EA Forums - Banner

EASHL Player Attributes Too Low?

Replies

  • B_Bunny
    893 posts Moderator
    Dixonyu wrote: »
    KoryDub wrote: »
    Dixonyu wrote: »
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    The attributes aren't as low as you think they are. Snipers wrister is 90+ and clapper is up there as well. I think every builds handeye is 90+ right now as well. Obviously a grinders shot wont be as good as the snipers, but it's still around 80.

    Just as an example, you start bringing something like that up and you lose the differences in builds. I wouldn't mind experimenting further with the builds though and adding a bit more variety.

    Where's this proof ? Where is this available?

    Seems like it's just heresay...

    Bunny is part of the GameChangers group, and knows the specifics of the builds quite well.

    Ok, so ea gives them the advantage over us ? Why can't they post the stats themselves then ?

    Whats the advantage? You see the graphs.
    PSN: B-Bunny
  • B_Bunny
    893 posts Moderator
    the question needs to be asked. if we are playing an NHL "simulation" then why do our online player's stats not reflect that? as someone else mentioned why are our EASHL players comparable to beer leaguers? if anything just bump the skating way up and leave everything else as is.

    Maybe VS is the simulation. But you certainly can't say that for HUT or EASHL and that never was the case.
    PSN: B-Bunny
  • B-Bunny wrote: »
    Dixonyu wrote: »
    KoryDub wrote: »
    Dixonyu wrote: »
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    The attributes aren't as low as you think they are. Snipers wrister is 90+ and clapper is up there as well. I think every builds handeye is 90+ right now as well. Obviously a grinders shot wont be as good as the snipers, but it's still around 80.

    Just as an example, you start bringing something like that up and you lose the differences in builds. I wouldn't mind experimenting further with the builds though and adding a bit more variety.

    Where's this proof ? Where is this available?

    Seems like it's just heresay...

    Bunny is part of the GameChangers group, and knows the specifics of the builds quite well.

    Ok, so ea gives them the advantage over us ? Why can't they post the stats themselves then ?

    Whats the advantage? You see the graphs.

    Graphs mean nothing without numbers. When it says average passing it shooting , what is average ?
  • B_Bunny
    893 posts Moderator
    edited January 2017
    Dixonyu wrote: »
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    Dixonyu wrote: »
    KoryDub wrote: »
    Dixonyu wrote: »
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    The attributes aren't as low as you think they are. Snipers wrister is 90+ and clapper is up there as well. I think every builds handeye is 90+ right now as well. Obviously a grinders shot wont be as good as the snipers, but it's still around 80.

    Just as an example, you start bringing something like that up and you lose the differences in builds. I wouldn't mind experimenting further with the builds though and adding a bit more variety.

    Where's this proof ? Where is this available?

    Seems like it's just heresay...

    Bunny is part of the GameChangers group, and knows the specifics of the builds quite well.

    Ok, so ea gives them the advantage over us ? Why can't they post the stats themselves then ?

    Whats the advantage? You see the graphs.

    Graphs mean nothing without numbers. When it says average passing it shooting , what is average ?

    The point of the builds was to make sure they FEEL like what they are supposed to. If they do, then we did our jobs. The only reason I know what the attributes are was because I helped work on them. If the attributes get posted then that goes out the window and people start nitpicking why X has 2 points over Y in Z category. Because it made him feel more like a Powerforward and less like a Two-Way Forward. "well that doesn't matter he should still have 2 less points!"

    If the attributes get posted we'll have those discussions forever. If the builds feel like they should then I think the job was done right. I certainly don't think they're perfect by any means but they're close - and it definitely isn't giving me any kind of advantage lol. Maybe for the first two weeks of NHL 16.
    PSN: B-Bunny
  • Wasn't 85 or so the max we could get ours players to in the old system?

    As for the new system, didnt EA state the prese lt builds are equivalent to second liners?

    I think they're fine as is and definitely don't want to see them with higher overalls and with more skills. The majority of players can already play like all-stars with them (especially the over powered forwards). If anything I want to see them lessened a bit along with the settings tuned to make the games to be more realistic especially the stats.

    More shots but less high scoring percentage shots to increase the goalies SV %.

    A more defensive game so it doesn't seem like the end to end rushes like a lot of games are now.

    More clearing/dumping the puck on the PK instead.

    More of a fatigue factor so we play more conservative and worry about playing mistake free hockey compared playing all-star like games with end to end rushes.

    Less goals. It's way to easy to score. It should be a challenge to get a hat trick. A lot of games now are of the "last goal scored wins" mentality.

    This can be achieved with the game tuned appropriately and making the games longer. I'd rather play 1-2 longer (each 60 min) but a more realistic sim like game in a night rather than play 4-5 (each 25-30 min) shorter arcade mode like games. I just think the games would mean more if we played less of them while still playing the same amount of time as we do now.

    I think the max was high 80's for forwards, and low 90's for D, depending on the year. I don't think higher attributes necessarily means a less defensive game though. I could argue that higher attributes means defenders not getting walked through because they can poke check better, intercept passes forced through the slot more often, and have better gap control, forcing teams to be more creative on offense.

    Also, a 60 minute game just isn't going to fly any way you cut it. I've played a few games that lasted that long due to OT, and they're just plain boring to the point that I just want it to end so I can play a different team. I know some folks really want the full realism aspect here, but it's absolutely not going to work well as the default EASHL mode.

    I simply disagree. The game style is usually based on the overall skill and talent levels of the players. The offence also usually has the advantage and wins in this game even if the D's are higher rated and/or are better human players.

    Go play an offline mode vs a friend using both all-stars teams. Even with having some of the best ranked D, you'll both still play an offensive style of play. Now go play with two of the worst NHL teams and you'll both most likely play a more defensive game knowing you can't do it all on offence.

    If the D had better defensive tools and abilities, yes the game would generally be more defensive and lower scoring but the offence usually still always wins out.

    It's just the way EA wants their game to play.

    As for longer game durations; I love OT games. I enjoy the intensity knowing that any mistake can lead to the other team scoring the game winner. In regulation time, it's really no big worry if our team makes a mistake that leads to a goal. The chances of scoring to get that goal back are very high. We can be down 3-0 going into the third and still won't worry knowing we'll eventually score and have a great chance at coming back to tie the game or win in. No lead is usually ever safe in this game.

    I don't see how you can be bored of playing a certain team/players enough that you just want the game to end to play another team/players if you're currently in a good game. I've been in several great games where both sides wish the game continued even after the final horn. I'll easily take good quality games over quantity.

    Do you watch a real NHL game just wishing it to be over so you can watch the next one? I don't.


    That's fair for you to disagree, maybe it just comes down to how each of us chooses to play. I've found that games with higher overall players results in a game based mostly on counter-attacks because zone entries without catching players out of position are much more difficult when they can quickly close gaps and intercept passes. Not only do you need to worry about quickly turning up ice when you earn a takeaway, but you also have to play more conservative on offence so that you aren't giving up chances to your opponent countering either.

    I think most teams take way too many chances right now because they know that sometimes the defender will simply not be able to make basic plays, or goalies will leave terrible rebounds in front of the net. You won't be able to stop people from doing this completely, but with higher attributes, you'd expect some folks to figure out that forcing many of these plays just won't work anymore.

    An hour is simply too long for a single match of almost any online game though. Even RTS games like Starcraft 2 generally finish in closer to half an hour or so. I think the cons just outweigh any pros for having hour long games. At least half of the games have a clear winner after the ~20 minute games we have now, and forcing all of those losing teams to endure another 30 or so minutes of the other team running up the score is just going to torture them, not to mention the possibility of griefers taking penalties to make the game last even longer and things of that nature. While comebacks do happen on occasion, they're really not common enough to justify extending every game.

    When a game goes to triple OT or longer, it's generally because either the goalies are making saves they shouldn't be (which is bad), or because one team (or both) is playing extremely conservatively like the 90's Devils (which is boring). I shouldn't be able to complete a real life game of hockey faster than I can in a video game either. How I watch a game in real life has nothing to do with this subject.
  • B-Bunny wrote: »
    the question needs to be asked. if we are playing an NHL "simulation" then why do our online player's stats not reflect that? as someone else mentioned why are our EASHL players comparable to beer leaguers? if anything just bump the skating way up and leave everything else as is.

    Maybe VS is the simulation. But you certainly can't say that for HUT or EASHL and that never was the case.

    fair enough, but then why do we need "realistic" skating in EASHL and HUT?
  • B_Bunny
    893 posts Moderator
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    the question needs to be asked. if we are playing an NHL "simulation" then why do our online player's stats not reflect that? as someone else mentioned why are our EASHL players comparable to beer leaguers? if anything just bump the skating way up and leave everything else as is.

    Maybe VS is the simulation. But you certainly can't say that for HUT or EASHL and that never was the case.

    fair enough, but then why do we need "realistic" skating in EASHL and HUT?

    There's nothing realistic in HUT when you consider the boosted cards, the synergies, coaches etc. Everything is amped up in that gamemode. It's as arcade as you'll find, everything is on steroids.

    EASHL the speed was brought to an even playing field because of how out of hand things got with the builds. It was probably an easy fix to a much bigger problem. Now that we're at a place where things feel okay, I'd like to see us slowly push that line again, inch by inch.
    PSN: B-Bunny
  • HandsomeCatf1sh
    1707 posts Member
    edited January 2017
    eric57664 wrote: »
    I think the top attributes to each player are fine but the lower ones need to be lowered to really feel every players' weakness.
    Ya I agree. Every pass, every shot, every dangle shouldn't be perfect. I would hate playing with all 90 plus rated players.
    Watch a hockey game, even the best aren't making perfect plays every time. It's all about making that one or two perfect plays a game.
    I like where it's at. It feels like you really have to focus to pull of good stuff.
    [/quote
    i disagree on the focus part. In the game right now, you can make the exact right play on defense and have your stick in the lane, but somehow let it go right through the blade of your stick. It feels more like a roll of the dice than having to focus and make the best play sometimes. A more focused team is still better to have, but even the best plays can fall apart due to no fault of your own if the game decides that you should bungle it somehow.

    It's not about getting perfect passes, shots, or dangles. It's about getting the exact pass, shot, or dangle that you told your player to do. I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes, so when I pass 3 feet behind my player, or try to deke through a defender's legs, or am not smooth enough on my LS/RS movements when taking a shot, I should be punished for it. I shouldn't be punished with an inaccurate shot/pass, or a losing my handle on a deke when I actually made no error though.[/quote]

    Well I disagree, I think most of the time errors are human based, but our egos won't allow us to believe that. A lot of times I think "why didn't I break up that pass," then I look at the replay and see my stick or body position was off a bit, or I was skating by the puck way to fast.
    I'm not saying it's perfect, but if everyone was 90s or higher, it just becomes even more of a "video game."
    That's what HUT is for, or VS mode, if you want to be a superstar, play those modes.
    Leave the EASHL alone.

  • eric57664 wrote: »
    I think the top attributes to each player are fine but the lower ones need to be lowered to really feel every players' weakness.

    I agree. My passing is just about as good with a sniper as it is with a playmaker. A sniper should have a bad of passing as an enforcer. That way a team with 3 snipers should get anihilated. And they should weaken the power forwards again. Everybody is choosing power forwards because defensively they're good and offensively their shots are accurate and heavy and they can hit.

    There's literally no advantage defensively to a two way forward this year because the power forward can do exactly what they can because they're bigger so more effective poking range and they can hit.
  • Just give us some points, let us set height and weight and be done with it....
  • eric57664 wrote: »
    I think the top attributes to each player are fine but the lower ones need to be lowered to really feel every players' weakness.

    I agree. My passing is just about as good with a sniper as it is with a playmaker. A sniper should have a bad of passing as an enforcer. That way a team with 3 snipers should get anihilated. And they should weaken the power forwards again. Everybody is choosing power forwards because defensively they're good and offensively their shots are accurate and heavy and they can hit.

    There's literally no advantage defensively to a two way forward this year because the power forward can do exactly what they can because they're bigger so more effective poking range and they can hit.
    2 way forward is faster though, you can use speed and angles.
  • eric57664 wrote: »
    I think the top attributes to each player are fine but the lower ones need to be lowered to really feel every players' weakness.

    I agree. My passing is just about as good with a sniper as it is with a playmaker. A sniper should have a bad of passing as an enforcer. That way a team with 3 snipers should get anihilated. And they should weaken the power forwards again. Everybody is choosing power forwards because defensively they're good and offensively their shots are accurate and heavy and they can hit.

    There's literally no advantage defensively to a two way forward this year because the power forward can do exactly what they can because they're bigger so more effective poking range and they can hit.
    2 way forward is faster though, you can use speed and angles.

    Hardly. You'd take maybe 3 overall speed over being able to hit, a longer poking range and way better shooting and hands? There's a reason why nobody picks that class and everybody picks power forward.
  • eric57664 wrote: »
    I think the top attributes to each player are fine but the lower ones need to be lowered to really feel every players' weakness.

    I agree. My passing is just about as good with a sniper as it is with a playmaker. A sniper should have a bad of passing as an enforcer. That way a team with 3 snipers should get anihilated. And they should weaken the power forwards again. Everybody is choosing power forwards because defensively they're good and offensively their shots are accurate and heavy and they can hit.

    There's literally no advantage defensively to a two way forward this year because the power forward can do exactly what they can because they're bigger so more effective poking range and they can hit.
    2 way forward is faster though, you can use speed and angles.

    Hardly. You'd take maybe 3 overall speed over being able to hit, a longer poking range and way better shooting and hands? There's a reason why nobody picks that class and everybody picks power forward.


    "That's what I say, teach. What's the ******* difference.... OH!"

    Andrew_Dice_Clay_CDV_LD_t1024.jpg?b3f067808e872500b33dd7ef4ee517933144b05a


    let's just cut it to one build. we need total fairness.
  • I think player strengths should be more apparent also, I was using the dangler the other day just to switch it up as I usually pick grinder, and I don't see hardly any difference between their deking ability; when using the dangler I was still losing control trying to pull off simple dekes like toe drags.

    I was still not regaining possession with the between the legs deke even when the puck would be perfectly aimed in front by his stick, the spin deke I was also not able to pull off without losing the puck. So at the very least it seems the dangler is hardly any different from the grinder in terms of deking ability and hes much easier to knock off the puck as well, so this makes the dangler useless in my opinion.
  • HandsomeCatf1sh
    1707 posts Member
    edited January 2017
    eric57664 wrote: »
    I think the top attributes to each player are fine but the lower ones need to be lowered to really feel every players' weakness.

    I agree. My passing is just about as good with a sniper as it is with a playmaker. A sniper should have a bad of passing as an enforcer. That way a team with 3 snipers should get anihilated. And they should weaken the power forwards again. Everybody is choosing power forwards because defensively they're good and offensively their shots are accurate and heavy and they can hit.

    There's literally no advantage defensively to a two way forward this year because the power forward can do exactly what they can because they're bigger so more effective poking range and they can hit.
    2 way forward is faster though, you can use speed and angles.

    Hardly. You'd take maybe 3 overall speed over being able to hit, a longer poking range and way better shooting and hands? There's a reason why nobody picks that class and everybody picks power forward.
    I see good players (as someone mentioned a few posts earlier) picking 2 way a lot.

    There are differences to every player style, and depending on your skill level and abilitys, and your play style ...there is an advantage to each one.

    I heard someone say "the puck moving defensemen is usless" I thought the same at first...but I do play with him depending on who I'm playing with. I can use him effectively if I'm playing with a good team. His skating ability is super fluid and fast, his dangles are smooth and I can pass really solid with him setting up nice plays in the ozone...and break outs.
    Again, it just depends on the style you wanna play and your overall abilities.

  • B_Bunny
    893 posts Moderator
    Lynch-CAN wrote: »
    I think player strengths should be more apparent also, I was using the dangler the other day just to switch it up as I usually pick grinder, and I don't see hardly any difference between their deking ability; when using the dangler I was still losing control trying to pull off simple dekes like toe drags.

    I was still not regaining possession with the between the legs deke even when the puck would be perfectly aimed in front by his stick, the spin deke I was also not able to pull off without losing the puck. So at the very least it seems the dangler is hardly any different from the grinder in terms of deking ability and hes much easier to knock off the puck as well, so this makes the dangler useless in my opinion.

    If thats an issue it certainly isnt due to a lack of the deking attribute.
    PSN: B-Bunny
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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