EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 Patch Details April 3rd

image
Check out our April 3rd patch details here.

Do Endings of Games Every Feel Predetermined?

13Next

Replies

  • HandsomeCatf1sh
    1707 posts Member
    edited March 2017
    bryta47 wrote: »
    I've got exactly same feeling watching the real world game and the team that I want to win.
    Especially when my team is loosing.. suddenly every goal from the other side feels so cheap, unfair and just outcome of the icetilt :)
    Know that feeling!
    awwwwwww man
  • HandsomeCatf1sh
    1707 posts Member
    edited March 2017
    I've got exactly same feeling watching the real world game and the team that I want to win.
    Especially when my team is loosing.. suddenly every goal from the other side feels so cheap, unfair and just outcome of the icetilt :)
    I'm a Blackhawks fan, I don't know that feeling :)

  • DeejNYLV
    317 posts Member
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote:
    In the real NHL, shots from outside the circles with no lateral movement go in just 3% of the time -- 1 in every 33 shots. And that includes clean slap shots, strong wristers, etc. The probability that a weak, bad-angle wrister -- like the one in the clip below -- will go in is therefore significantly lower, probably closer to 1 in 300. But soft goals happen a lot more often than that in this game, while slap shots and wristers from above the circles go in far more often than 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 times. People are absolutely justified in complaining about the goalies in this game -- the way they're tuned is unrealistic, and helps weak players at the expense of stronger ones.


    Using the best goalie in the world is a bad example, but fine let's use that. In 2013 according to allhabs.com Price gave up 24 goals from 20 feet out or further, the longest being 48 feet. This in 39 games played. Roughly two long-distance goals every three games. That's not uncommon.

    Using Price is not a bad example. Price's base card in this game is a 92. My goalie -- the one that gave up the goal in the clip above, and the one that gets beat regularly from outside the circles -- is a 94. In other words, he's better than Price. So Price is the best comparison, only my goalie should be playing better in this game than Price does IRL.

    As for the substance, 20 feet out is not a "long-distance goal." The faceoff dots are 20 feet from the goal line. If you're shooting from there, that's prime scoring territory, and no one's complaining about goalies giving up goals from there. What I'm talking about is the fact that goalies are regularly beaten from twice that distance (or more). The blue line is 64 feet from the goal line. But high-rated goalies are beaten by clean slappers or cross-grain wristers from a few feet inside the blue line all the time in this game, even though someone like Price, by your account, gave up no goals from more than 48 ft. in 2013.

    I'll just say it again: if an average NHL goalie is facing a shot from above the circles (and that includes shots from the boards that are outside the circles), he's going to save that shot 97% of the time. If it's an exceptional NHL goalie (like the one on my team), he should save it 98-99% of the time. Even accepting that those percentages need to be adjusted downward in this game to account for shorter game time, it's simply unrealistic for goalies to be beaten as often as they are from distance on routine slappers and wristers.

    You keep quoting numbers without any citations. You're saying that a goalie stops 97% of a type of shot doesn't make it true. Realistically you are talking somewhat lower than 97%. Even if it were 97% for a top goalie. That means 3 out of every 100 shots are going in. Which means if you play a lot of games, it will legitimately happen a lot. "My goalies should have had that" is just bad criticism of the game. I still don't see anything but confirmation bias in your argument.
  • Bmh245
    905 posts Member
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote:
    In the real NHL, shots from outside the circles with no lateral movement go in just 3% of the time -- 1 in every 33 shots. And that includes clean slap shots, strong wristers, etc. The probability that a weak, bad-angle wrister -- like the one in the clip below -- will go in is therefore significantly lower, probably closer to 1 in 300. But soft goals happen a lot more often than that in this game, while slap shots and wristers from above the circles go in far more often than 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 times. People are absolutely justified in complaining about the goalies in this game -- the way they're tuned is unrealistic, and helps weak players at the expense of stronger ones.

    Using the best goalie in the world is a bad example, but fine let's use that. In 2013 according to allhabs.com Price gave up 24 goals from 20 feet out or further, the longest being 48 feet. This in 39 games played. Roughly two long-distance goals every three games. That's not uncommon.

    Using Price is not a bad example. Price's base card in this game is a 92. My goalie -- the one that gave up the goal in the clip above, and the one that gets beat regularly from outside the circles -- is a 94. In other words, he's better than Price. So Price is the best comparison, only my goalie should be playing better in this game than Price does IRL.

    As for the substance, 20 feet out is not a "long-distance goal." The faceoff dots are 20 feet from the goal line. If you're shooting from there, that's prime scoring territory, and no one's complaining about goalies giving up goals from there. What I'm talking about is the fact that goalies are regularly beaten from twice that distance (or more). The blue line is 64 feet from the goal line. But high-rated goalies are beaten by clean slappers or cross-grain wristers from a few feet inside the blue line all the time in this game, even though someone like Price, by your account, gave up no goals from more than 48 ft. in 2013.

    I'll just say it again: if an average NHL goalie is facing a shot from above the circles (and that includes shots from the boards that are outside the circles), he's going to save that shot 97% of the time. If it's an exceptional NHL goalie (like the one on my team), he should save it 98-99% of the time. Even accepting that those percentages need to be adjusted downward in this game to account for shorter game time, it's simply unrealistic for goalies to be beaten as often as they are from distance on routine slappers and wristers.

    You keep quoting numbers without any citations. You're saying that a goalie stops 97% of a type of shot doesn't make it true. Realistically you are talking somewhat lower than 97%. Even if it were 97% for a top goalie. That means 3 out of every 100 shots are going in. Which means if you play a lot of games, it will legitimately happen a lot. "My goalies should have had that" is just bad criticism of the game. I still don't see anything but confirmation bias in your argument.

    Where is the confirmation bias in my argument? Do top-rated goalies in this game, in 1v1 modes, give up goals from outside the circles more often than 3 in 100 shots? Yes. That's not confirmation bias. That's fact.

    As for the real NHL, I'm not the one saying that average NHL goalies stop 97% of shots outside the circles. Steve Valiquette and Chris Boyle, and the War on Ice guys, who collectively are doing the best work on shot quality and scoring chances in the NHL, are saying it:

    http://www.omha.net/news_article/show/486107?referrer_id=840406

    http://ingoalmag.com/analysis/an-introduction-to-adjusted-save-percentage/

    Look at the War on Ice chart in the second link. Even shots inside the circles but outside the faceoff dots only go in 3% of the time -- and that's the league average. Shots from there are terrible scoring chances, even against ordinary goalies. But shots from there beat top-rated goalies in this game much more often than 1 in 33 chances.

    "My goalie should have had that" is, in fact, one of the fairest criticisms of this game. High-rated goalies give up many too many soft goals -- like the absurd goal in the clip above. They give up way too many cheap rebounds on weak shots. And they're too vulnerable to clean shots from bad scoring areas. That's just the reality of the way goalies are tuned this year. You can decide not to see it, but the only one succumbing to confirmation bias here is you.



  • bryta47
    373 posts Member
    bryta47 wrote: »
    I've got exactly same feeling watching the real world game and the team that I want to win.
    Especially when my team is loosing.. suddenly every goal from the other side feels so cheap, unfair and just outcome of the icetilt :)
    Know that feeling!
    awwwwwww man

    Thanks! :blush:
  • DeejNYLV
    317 posts Member
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote:
    In the real NHL, shots from outside the circles with no lateral movement go in just 3% of the time -- 1 in every 33 shots. And that includes clean slap shots, strong wristers, etc. The probability that a weak, bad-angle wrister -- like the one in the clip below -- will go in is therefore significantly lower, probably closer to 1 in 300. But soft goals happen a lot more often than that in this game, while slap shots and wristers from above the circles go in far more often than 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 times. People are absolutely justified in complaining about the goalies in this game -- the way they're tuned is unrealistic, and helps weak players at the expense of stronger ones.

    Using the best goalie in the world is a bad example, but fine let's use that. In 2013 according to allhabs.com Price gave up 24 goals from 20 feet out or further, the longest being 48 feet. This in 39 games played. Roughly two long-distance goals every three games. That's not uncommon.

    Using Price is not a bad example. Price's base card in this game is a 92. My goalie -- the one that gave up the goal in the clip above, and the one that gets beat regularly from outside the circles -- is a 94. In other words, he's better than Price. So Price is the best comparison, only my goalie should be playing better in this game than Price does IRL.

    As for the substance, 20 feet out is not a "long-distance goal." The faceoff dots are 20 feet from the goal line. If you're shooting from there, that's prime scoring territory, and no one's complaining about goalies giving up goals from there. What I'm talking about is the fact that goalies are regularly beaten from twice that distance (or more). The blue line is 64 feet from the goal line. But high-rated goalies are beaten by clean slappers or cross-grain wristers from a few feet inside the blue line all the time in this game, even though someone like Price, by your account, gave up no goals from more than 48 ft. in 2013.

    I'll just say it again: if an average NHL goalie is facing a shot from above the circles (and that includes shots from the boards that are outside the circles), he's going to save that shot 97% of the time. If it's an exceptional NHL goalie (like the one on my team), he should save it 98-99% of the time. Even accepting that those percentages need to be adjusted downward in this game to account for shorter game time, it's simply unrealistic for goalies to be beaten as often as they are from distance on routine slappers and wristers.

    You keep quoting numbers without any citations. You're saying that a goalie stops 97% of a type of shot doesn't make it true. Realistically you are talking somewhat lower than 97%. Even if it were 97% for a top goalie. That means 3 out of every 100 shots are going in. Which means if you play a lot of games, it will legitimately happen a lot. "My goalies should have had that" is just bad criticism of the game. I still don't see anything but confirmation bias in your argument.

    Where is the confirmation bias in my argument? Do top-rated goalies in this game, in 1v1 modes, give up goals from outside the circles more often than 3 in 100 shots? Yes. That's not confirmation bias. That's fact.

    As for the real NHL, I'm not the one saying that average NHL goalies stop 97% of shots outside the circles. Steve Valiquette and Chris Boyle, and the War on Ice guys, who collectively are doing the best work on shot quality and scoring chances in the NHL, are saying it:

    http://www.omha.net/news_article/show/486107?referrer_id=840406

    http://ingoalmag.com/analysis/an-introduction-to-adjusted-save-percentage/

    Look at the War on Ice chart in the second link. Even shots inside the circles but outside the faceoff dots only go in 3% of the time -- and that's the league average. Shots from there are terrible scoring chances, even against ordinary goalies. But shots from there beat top-rated goalies in this game much more often than 1 in 33 chances.

    "My goalie should have had that" is, in fact, one of the fairest criticisms of this game. High-rated goalies give up many too many soft goals -- like the absurd goal in the clip above. They give up way too many cheap rebounds on weak shots. And they're too vulnerable to clean shots from bad scoring areas. That's just the reality of the way goalies are tuned this year. You can decide not to see it, but the only one succumbing to confirmation bias here is you.



    Nice video on the second link. Maybe the goalie should have had it. Also, Valiquette's "Royal road" concept has been criticized by lots of the advanced stats community, but that's a whole separate discussion, but not one worth having as you believe "my goalie should have had it" is not only not confirmation bias (it 100% is) but that it's "one of the fairest" criticisms of the game. Absurd to the point I think you might be a parody account. Thanks for the laughs though.
  • Bmh245
    905 posts Member
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    DeejNYLV wrote: »
    Bmh245 wrote:
    In the real NHL, shots from outside the circles with no lateral movement go in just 3% of the time -- 1 in every 33 shots. And that includes clean slap shots, strong wristers, etc. The probability that a weak, bad-angle wrister -- like the one in the clip below -- will go in is therefore significantly lower, probably closer to 1 in 300. But soft goals happen a lot more often than that in this game, while slap shots and wristers from above the circles go in far more often than 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 times. People are absolutely justified in complaining about the goalies in this game -- the way they're tuned is unrealistic, and helps weak players at the expense of stronger ones.

    Using the best goalie in the world is a bad example, but fine let's use that. In 2013 according to allhabs.com Price gave up 24 goals from 20 feet out or further, the longest being 48 feet. This in 39 games played. Roughly two long-distance goals every three games. That's not uncommon.

    Using Price is not a bad example. Price's base card in this game is a 92. My goalie -- the one that gave up the goal in the clip above, and the one that gets beat regularly from outside the circles -- is a 94. In other words, he's better than Price. So Price is the best comparison, only my goalie should be playing better in this game than Price does IRL.

    As for the substance, 20 feet out is not a "long-distance goal." The faceoff dots are 20 feet from the goal line. If you're shooting from there, that's prime scoring territory, and no one's complaining about goalies giving up goals from there. What I'm talking about is the fact that goalies are regularly beaten from twice that distance (or more). The blue line is 64 feet from the goal line. But high-rated goalies are beaten by clean slappers or cross-grain wristers from a few feet inside the blue line all the time in this game, even though someone like Price, by your account, gave up no goals from more than 48 ft. in 2013.

    I'll just say it again: if an average NHL goalie is facing a shot from above the circles (and that includes shots from the boards that are outside the circles), he's going to save that shot 97% of the time. If it's an exceptional NHL goalie (like the one on my team), he should save it 98-99% of the time. Even accepting that those percentages need to be adjusted downward in this game to account for shorter game time, it's simply unrealistic for goalies to be beaten as often as they are from distance on routine slappers and wristers.

    You keep quoting numbers without any citations. You're saying that a goalie stops 97% of a type of shot doesn't make it true. Realistically you are talking somewhat lower than 97%. Even if it were 97% for a top goalie. That means 3 out of every 100 shots are going in. Which means if you play a lot of games, it will legitimately happen a lot. "My goalies should have had that" is just bad criticism of the game. I still don't see anything but confirmation bias in your argument.

    Where is the confirmation bias in my argument? Do top-rated goalies in this game, in 1v1 modes, give up goals from outside the circles more often than 3 in 100 shots? Yes. That's not confirmation bias. That's fact.

    As for the real NHL, I'm not the one saying that average NHL goalies stop 97% of shots outside the circles. Steve Valiquette and Chris Boyle, and the War on Ice guys, who collectively are doing the best work on shot quality and scoring chances in the NHL, are saying it:

    http://www.omha.net/news_article/show/486107?referrer_id=840406

    http://ingoalmag.com/analysis/an-introduction-to-adjusted-save-percentage/

    Look at the War on Ice chart in the second link. Even shots inside the circles but outside the faceoff dots only go in 3% of the time -- and that's the league average. Shots from there are terrible scoring chances, even against ordinary goalies. But shots from there beat top-rated goalies in this game much more often than 1 in 33 chances.

    "My goalie should have had that" is, in fact, one of the fairest criticisms of this game. High-rated goalies give up many too many soft goals -- like the absurd goal in the clip above. They give up way too many cheap rebounds on weak shots. And they're too vulnerable to clean shots from bad scoring areas. That's just the reality of the way goalies are tuned this year. You can decide not to see it, but the only one succumbing to confirmation bias here is you.

    Nice video on the second link. Maybe the goalie should have had it. Also, Valiquette's "Royal road" concept has been criticized by lots of the advanced stats community, but that's a whole separate discussion, but not one worth having as you believe "my goalie should have had it" is not only not confirmation bias (it 100% is) but that it's "one of the fairest" criticisms of the game. Absurd to the point I think you might be a parody account. Thanks for the laughs though.

    Right. You think 20-foot shots count as "long-distance," but you're really into advanced analytics. Maybe you should learn the dimensions of an NHL rink before trying to do any statistical analysis.

    Anyway, your response is a perfect troll response from someone who's established himself as the perfect troll EA apologist. You can't actually engage with the facts -- goalies in this game give up goals on shots from poor scoring areas and/or on weak shots at a much higher rate than the percentages in the War on Ice chart -- so you just offer up a random ad hominem post. Very convincing.
  • B_Bunny
    885 posts Moderator
    edited March 2017
    SaveUs2K wrote: »
    KoryDub wrote: »
    Without video evidence, you can't just say that it 'felt like it was predetermined'.
    giphy.gif

    This is the same forum that bans people over being too "anti-EA" which is a subjective thing in it's own right, and only seems to be enforced when people don't agree with the mods, or use the name of HUT in vein...

    Lol, no rhyme or reason to the madness.

    Arent you banned on your other account? Yet youre still posting on this one. If you want a rhyme or reason..
    PSN: B-Bunny
  • B-Bunny wrote: »
    SaveUs2K wrote: »
    KoryDub wrote: »
    Without video evidence, you can't just say that it 'felt like it was predetermined'.
    giphy.gif

    This is the same forum that bans people over being too "anti-EA" which is a subjective thing in it's own right, and only seems to be enforced when people don't agree with the mods, or use the name of HUT in vein...

    Lol, no rhyme or reason to the madness.

    Arent you banned on your other account? Yet youre still posting on this one. If you want a rhyme or reason..

    Get back on topic or I'm gonna have to close this thread B)
  • I just got another example this weekend. Playing online vs got paired up with some guy he absolutely wrecks me in the first 2 period 6-1. My guys cant find a puck, skating over pucks, poke checks knocking pucks loose cant get them back. 4 games later i get paired up with the same guys. I beat him 5-2. my players felt like they played 1,000 times better.
    Just an NHL youtuber trying to connect with NHL gamers!

    My Channel youtube.com/puredangleproductions
  • I've been debating this element for years. The evidence I show is when I'm pinned deep in my zone, gain control of the puck, start to leave the zone, I get to my blue line, my opponents AI's (in my zone) don't make an attempt to leave and follow the play, next thing I know, I lose control of the puck, the puck magically "bounces" right to the player who chose to camp in my zone and gets the goal.

    Another example would be the pinball effect. Shooting the puck towards the net, puck bounces around like a pinball and magically ends up on the stick of the shooter for the goal, very common when the puck is in the air and gets batted in.

    Anyone else experience this?
  • drak836
    1 posts New member
    I agree 100%. Many games feel like everything is stacked against you. Every game seems to be based on who's PC players are playing better as opposed to which player actually has a higher skill level. Most online games have garbage RNG put in to make the less skilled players happy. Unfortunately NHL games are the worst for it because you can't do anything no matter how good you are, to make your PC's play better. It's sad and feels like a lottery game. Nothing but a coin flip. I don't even have fun when I win because every win I get, I can tell that their PC players weren't playing well. I think every single online game is predetermined in NHL 20 and it is why I'm not buying NHL 21.
  • EA_Blueberry
    2854 posts EA Community Manager
    This post is from 2017. Closing discussion to avoid further necroposting.

    Forum Rules: https://forums.ea.com/en/nhl/discussion/129165/ea-forums-guidelines-rules#latest
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!