comes to a video game and your anticipation is 'I do it exactly like this cause thats how I always do... And it works all the time'.

    Until it dosent.

    But no worry, it's the games fault. Cause we know how this game work and we would never do wrong. We are all like a million Mcdavid's gather in a big circle of AI errors and bugs.
    Post edited by Sega82mega on
  • IceLion68
    1172 posts Member
    edited February 26
    After careful consideration I am going back on what I said earlier. While the outcome was very unfortunate, and while the AI's move was arguably a tad unexpected, I have to concede it was probably the smart choice.

    Here is why:

    The defender was giving the puck carrier TONS of space and covering the AI pretty closely. Centering a pass to the AI on his original trajectory would have been (and was) a terrible choice as the DMan was on him so tight. Odds are even if the AI had continued forward, the play would have resulted in a turnover or at the very least a failed pass attempt. With no presssure on the puck carrier and bad pass option, there was zero reason to even attempt a pass in that situation.

    It also wouldnt make much sense for the AI to break even further left as the puck carrier was already pretty wide right and the Dman would still have been in the lane.

    The AI seems to recognize all this and instead chooses to curl around behind.

    This probably made the most sense here as it gets him free of the defender and allows potentially more options than just the shot (with little chance of a good rebound chance given the defenders positioning in the middle).
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Sega82mega
    3052 posts Member
    edited February 26
    "With no presssure on the puck carrier"

    Key words.

    We - always - play with pressure on the puck carrier. But as soon people play against 'this player in the video', that - dont-put pressure. 'we dont know what to do... Like happen in this video. (and thats sad, cause thats when the fun begin, but' no one' know how to play any diffrent way)

    That actually is a video that gives cred to the game.

    But yes ice lion, you' saw' it too. Big of you to come 'clean'. 🤗
  • j0rtsu67
    604 posts Member
    edited February 26
    Hi everyone, just to clarify: replay shows control inputs of puck carrier. No matter is it you or opponent.
    He's baited you in to going for a hit while YOU are pushing LS 100% - so you are making a mistake and he got around you:
    v5DFrDn.png
    So in this example, it is #66, not #23 and the argument is incorrect.
  • Sega82mega
    3052 posts Member
    edited February 26
    j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    Hi everyone, just to clarify: replay shows control inputs of puck carrier. No matter is it you or opponent.
    He's baited you in to going for a hit while YOU are pushing LS 100% - so you are making a mistake and he got around you:
    v5DFrDn.png
    So in this example, it is #66, not #23 and the comment is not correct.

    Thanks. I was really wrong of this. But good to know. 👍

    All tough that - argument - YOU are pushing LS 100% - is often true. Without 'evidence'. 😜
  • j0rtsu67
    604 posts Member
    edited February 26
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    Hi everyone, just to clarify: replay shows control inputs of puck carrier. No matter is it you or opponent.
    He's baited you in to going for a hit while YOU are pushing LS 100% - so you are making a mistake and he got around you:
    v5DFrDn.png
    So in this example, it is #66, not #23 and the comment is not correct.

    Thanks. I was really wrong of this. But good to know. 👍
    All tough that - argument - YOU are pushing LS 100% - is often true. Without 'evidence'. 😜
    No problem. ;) And you're right about that 100% :D (edited quote after you).
    Btw it would be much better (for devs also), if there would be visuals for both/all controllers and LT/RT/L3/R3 included.
  • j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    Hi everyone, just to clarify: replay shows control inputs of puck carrier. No matter is it you or opponent.
    He's baited you in to going for a hit while YOU are pushing LS 100% - so you are making a mistake and he got around you:
    v5DFrDn.png
    So in this example, it is #66, not #23 and the comment is not correct.

    Thanks. I was really wrong of this. But good to know. 👍
    All tough that - argument - YOU are pushing LS 100% - is often true. Without 'evidence'. 😜
    No problem. ;)
    Btw it would be much better (for devs also), if there would be visuals for both/all controllers and LT/RT/L3/R3 included.

    You have to wait for what future will bring. But yeah, hurry up, give us a real hockey game. We ain't gonna live for ever! 😏
  • j0rtsu67 wrote: »
    Hi everyone, just to clarify: replay shows control inputs of puck carrier. No matter is it you or opponent.
    He's baited you in to going for a hit while YOU are pushing LS 100% - so you are making a mistake and he got around you:
    v5DFrDn.png
    So in this example, it is #66, not #23 and the argument is incorrect.

    The implication that the controller inputs were showing the defender was wrong.

    The argument, however is not incorrect. The defender was still screaming at full speed.
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!