EA Forums - Banner

EASHL Player Attributes Too Low?

Prev13456710
I'm not sure I've seen this brought up before, but I'm starting to think that part of the problem with EASHL is that player attributes are simply too low. I've played some VS/HUT this year for the first time, and what I've noticed is that players feel much more like I'd expect them to, particularly when it comes to defensive interceptions, agility, and shooting abilities. I feel like I'm actually controlling an NHL player instead of a beer leaguer.

Has anyone else noticed this? Defenders more frequently make efforts to intercept and deflect pucks within their range, you get fewer wonky pivot because they can perform them fast enough to keep up with what you're trying to do (this could be connection related though), and players with an open shot will consistently finish instead of whiffing, shooting it wide, or right into the goalie's chest.

The EASHL players though just feel like they're 75-80 overall players where instead of feeling like good all-around players with a few areas they excel in, they feel more like below average players with a few areas they're okay in. Has there been any thought towards giving players a significant bump to all attributes in EASHL to improve on this?

I really wonder what the actual ratings are for these players, and if it would explain so many of the problems we've been having since moving to the new generation, since it did coincide with the introduction of the new player class system for EASHL.

Replies

  • I think they are 70 overall.

    I understand the argument for preset buildsbut uggggg it makes the game stale.

    Not trying to hijack the thread with my main rant about the game.... would be nice to get an answer to your questions.
  • you know i believe your on to something.

    they should just have them all around 85 overall. that Excel in one area, okay in some and **** in others so that way it kind of builds that.. rock,paper, Scissors effect.
  • I think they are 70 overall.

    I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Everything about them just feels underwhelming. I know EA doesn't want 99 overall players who can do everything at a ridiculous level, but I feel like most attributes should fall around 85-95, depending on the player type. High enough so that players can really shine in the area they select (intercepting pucks, sniping goals, etc.), and not so low that they aren't able to make fairly basic plays.

    I think the game just becomes too random when the attributes are that low. A 75 defensive awareness player might completely miss on an interception of a pass two inches from his stick blade, but might also snag the rare pass five feet behind him. A higher overall player just seems more consistent in that regard, and might be what this game really needs.
  • B_Bunny
    893 posts Moderator
    edited January 2017
    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.
    PSN: B-Bunny
  • B-Bunny wrote: »
    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.

    I know that's the line folks like to throw out there, but I'm not sure I really buy it. HUT has plenty of 90+ overall players, but I don't think anyone would argue that Lindros, Modano, Sullivan, and Lafontaine don't all feel like unique players. I realize EA made a huge change by switching EASHL to the pre-made builds, but I feel like they haven't been nearly as aggressive as they should about tuning it.

    Every week they can release a dozen or so new cards for HUT, but they can't change the EASHL attributes more than 3-4 times a year? Let's get crazy with it, and see what works well. There's too many complaints about EASHL for them to be tuning it so infrequently, and it leads to the perception that EA doesn't care.
  • I simply think there needs to be a bigger difference of attributes among them so their strengths and weaknesses have a noticeable difference.

    The enforcer F & D build is one example:

    We shouldn't be able to pull off any dekes or snipe goals with an enforcer F. I know plenty of good players in this game that can do so frequently with this build while using their size to their advantage. The enforcer D is actually really good defensively due to their long wing span that gives them a bigger poke checking range.

    Besides the obvious fighting, the enforcer build(s) should literally only be able to hit, make simple defensive plays, take up space on the ice, make easy short passes and score on easy rebounds while crashing the net.

    They should be like the NHL ones that score maybe 1 or 2 goals a year if they're lucky.



    SUPERBUILD!!!!!!

    B)
  • B_Bunny
    893 posts Moderator
    edited January 2017
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    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.

    I know that's the line folks like to throw out there, but I'm not sure I really buy it. HUT has plenty of 90+ overall players, but I don't think anyone would argue that Lindros, Modano, Sullivan, and Lafontaine don't all feel like unique players. I realize EA made a huge change by switching EASHL to the pre-made builds, but I feel like they haven't been nearly as aggressive as they should about tuning it.

    Every week they can release a dozen or so new cards for HUT, but they can't change the EASHL attributes more than 3-4 times a year? Let's get crazy with it, and see what works well. There's too many complaints about EASHL for them to be tuning it so infrequently, and it leads to the perception that EA doesn't care.
    If eashl made the money hut did, im sure we would see live updates too. And I agree there should be more done, but it doesnt seem to be in the cards. Ever since ive been a gamechanger the one thing ive wanted to see was a year end tournament and or prizes given away to clubs for incentive to keep playing after 2 months. HuT gets all the live updates. Movember, totw, contests, etc. Instead were just to be content with a meaningless leaderboard...and in todays day and age thats just not enough anymore.
    PSN: B-Bunny
  • SiIkyJohnson
    316 posts Member
    edited January 2017
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    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.

    I know that's the line folks like to throw out there, but I'm not sure I really buy it. HUT has plenty of 90+ overall players, but I don't think anyone would argue that Lindros, Modano, Sullivan, and Lafontaine don't all feel like unique players. I realize EA made a huge change by switching EASHL to the pre-made builds, but I feel like they haven't been nearly as aggressive as they should about tuning it.

    Every week they can release a dozen or so new cards for HUT, but they can't change the EASHL attributes more than 3-4 times a year? Let's get crazy with it, and see what works well. There's too many complaints about EASHL for them to be tuning it so infrequently, and it leads to the perception that EA doesn't care.
    If eashl made the money hut did, im sure we would see live updates too. And I agree there should be more done, but it doesnt seem to be in the cards. Ever since ive been a gamechanger the one thing ive wanted to see was a year end tournament and or prizes given away to clubs for incentive to keep playing after 2 months. HuT gets all the live updates. Movember, totw, contests, etc. Instead were just to be content with a meaningless leaderboard...and in todays day and age thats just not enough anymore.

    the best incentive to play is a fun game IMO. no one pays me to play my other games. i know many want an end of year and i'm not opposed to it, but given the state of the game as it is right now, i'm not sure even that would save EASHL.

    edit: i do agree with OP that we should at least give boosting attributes a try. keep in mind we were used to making our players in the low 80s to low 90s in the EASHL's glory years.
  • B-Bunny wrote: »
    B-Bunny wrote: »
    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.

    I know that's the line folks like to throw out there, but I'm not sure I really buy it. HUT has plenty of 90+ overall players, but I don't think anyone would argue that Lindros, Modano, Sullivan, and Lafontaine don't all feel like unique players. I realize EA made a huge change by switching EASHL to the pre-made builds, but I feel like they haven't been nearly as aggressive as they should about tuning it.

    Every week they can release a dozen or so new cards for HUT, but they can't change the EASHL attributes more than 3-4 times a year? Let's get crazy with it, and see what works well. There's too many complaints about EASHL for them to be tuning it so infrequently, and it leads to the perception that EA doesn't care.
    If eashl made the money hut did, im sure we would see live updates too. And I agree there should be more done, but it doesnt seem to be in the cards. Ever since ive been a gamechanger the one thing ive wanted to see was a year end tournament and or prizes given away to clubs for incentive to keep playing after 2 months. HuT gets all the live updates. Movember, totw, contests, etc. Instead were just to be content with a meaningless leaderboard...and in todays day and age thats just not enough anymore.

    the best incentive to play is a fun game IMO. no one pays me to play my other games. i know many want an end of year and i'm not opposed to it, but given the state of the game as it is right now, i'm not sure even that would save EASHL.

    edit: i do agree with OP that we should at least give boosting attributes a try. keep in mind we were used to making our players in the low 80s to low 90s in the EASHL's glory years.

    those were the good old days.

    B)
  • I simply think there needs to be a bigger difference of attributes among them so their strengths and weaknesses have a noticeable difference.

    The enforcer F & D build is one example:

    We shouldn't be able to pull off any dekes or snipe goals with an enforcer F. I know plenty of good players in this game that can do so frequently with this build while using their size to their advantage. The enforcer D is actually really good defensively due to their long wing span that gives them a bigger poke checking range.

    Besides the obvious fighting, the enforcer build(s) should literally only be able to hit, make simple defensive plays, take up space on the ice, make easy short passes and score on easy rebounds while crashing the net.

    They should be like the NHL ones that score maybe 1 or 2 goals a year if they're lucky.



    Agreed. Totally.
  • I simply think there needs to be a bigger difference of attributes among them so their strengths and weaknesses have a noticeable difference.

    The enforcer F & D build is one example:

    We shouldn't be able to pull off any dekes or snipe goals with an enforcer F. I know plenty of good players in this game that can do so frequently with this build while using their size to their advantage. The enforcer D is actually really good defensively due to their long wing span that gives them a bigger poke checking range.

    Besides the obvious fighting, the enforcer build(s) should literally only be able to hit, make simple defensive plays, take up space on the ice, make easy short passes and score on easy rebounds while crashing the net.

    They should be like the NHL ones that score maybe 1 or 2 goals a year if they're lucky.

    I don't think we should have classes that are truly bad at anything though. With no line changes, I just don't think it makes sense to have classes that can't at least be passable in all areas of the ice. Other classes should absolutely be better than enforcers in many areas of play, but I don't think enforcers should be some sort of joke out there, and be completely unable to create chances.

    Also, to be quite the contrarian here, if enforcers were told to play 60 minutes a game and try to contribute offensively, they'd absolutely have higher numbers than that. Coaches don't let their enforcer lines take chances offensively like they would their scoring lines. No coach would get mad at Ovi cherry picking once in a while, but you can bet they'd bench their enforcer in a heartbeat if he's not coming all the way back on defense. Fun fact that Tie Domi and Rob Ray have a career shot % higher than Olli Jokinen, and within one percent of guys like Smyth, Lecavalier, Kariya, and Graves.
  • 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...
  • I think the top attributes to each player are fine but the lower ones need to be lowered to really feel every players' weakness.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    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.

    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.
  • 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 ?
  • 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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