EA Forums - Banner

Rebound Scoring Chance too high from point shots

Prev1
"Now, the logic behind shots from the point is that a good shot will get through and also create rebounds. While it is true that 4.6% of these shots result in rebounds, you are more likely to generate a rebound scoring chances on a shot assisted from behind the net (6.4%)."

Statistics show a puck moved from Low to High before shooting, will generate a rebound scoring chance 4.6% of the time. This is gaining the corner, and working it back up to the point, getting the defense and goalie in motion. Obviously the rate of rebound scoring chances for a shot thats generated without a pass or motion would be less.

EA please correct it so that soft shots from the blueline generate a rebound scoring chance less than 1 in 20 times.



source: https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/07/11/tactalytics-using-data-to-inform-tactical-offensive-zone-decisions/
EASHL player

Replies

  • sgiz1
    537 posts Member
    I played a vs. game last night, won 2-1 but my opponent had 16 shots, 12 of them I remember were taken as he entered the zone just inside the blue line as my defender closed in on him, he didn't bother putting the puck behind the net, no attempt to cycle, no attempt to pass, just skate into zone, as defender got close he fired a shot, all game long, every single shot, with about 4 rebound shots to round out his shot total. He scored a clean wrist shot from just inside the blue line top corner on his very first shot of the game, just a floating weak wrister from way out, I threw my controller into the pillow on my couch, 🎃🎃🎃🎃!! EA!! I picked up the controller and grinded out a 2-1 win. But that doesn't change the fact this is a viable strategy in this game, enter zone, shoot, rinse, repeat, get a clean goal, hope for a deflection, and rebound opportunity.

    This turns this game into random chaos, you can't defend random chaos, that makes for a bad game.


  • sgiz1 wrote: »
    I played a vs. game last night, won 2-1 but my opponent had 16 shots, 12 of them I remember were taken as he entered the zone just inside the blue line as my defender closed in on him, he didn't bother putting the puck behind the net, no attempt to cycle, no attempt to pass, just skate into zone, as defender got close he fired a shot, all game long, every single shot, with about 4 rebound shots to round out his shot total. But that doesn't change the fact this is a viable strategy in this game, enter zone, shoot, rinse, repeat, get a clean goal, hope for a deflection, and rebound opportunity.

    This turns this game into random chaos, you can't defend random chaos, that makes for a bad game.

    I think the way goalies handle rebounds in this game needs serious improvement, but I don't see how you're calling your opponent's approach a "viable strategy" when he only scored 1 goal using it. That's a failing strategy, not a viable one.

  • "Now, the logic behind shots from the point is that a good shot will get through and also create rebounds. While it is true that 4.6% of these shots result in rebounds, you are more likely to generate a rebound scoring chances on a shot assisted from behind the net (6.4%)."

    Statistics show a puck moved from Low to High before shooting, will generate a rebound scoring chance 4.6% of the time. This is gaining the corner, and working it back up to the point, getting the defense and goalie in motion. Obviously the rate of rebound scoring chances for a shot thats generated without a pass or motion would be less.

    EA please correct it so that soft shots from the blueline generate a rebound scoring chance less than 1 in 20 times.

    source: https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/07/11/tactalytics-using-data-to-inform-tactical-offensive-zone-decisions/

    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    More important, most teams, at least in 1v1 modes, use off-handed defensemen, which means they get many more one-timers from the point than teams do IRL. Point shots in this game aren't just the result of Low-to-High passes, but also Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left passes. And when goalies are forced to move laterally, their ability to make saves and control rebounds goes down dramatically. So point shots in this game should generate goals and rebounds more frequently than IRL, because the kind of point shots people are taking are more dangerous.

  • usaalltheway1
    129 posts Member
    edited January 2017
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    So point shots in this game should generate goals and rebounds more frequently than IRL, because the kind of point shots people are taking are more dangerous.

    No. Point shots especially in online vs are absolutely way too dangerous.

    The problem is any team in online vs with just about any Dman can generate a very good scoring chance or even score on a d to d one timer all the while being practically at the blue line.

    There are really only a hand few of Dmen that are considered a threat because of the bombs they have at the point. Weber and Subban come to mind.

    Truth is coaches will live with giving a majority of Dmen time and space from such a low threat in the offensive zone. I've been to a ton of hockey games and I've seen and heard Webers and Subbans shot. Believe me , those guys are freaks and the shot just comes off their stick different. A LOT of Dmen aren't blessed with a bomb like the ones they have. Most Dmen have to move down the ice to a much dangerous area to generate offense.

    People in nhl 16 are doing D to D one timers from very low % of the ice and it's an insanely high% of how effective they are.

  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    More important, most teams, at least in 1v1 modes, use off-handed defensemen, which means they get many more one-timers from the point than teams do IRL. Point shots in this game aren't just the result of Low-to-High passes, but also Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left passes. And when goalies are forced to move laterally, their ability to make saves and control rebounds goes down dramatically. So point shots in this game should generate goals and rebounds more frequently than IRL, because the kind of point shots people are taking are more dangerous.

    I only play EASHL, so I have no opinion on how 1v1 is played.

    Crossing the blue line, delaying a little, and then taking a soft wrister gives a significantly better than 5% chance of a scoring chance off the rebound. This is a zero effort save, and the rebound should be absorbed or directed away from the slot with ease. Its probably closer to a 50% chance of generating a rebound scoring chance.

    Its not hard slappers here that are handcuffing the goalies. Basically saucer passes into the goalies pads (generated with the shot controls, not R1).

    (off topic, but) Likewise on the D to D pass; the shots that go in tend to be softer shots with no traffic. It makes up for the goalies stopping other one timers they have no business getting in front of, but makes scoring on point shots feel very unrewarding.

    EASHL player
  • The worst is aiming floaters for the pads while the rest of the team is crashing the net. Then the goalie is a dumb brick that kicks it perfectly right in front, instead of wacking it away with his stick or redirecting it into the corner, like any competent goalie.
  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    More important, most teams, at least in 1v1 modes, use off-handed defensemen, which means they get many more one-timers from the point than teams do IRL. Point shots in this game aren't just the result of Low-to-High passes, but also Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left passes. And when goalies are forced to move laterally, their ability to make saves and control rebounds goes down dramatically. So point shots in this game should generate goals and rebounds more frequently than IRL, because the kind of point shots people are taking are more dangerous.

    I only play EASHL, so I have no opinion on how 1v1 is played.

    Crossing the blue line, delaying a little, and then taking a soft wrister gives a significantly better than 5% chance of a scoring chance off the rebound. This is a zero effort save, and the rebound should be absorbed or directed away from the slot with ease. Its probably closer to a 50% chance of generating a rebound scoring chance.

    Its not hard slappers here that are handcuffing the goalies. Basically saucer passes into the goalies pads (generated with the shot controls, not R1).

    (off topic, but) Likewise on the D to D pass; the shots that go in tend to be softer shots with no traffic. It makes up for the goalies stopping other one timers they have no business getting in front of, but makes scoring on point shots feel very unrewarding.

    Yes, I shouldn't be able to do this in practice mode and get 17 juicy rebounds in a row. Goalies should be directing a large portion of these into the corners:


    As for the D to D passes, I totally agree. Even average defenders are able to take one-timers from the blue line as if they were Ovi from the top of the circle. They just need to tone it down a little bit so they're missing or hitting the goalie in the chest more often.
  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    More important, most teams, at least in 1v1 modes, use off-handed defensemen, which means they get many more one-timers from the point than teams do IRL. Point shots in this game aren't just the result of Low-to-High passes, but also Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left passes. And when goalies are forced to move laterally, their ability to make saves and control rebounds goes down dramatically. So point shots in this game should generate goals and rebounds more frequently than IRL, because the kind of point shots people are taking are more dangerous.

    I only play EASHL, so I have no opinion on how 1v1 is played.

    Crossing the blue line, delaying a little, and then taking a soft wrister gives a significantly better than 5% chance of a scoring chance off the rebound. This is a zero effort save, and the rebound should be absorbed or directed away from the slot with ease. Its probably closer to a 50% chance of generating a rebound scoring chance.

    (off topic, but) Likewise on the D to D pass; the shots that go in tend to be softer shots with no traffic. It makes up for the goalies stopping other one timers they have no business getting in front of, but makes scoring on point shots feel very unrewarding.

    Yes, goalies give up too many rebounds off soft wristers -- that's undeniable. But the passage you quoted about real-life statistics was talking about point shots set up by low-to-high passes where the goalie was forced to move. Those shots should generate rebounds in this game a reasonable percentage of the time (especially when you factor in the shorter game time), and add to that the fact that so many more point shots in this game are one-timed, and you're going to get more rebounds.

    Point is simply that you can't look at real-life statistics and say outcomes in this game should mimic them -- which is what you were saying -- without factoring in differences in the way this game is played. Very few NHL teams play defensemen on their off hands. They should, but they don't. So defensemen in the real NHL are less effective offensively, and less threatening on shots from the point than they could be, and less threatening than defensemen in this game are.


  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    More important, most teams, at least in 1v1 modes, use off-handed defensemen, which means they get many more one-timers from the point than teams do IRL. Point shots in this game aren't just the result of Low-to-High passes, but also Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left passes. And when goalies are forced to move laterally, their ability to make saves and control rebounds goes down dramatically. So point shots in this game should generate goals and rebounds more frequently than IRL, because the kind of point shots people are taking are more dangerous.

    I only play EASHL, so I have no opinion on how 1v1 is played.

    Crossing the blue line, delaying a little, and then taking a soft wrister gives a significantly better than 5% chance of a scoring chance off the rebound. This is a zero effort save, and the rebound should be absorbed or directed away from the slot with ease. Its probably closer to a 50% chance of generating a rebound scoring chance.

    Its not hard slappers here that are handcuffing the goalies. Basically saucer passes into the goalies pads (generated with the shot controls, not R1).

    (off topic, but) Likewise on the D to D pass; the shots that go in tend to be softer shots with no traffic. It makes up for the goalies stopping other one timers they have no business getting in front of, but makes scoring on point shots feel very unrewarding.

    Yes, I shouldn't be able to do this in practice mode and get 17 juicy rebounds in a row. Goalies should be directing a large portion of these into the corners:


    As for the D to D passes, I totally agree. Even average defenders are able to take one-timers from the blue line as if they were Ovi from the top of the circle. They just need to tone it down a little bit so they're missing or hitting the goalie in the chest more often.

    As a goalie, most of the time I don't have a problem with the D to D passes, shots and one-timers. They're easy to anticipate and if I have a clear shot they're easy to save.

    Now the soft floating wristers from the points can and do cause several other problems besides just rebounds. It seems like my goalie has a problem controlling it if the shot hits of my chest, he bobbles it, has trouble covering the puck, the shot somehow pops out of my trapper and the rebounds as being discussed here are horrible. The rebounds always seem to go to an opponents stick for an easy goal.

    Exactly. I was playing yesterday and remember thinking "Why does my goalie never smother the puck when it hits him in the chest on half the wrist shots. He never hugs the puck into his upper body and I see that save at least 5 times in real life".

    The rebounds are completely ridiculous however they have improved since patch in my opinion. But they need to work on the cross grain dodge goals first in my opinion.
  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    More important, most teams, at least in 1v1 modes, use off-handed defensemen, which means they get many more one-timers from the point than teams do IRL. Point shots in this game aren't just the result of Low-to-High passes, but also Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left passes. And when goalies are forced to move laterally, their ability to make saves and control rebounds goes down dramatically. So point shots in this game should generate goals and rebounds more frequently than IRL, because the kind of point shots people are taking are more dangerous.

    I only play EASHL, so I have no opinion on how 1v1 is played.

    Crossing the blue line, delaying a little, and then taking a soft wrister gives a significantly better than 5% chance of a scoring chance off the rebound. This is a zero effort save, and the rebound should be absorbed or directed away from the slot with ease. Its probably closer to a 50% chance of generating a rebound scoring chance.

    Its not hard slappers here that are handcuffing the goalies. Basically saucer passes into the goalies pads (generated with the shot controls, not R1).

    (off topic, but) Likewise on the D to D pass; the shots that go in tend to be softer shots with no traffic. It makes up for the goalies stopping other one timers they have no business getting in front of, but makes scoring on point shots feel very unrewarding.

    Yes, I shouldn't be able to do this in practice mode and get 17 juicy rebounds in a row. Goalies should be directing a large portion of these into the corners:


    As for the D to D passes, I totally agree. Even average defenders are able to take one-timers from the blue line as if they were Ovi from the top of the circle. They just need to tone it down a little bit so they're missing or hitting the goalie in the chest more often.

    As a goalie, most of the time I don't have a problem with the D to D passes, shots and one-timers. They're easy to anticipate and if I have a clear shot they're easy to save.

    Now the soft floating wristers from the points can and do cause several other problems besides just rebounds. It seems like my goalie has a problem controlling it if the shot hits of my chest, he bobbles it, has trouble covering the puck, the shot somehow pops out of my trapper and the rebounds as being discussed here are horrible. The rebounds always seem to go to an opponents stick for an easy goal.

    Exactly. I was playing yesterday and remember thinking "Why does my goalie never smother the puck when it hits him in the chest on half the wrist shots. He never hugs the puck into his upper body and I see that save at least 5 times in real life".

    The rebounds are completely ridiculous however they have improved since patch in my opinion. But they need to work on the cross grain dodge goals first in my opinion.

    It doesn't help when we have opposing forwards constantly crashing into us resulting in very inconsistent interference penalties being called.

    Or even last night. A forward swings at a rebound, missed it completely and his stick smacks my goalies mask instead and my goalie barely flinches and my mask stays on. No call. ****?

    Oh yeah interference calls too. Seems like an easy fix to me. I might be wrong but there definitely needs to be accountability of taking me out of my position and forcing me to scramble.
  • MooseHunter10
    402 posts Member
    edited January 2017
    Bmh245 wrote: »

    Yes, goalies give up too many rebounds off soft wristers -- that's undeniable. But the passage you quoted about real-life statistics was talking about point shots set up by low-to-high passes where the goalie was forced to move. Those shots should generate rebounds in this game a reasonable percentage of the time (especially when you factor in the shorter game time), and add to that the fact that so many more point shots in this game are one-timed, and you're going to get more rebounds.

    Point is simply that you can't look at real-life statistics and say outcomes in this game should mimic them -- which is what you were saying -- without factoring in differences in the way this game is played. Very few NHL teams play defensemen on their off hands. They should, but they don't. So defensemen in the real NHL are less effective offensively, and less threatening on shots from the point than they could be, and less threatening than defensemen in this game are.


    Im not trying to take anything away from the real hockey play of Corner to D to other D then shot. These hockey plays should be rewarded, and are in the game. Making the D and the Goalie move before the shot is hockey.

    Im saying that said real life play has ~5% chance of generating a rebound scoring chance in real life.
    In our video game, taking the soft shot shown in nickythewop's video, the chance of generating a rebound scoring chance is > 50%.

    This thread now has both statistical and video backup to expose a flaw in the code, and should be corrected.

    edit: I believe my thread title is leading you to believe i want all point shots to suck more. No. Just the soft wrister rebound from the blueline.
    EASHL player
  • edit: I believe my thread title is leading you to believe i want all point shots to suck more. No. Just the soft wrister rebound from the blueline.

    If that's what you're pushing for, then we have no argument. Goalies give up juicy rebounds on weak wristers -- not just from the blueline, but also from the far corners above the circles -- too often. When goalies have time to see shots and set themselves, rebounds should be smothered or kicked out to the boards, away from danger.

    This thread covered the rebound problem in considerable detail:
    https://forums.ea.com/en/ufc/discussion/84401/rebounds-rebounds-rebounds



  • Goalies don't try to cover or control rebounds ... If ea could add some real logic instead of ea logic , it would help alot , then again goalies are terrible at cover ups and are more prone to knocking it into their own net because they have no awareness and are stuck to silly animations... I like how sometimes pads absorb shots sometimes they don't ...
  • joefitz22
    643 posts Member
    edited January 2017
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    It's all about the goals goals goals!

    What about semi-realistic shot totals?

    This game is obviously only tuned for the goals though. That's my issue with the tuners and balance in this game.

    AGREED but that's also how majority of America views Sports in General. ALL about the Points scored
    Football: TD - 6pts, Extra Point - 1pt, Field Goal - 3pts, 2pt conversion - 2pts, Safety - 2pts
    Basketball: Regular Basket - 2pts, 3 Point Line Basket - 3pts, Free Throw - 1pt

    Would Football be as interesting if games were 3-0 (21-0) or 4-2 (28-14)
    You have Basketball players that are over 10,000pts in their Career (well gee, a skilled 3pt shooter can rack up some serious points in ONE game just by knocking down 3's all game long)

    I've followed the Game of Hockey for a long time. I can watch a Min / NJ Trap fest with the same interest as I can a Pens / Caps Fire wagon type game
  • joefitz22 wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    It's all about the goals goals goals!

    What about semi-realistic shot totals?

    This game is obviously only tuned for the goals though. That's my issue with the tuners and balance in this game.

    AGREED but that's also how majority of America views Sports in General. ALL about the Points scored
    Football: TD - 6pts, Extra Point - 1pt, Field Goal - 3pts, 2pt conversion - 2pts, Safety - 2pts
    Basketball: Regular Basket - 2pts, 3 Point Line Basket - 3pts, Free Throw - 1pt

    Would Football be as interesting if games were 3-0 (21-0) or 4-2 (28-14)
    You have Basketball players that are over 10,000pts in their Career (well gee, a skilled 3pt shooter can rack up some serious points in ONE game just by knocking down 3's all game long)

    I've followed the Game of Hockey for a long time. I can watch a Min / NJ Trap fest with the same interest as I can a Pens / Caps Fire wagon type game

    I just want the goals to be realistic in relation to the scoring chances and shot totals. In this series there have always been a lot more games high scoring games with low shot totals compared to low scoring games with high shot totals and the ones in between. I want the tuners/setting to result in more 4-3 games with each team having 25-35 shots. I know it's a video game and the mindset/playstyle of a lot of players are goals goals goals we don't care if our team lets in 5 as long as we score 6. I just don't think it's as fun to play knowing it's too easy for forwards to score even against some of the better D's and G's. It also doesn't help with all the **** "EA" goals that tend to happen each game.

    About an hour or so ago a few friends and I had the most enjoyable drop in game we've had this year. It was a tight hard hitting game but both teams still had plenty of chances. Both human goals quit when the game was 1-1 early in the second for unknown reasons. The AI replacement goalies were awesome which helped keep the score low and the game eventually went into OT. We were about midway through double OT and we were saying we actually didn't want the game to end. HA! A few minutes later they did winning 4-3 and the shot totals were 37 for them and 32 for us. It was approximately the equivalent of playing 6 minute periods instead of the 4 we have now. I'd easily play 1-2 games a night of 6 minute periods instead of 3-4 of the 4 minute periods we have now if the stats reflected the ones from the game above. That's why I want EA to balance the offense and the defence/goalies a lot more to achieve that.

    I stopped playing for the night after that game because it was such a fun and enjoyable game and I didn't potentially want to ruin it with the games we normally get. HA!

    Not to be pedantic, but if your games are regularly 4-3 that would be WAY above the league average for offense. Most NHL games fall around 5 goals a game. You get up to 7 and your talking 80s numbers, so if you're looking for realistic totals (and this game should be) goals should be HARD to score. I agree that EA should balance the game around 6 or 7 minute periods with AI goalies (within the variance of their abilities and ratings) stopping 91.5 to 91.7% (roughly the NHL league avg, usually shown as .915-.917) of the shots that come their way.
  • BoboFloggins
    2170 posts Member
    edited January 2017
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    joefitz22 wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You obviously have to take the time factor into consideration: we're playing 4-minute periods, not 20-minute ones, so scoring chances generated by shots have to be higher if goal totals are going to be semi-realistic.

    It's all about the goals goals goals!

    What about semi-realistic shot totals?

    This game is obviously only tuned for the goals though. That's my issue with the tuners and balance in this game.

    AGREED but that's also how majority of America views Sports in General. ALL about the Points scored
    Football: TD - 6pts, Extra Point - 1pt, Field Goal - 3pts, 2pt conversion - 2pts, Safety - 2pts
    Basketball: Regular Basket - 2pts, 3 Point Line Basket - 3pts, Free Throw - 1pt

    Would Football be as interesting if games were 3-0 (21-0) or 4-2 (28-14)
    You have Basketball players that are over 10,000pts in their Career (well gee, a skilled 3pt shooter can rack up some serious points in ONE game just by knocking down 3's all game long)

    I've followed the Game of Hockey for a long time. I can watch a Min / NJ Trap fest with the same interest as I can a Pens / Caps Fire wagon type game

    I just want the goals to be realistic in relation to the scoring chances and shot totals. In this series there have always been a lot more games high scoring games with low shot totals compared to low scoring games with high shot totals and the ones in between. I want the tuners/setting to result in more 4-3 games with each team having 25-35 shots. I know it's a video game and the mindset/playstyle of a lot of players are goals goals goals we don't care if our team lets in 5 as long as we score 6. I just don't think it's as fun to play knowing it's too easy for forwards to score even against some of the better D's and G's. It also doesn't help with all the **** "EA" goals that tend to happen each game.

    About an hour or so ago a few friends and I had the most enjoyable drop in game we've had this year. It was a tight hard hitting game but both teams still had plenty of chances. Both human goals quit when the game was 1-1 early in the second for unknown reasons. The AI replacement goalies were awesome which helped keep the score low and the game eventually went into OT. We were about midway through double OT and we were saying we actually didn't want the game to end. HA! A few minutes later they did winning 4-3 and the shot totals were 37 for them and 32 for us. It was approximately the equivalent of playing 6 minute periods instead of the 4 we have now. I'd easily play 1-2 games a night of 6 minute periods instead of 3-4 of the 4 minute periods we have now if the stats reflected the ones from the game above. That's why I want EA to balance the offense and the defence/goalies a lot more to achieve that.

    I stopped playing for the night after that game because it was such a fun and enjoyable game and I didn't potentially want to ruin it with the games we normally get. HA!

    Not to be pedantic, but if your games are regularly 4-3 that would be WAY above the league average for offense. Most NHL games fall around 5 goals a game. You get up to 7 and your talking 80s numbers, so if you're looking for realistic totals (and this game should be) goals should be HARD to score. I agree that EA should balance the game around 6 or 7 minute periods with AI goalies (within the variance of their abilities and ratings) stopping 91.5 to 91.7% (roughly the NHL league avg, usually shown as .915-.917) of the shots that come their way.

    When you start putting these types of statistical expectations on programmers, be careful what you wish for.

    you can get: Spider Man goalies, you slowing down magically on a clean break to allow d-man that you burnt to a crisp to juuuuuuuuust get there in the last second interrupt your obvious break, timely missed nets, missed tap ins and so on.
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!