Answer this one question. Why are the defensemen there?
Are you saying that the defense should be grabbing every one of these weak rebounds that would never happen in real hockey? Strategg, your name becomes less and less reliable as an informed hockey source every time you speak. You should give up on this conversation while anyone, if anyone still listens to you.
Apparently goalies have nothing to do with rebounds, defensemen grab every single shot after it hits a goalies pads, who knew?
So now you are putting words in my mouth, love it. Failed to see me say that rebound control is probably the #1 thing that goalies practice. And still stuggle to control them. You must just be a troll.
You never answered my question...
I actually made the reply before you edited your post. Should I update mine every time you update yours?
Pretty, sure that was in there from the beginning, but that just further proves the lack of comprehension one has while their mind is closed.
If it was in the post about you playing road hockey goalie, I skipped it. My bad, didn't think it had anything to do with what we were talking about... because it doesn't.
LOL. Give it up. Don't waste your time on people like him and Cogs. They are the #1 cause for aneurysms.
The NHL series isnt fun to play anymore, thats what its come down to. Ea wont give us 100% control of our player. Its frustrating and a chore to play. My team used to be hardcore players, we barely play anymore and it looks like we might stop buying NHL all together.
Can't wait for COGs and strategg to come in and say "real hockey" and "don't let them shoot from the boards" you know, because these two are hockey experts....
I mean, the amount of stuff I've learned from these two is amazing. I'll make sure to tell the Prep defensemen I work with thos year to give up the middle of the ice, because we don't want them taking weak wristers from the boards, because those will certainly result in huge rebounds in the middle of our slot. Lol...
hey can you show me where I can find the clips where a weak wrister from the boards gives a huge rebound into the middle of the slot ?
COGS, it's posts like these that make me wonder if you might literally be crazy. Crawford doesn't give up that rebound -- the initial shot never gets to him. It bounces off the Montreal player instead.
And Kuemper gives up the rebound on a point-blank slap shot from 15 feet away. Neither of these clips look anything like the clip I posted, and neither has anything to do with goalies giving up juicy rebounds on weak, unscreened shots.
COGS, it's posts like these that make me wonder if you might literally be crazy. Crawford doesn't give up that rebound -- the initial shot never gets to him. It bounces off the Montreal player instead.
And Kuemper gives up the rebound on a point-blank slap shot from 15 feet away. Neither of these clips look anything like the clip I posted, and neither has anything to do with goalies giving up juicy rebounds on weak, unscreened shots.
Not sure where this "weak" comes from its not like you can control the power of a shot. forehand glide shot is often the hardest the player can do. The rebound is not necessarily generated by the power of the shot, you have to take into consideration the goalies movement to make the save. Also how the puck is positioned when it hits the pad, and what part of the pad it hits at what angle. There are alot of factors that would go into replicating accurate rebounds. I dont know what tests EA has done, but from some of the videos with sensors i have seen I'm sure they did their homework.
The NHL series isnt fun to play anymore, thats what its come down to. Ea wont give us 100% control of our player. Its frustrating and a chore to play. My team used to be hardcore players, we barely play anymore and it looks like we might stop buying NHL all together.
Can't wait for COGs and strategg to come in and say "real hockey" and "don't let them shoot from the boards" you know, because these two are hockey experts....
I mean, the amount of stuff I've learned from these two is amazing. I'll make sure to tell the Prep defensemen I work with thos year to give up the middle of the ice, because we don't want them taking weak wristers from the boards, because those will certainly result in huge rebounds in the middle of our slot. Lol...
hey can you show me where I can find the clips where a weak wrister from the boards gives a huge rebound into the middle of the slot ?
I got you COGS, right here. Not just once, but 17 times in a row on weak, unscreened shots.
I'll be waiting for y'all to tell me how that's exactly where an NHL goalie should be leaving those rebounds, even though I've already demonstrated how easy it is for a goalie to use their stick to knock pucks into the corner. This is something I can do even on some relatively hard shots in real life. If the puck is along the ice and I can track it the whole way, I have a pretty good chance of putting that puck into the corner or to an area I think is safe.
COGS, it's posts like these that make me wonder if you might literally be crazy. Crawford doesn't give up that rebound -- the initial shot never gets to him. It bounces off the Montreal player instead.
And Kuemper gives up the rebound on a point-blank slap shot from 15 feet away. Neither of these clips look anything like the clip I posted, and neither has anything to do with goalies giving up juicy rebounds on weak, unscreened shots.
Not sure where this "weak" comes from its not like you can control the power of a shot. forehand glide shot is often the hardest the player can do. The rebound is not necessarily generated by the power of the shot, you have to take into consideration the goalies movement to make the save. Also how the puck is positioned when it hits the pad, and what part of the pad it hits at what angle.
Just stop. Look at the Hextall clip. It's not the first time it's been posted in this thread. it's a weak shot from a long way away. It's unscreened. Hextall isn't moving. He's stationary. He has all the time in the world to position himself so he doesn't give up a rebound right into the slot, or to smother it. Instead, he creates a great scoring chance for the opposition. This is a 94 goalie. He should never do that on a shot like that.
I'm seriously done with these idiots that think they now the sport simply because they play a video game of the sport which doesn't even represent the sport accurately. The physics in this game are a joke (at best), rebounds that go in directions that make absolutely no sense scientifically are routinely the cause of bad goals, for the sake of appeasing these type of "hockey fans" that think games that end 1-0 or 2-1 are "boring".
In an NHL game, scoring per game on average should be around 2.00 to 3.00, not 4.00 to 5.00 like it is now. Scoring percentage should be around 10%, not 20% like it is now.
Ben said that the game settings are set so that a game in NHL 17 that has 15 shots fired in 4 minute periods is like having 30 shots fired on net in full 20 minute periods. That's fine.
But shouldn't the goals scored also follow this percentage? Why are we seeing 5-6 goals scored per game if the shots per game represented in the video game are halved? Shouldn't we be seeing 2-3 goals scored at most??
NHL 17 could use having 2 or 3 goals per game lower on average. It won't kill the game. On the contrary it'll make things more exciting.
Kind of tired of people thinking that someone who doesnt play the game can't know the game. Just shows alot of ignorance. Its like saying someone cant know music if they dont play an instrument. Think about that. I never said it was perfect but almost all shots i have taken have had a predictable rebound.
Top 6s teams games which I've seen are either complete one-sided massacres or basketball score affairs as both sides try their best to cheese the living snot out of each other. That's to say nothing of drop in games games which are complete fuster clucks on good days.
But you know as well as I do that the game rewards bad players and punishes good ones with how contrived some of the mechanics are. How can you outplay someone for 60 minutes and allow 3 shots and yet they scored two of them from the point on a cross-grain shot that goes in unscreened or from the boards on a rebound from a weak wrister that your goalie can't control?
A real goalie is not going to let the puck bounce away like that from a weak shot, either he'll pull it in with the stick or glove, redirect it to the corner with the stick or kick it towards the board. Letting the puck rebound to the middle is a recipe for conceding a goal. This game is doing it wrong.
I'm seriously done with these **** that think they now the sport simply because they play a video game of the sport which doesn't even represent the sport accurately. The physics in this game are a joke (at best), rebounds that go in directions that make absolutely no sense scientifically are routinely the cause of bad goals, for the sake of appeasing these type of "hockey fans" that think games that end 1-0 or 2-1 are "boring".
In an NHL game, scoring per game on average should be around 2.00 to 3.00, not 4.00 to 5.00 like it is now. Scoring percentage should be around 10%, not 20% like it is now.
Ben said that the game settings are set so that a game in NHL 17 that has 15 shots fired in 4 minute periods is like having 30 shots fired on net in full 20 minute periods. That's fine.
But shouldn't the goals scored also follow this percentage? Why are we seeing 5-6 goals scored per game if the shots per game represented in the video game are halved? Shouldn't we be seeing 2-3 goals scored at most??
NHL 17 could use having 2 or 3 goals per game lower on average. It won't kill the game. On the contrary it'll make things more exciting.
There are a few things that come into play when tuning the game. We look at the real world of hockey, we listen to feedback from people playing the game and we learn from the recent and past history of hockey videogames. We take all of that into account when looking at authenticity, game balance, fun factor, etc.
When I say fun factor, we also consider both sides of the puck. People often say that we cater to players that want to score easily but we spend just as much time on offense and defense when looking at game balance -- updating and tuning mechanics to get the right balance. As you have said yourself, we have shown in our offline tuning that we are aware of the different levers needed to tune the current games mechanics to get more arcade or more full simulation experiences. However, as you mentioned, the time of the periods is a big factor in that as well.
Our aim for online games is to get over 40 combined shots in a game. Looking at the real world of hockey, we know that we could aim for 60 but then we probably wouldn't be able to have incidental contact on and/or defensive tools like the pokecheck as effective since a lot of the extra minutes in hockey are spent in the corners and battles for loose pucks in congested areas. Having those puck battles and loss of puck when you play good defense, keeps shot totals lower and thus the shot averages go down.
That said, we still aim for about 6-7 combined goals per game. Pass reception ability is a bit more forgiving than it should be and shot accuracy when fully in control is probably a bit higher as well (you can refer to our full sim settings for what we would do if the period times were double what they were for online defaults at the moment). Other sim communities have found good settings for longer periods as well.
So with that, we know our shooting percentages have to be 15+ percent.
Right now, our online averages are 5.96 combined goals per game, 39.71 shots per game and 15 percent shooting. So they are all on the bottom end of what we are aiming for, which we see as a good thing because we have made a choice to give people the tools to contain on defense.
That said, it all depends on how people play. There are people out there that shut teams out consistently and there are others giving up 7+ goals.
NHL 13 was the first game I was the gameplay producer for and we often had 1-0 games online. I am sure many of you remember that. I learned from feedback that this wasn't going to work overall. We also listened to the core EASHL community last year when players felt they were missing open nets too often and that bobbling pass receptions was really hurting the team game. As we improved defensive control in skating, pokechecking, improved incidental contact, low relative speed hitting, adding net battles and extended stick lifts, etc., it opened the door to tune some of the offensive pieces so that if you were open and have found space, you weren't as physically accountable for perfect facing for clean pass receptions and would have an easier time hitting open nets when shooting compared to games like NHL 13 and 16. With good defensive coverage though, you can shut teams down fairly well.
You guys really like to jump to conclusions. There is nothing in the game that allows goals on a certain number of shots. When I post those numbers, it is to let you know that we are aware of the numbers and how our tuning impacts them.
You could take 100 shots and never score, or you could take 5 shots and score all 5.
Shooting, passing, goalie reaction, body contact, etc. are all based off unique models. Add puck physics to that equation and you have control over your own destiny relative to everyone else that plays the game.
Regardless if we tune things to be more or less forgiving, if you take the real world of hockey into account, and maximize your chances based on what you know of the real world sport, you will increase your chance to score. However, if you get a chance from the slot, and from a twitch perspective, don't know how to settle properly, identify where the goalie is cheating more and have the ability to shoot to that location, you still may not score. If you take shots where the goalie is screened, or get him moving more so he can't settle, you increase your chance to score. If you shoot back against your momentum or just after spinning around, you are going to have far less accuracy than if you settled. Anyways, you guys know the deal, the list goes on.
Replies
LOL. Give it up. Don't waste your time on people like him and Cogs. They are the #1 cause for aneurysms.
How about this ?
https://www.nhl.com/video/crawfords-huge-sprawling-save/t-277752844/c-46332903
https://www.nhl.com/video/kuempers-sprawling-glove-save/t-277752844/c-46327503
Do you guys watch hockey ? These were both within the past 48 hours on highlight reels. How about all the other game shots/saves ?
COGS, it's posts like these that make me wonder if you might literally be crazy. Crawford doesn't give up that rebound -- the initial shot never gets to him. It bounces off the Montreal player instead.
And Kuemper gives up the rebound on a point-blank slap shot from 15 feet away. Neither of these clips look anything like the clip I posted, and neither has anything to do with goalies giving up juicy rebounds on weak, unscreened shots.
Not sure where this "weak" comes from its not like you can control the power of a shot. forehand glide shot is often the hardest the player can do. The rebound is not necessarily generated by the power of the shot, you have to take into consideration the goalies movement to make the save. Also how the puck is positioned when it hits the pad, and what part of the pad it hits at what angle. There are alot of factors that would go into replicating accurate rebounds. I dont know what tests EA has done, but from some of the videos with sensors i have seen I'm sure they did their homework.
I got you COGS, right here. Not just once, but 17 times in a row on weak, unscreened shots.
I'll be waiting for y'all to tell me how that's exactly where an NHL goalie should be leaving those rebounds, even though I've already demonstrated how easy it is for a goalie to use their stick to knock pucks into the corner. This is something I can do even on some relatively hard shots in real life. If the puck is along the ice and I can track it the whole way, I have a pretty good chance of putting that puck into the corner or to an area I think is safe.
Just stop. Look at the Hextall clip. It's not the first time it's been posted in this thread. it's a weak shot from a long way away. It's unscreened. Hextall isn't moving. He's stationary. He has all the time in the world to position himself so he doesn't give up a rebound right into the slot, or to smother it. Instead, he creates a great scoring chance for the opposition. This is a 94 goalie. He should never do that on a shot like that.
In an NHL game, scoring per game on average should be around 2.00 to 3.00, not 4.00 to 5.00 like it is now. Scoring percentage should be around 10%, not 20% like it is now.
Ben said that the game settings are set so that a game in NHL 17 that has 15 shots fired in 4 minute periods is like having 30 shots fired on net in full 20 minute periods. That's fine.
But shouldn't the goals scored also follow this percentage? Why are we seeing 5-6 goals scored per game if the shots per game represented in the video game are halved? Shouldn't we be seeing 2-3 goals scored at most??
NHL 17 could use having 2 or 3 goals per game lower on average. It won't kill the game. On the contrary it'll make things more exciting.
Top 6s teams games which I've seen are either complete one-sided massacres or basketball score affairs as both sides try their best to cheese the living snot out of each other. That's to say nothing of drop in games games which are complete fuster clucks on good days.
But you know as well as I do that the game rewards bad players and punishes good ones with how contrived some of the mechanics are. How can you outplay someone for 60 minutes and allow 3 shots and yet they scored two of them from the point on a cross-grain shot that goes in unscreened or from the boards on a rebound from a weak wrister that your goalie can't control?
There are a few things that come into play when tuning the game. We look at the real world of hockey, we listen to feedback from people playing the game and we learn from the recent and past history of hockey videogames. We take all of that into account when looking at authenticity, game balance, fun factor, etc.
When I say fun factor, we also consider both sides of the puck. People often say that we cater to players that want to score easily but we spend just as much time on offense and defense when looking at game balance -- updating and tuning mechanics to get the right balance. As you have said yourself, we have shown in our offline tuning that we are aware of the different levers needed to tune the current games mechanics to get more arcade or more full simulation experiences. However, as you mentioned, the time of the periods is a big factor in that as well.
Our aim for online games is to get over 40 combined shots in a game. Looking at the real world of hockey, we know that we could aim for 60 but then we probably wouldn't be able to have incidental contact on and/or defensive tools like the pokecheck as effective since a lot of the extra minutes in hockey are spent in the corners and battles for loose pucks in congested areas. Having those puck battles and loss of puck when you play good defense, keeps shot totals lower and thus the shot averages go down.
That said, we still aim for about 6-7 combined goals per game. Pass reception ability is a bit more forgiving than it should be and shot accuracy when fully in control is probably a bit higher as well (you can refer to our full sim settings for what we would do if the period times were double what they were for online defaults at the moment). Other sim communities have found good settings for longer periods as well.
So with that, we know our shooting percentages have to be 15+ percent.
Right now, our online averages are 5.96 combined goals per game, 39.71 shots per game and 15 percent shooting. So they are all on the bottom end of what we are aiming for, which we see as a good thing because we have made a choice to give people the tools to contain on defense.
That said, it all depends on how people play. There are people out there that shut teams out consistently and there are others giving up 7+ goals.
NHL 13 was the first game I was the gameplay producer for and we often had 1-0 games online. I am sure many of you remember that. I learned from feedback that this wasn't going to work overall. We also listened to the core EASHL community last year when players felt they were missing open nets too often and that bobbling pass receptions was really hurting the team game. As we improved defensive control in skating, pokechecking, improved incidental contact, low relative speed hitting, adding net battles and extended stick lifts, etc., it opened the door to tune some of the offensive pieces so that if you were open and have found space, you weren't as physically accountable for perfect facing for clean pass receptions and would have an easier time hitting open nets when shooting compared to games like NHL 13 and 16. With good defensive coverage though, you can shut teams down fairly well.
You could take 100 shots and never score, or you could take 5 shots and score all 5.
Shooting, passing, goalie reaction, body contact, etc. are all based off unique models. Add puck physics to that equation and you have control over your own destiny relative to everyone else that plays the game.
Regardless if we tune things to be more or less forgiving, if you take the real world of hockey into account, and maximize your chances based on what you know of the real world sport, you will increase your chance to score. However, if you get a chance from the slot, and from a twitch perspective, don't know how to settle properly, identify where the goalie is cheating more and have the ability to shoot to that location, you still may not score. If you take shots where the goalie is screened, or get him moving more so he can't settle, you increase your chance to score. If you shoot back against your momentum or just after spinning around, you are going to have far less accuracy than if you settled. Anyways, you guys know the deal, the list goes on.