EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 Patch Details April 3rd

image
Check out our April 3rd patch details here.

Dynamic difficulty is ruining versus play

Replies

  • NHLDev
    1668 posts EA NHL Developer
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »

    You're near the mark, but not entirely accurate. The problem with this game is that it rewards simple shooting (which CAN happen on occasion in the NHL) instead of scoring chances which should be the REAL bread an butter for scoring in hockey.

    Shots don't necessarily equate to having a scoring chance. Once the Devs get this in their heads, the game will be one thousand percent better than it is right now.

    Is this not what the argument is about? Players complaining that they have 25 shots and losing to a player that only has 9?

    If we considered any shot as a high chance to score, wouldn't these players with high shot totals that are complaining end up winning all of their games?

    Simplified, our models are all based around what we see in the real world of hockey around control/accuracy/power and commitment/reaction time.

    If you take a weak backhand wrister from the blueline, it has a higher chance of going in the net than no shot at all but it has almost a zero chance relative to a great forehand wrister from the slot when the goalie has to rely purely on reaction time to make the save. Get the goalie moving and committing to the original puck carriers shot chance before making your pass for the wheel house one timer, you have a way better chance to score than obviously showing pass before sliding it over to a player that only has an angle to jam the puck cross body into the goalies pad that is flush with the ice.

    You may not agree with the tuning but I don't think the theories you think we aren't considering are the culprit here.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »

    You're near the mark, but not entirely accurate. The problem with this game is that it rewards simple shooting (which CAN happen on occasion in the NHL) instead of scoring chances which should be the REAL bread an butter for scoring in hockey.

    Shots don't necessarily equate to having a scoring chance. Once the Devs get this in their heads, the game will be one thousand percent better than it is right now.

    Is this not what the argument is about? Players complaining that they have 25 shots and losing to a player that only has 9?

    If we considered any shot as a high chance to score, wouldn't these players with high shot totals that are complaining end up winning all of their games?

    Simplified, our models are all based around what we see in the real world of hockey around control/accuracy/power and commitment/reaction time.

    If you take a weak backhand wrister from the blueline, it has a higher chance of going in the net than no shot at all but it has almost a zero chance relative to a great forehand wrister from the slot when the goalie has to rely purely on reaction time to make the save. Get the goalie moving and committing to the original puck carriers shot chance before making your pass for the wheel house one timer, you have a way better chance to score than obviously showing pass before sliding it over to a player that only has an angle to jam the puck cross body into the goalies pad that is flush with the ice.

    You may not agree with the tuning but I don't think the theories you think we aren't considering are the culprit here.

    As a former goalie myself, I’d like to wonder why weak wristers and backhands from the boards still kick out 20 foot rebounds while point-blank slapshots stick to pads like glue?
    I mean if you seriously understand the position and you genuinely care about real hockey being represented, why are those shots still plaguing the series?

    There’s just a lack of believability to you goalies right now. Movements are absurdly quick when down, reactions are top-notch in-tight yet questionable from far away. Way too many shoulder shrugs result in pucks slowly flipping over the goalie into the net rather than deflecting up into the high netting like expected. Armpit goals look incredibly scripted in this game when the shot isn’t screened. Why would a goalie do a half-tight save from far out but leave a little armpit hole? Not to mention the fact that half of these armpit goals hit center mass then deflect at an impossibly flat, sideways angle into the armpit...it’s just not believable.

    Goalies should be your next major overhaul because they are holding this game back a lot.
  • VeNOM2099
    3014 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    NHLDev wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »

    You're near the mark, but not entirely accurate. The problem with this game is that it rewards simple shooting (which CAN happen on occasion in the NHL) instead of scoring chances which should be the REAL bread an butter for scoring in hockey.

    Shots don't necessarily equate to having a scoring chance. Once the Devs get this in their heads, the game will be one thousand percent better than it is right now.

    Is this not what the argument is about? Players complaining that they have 25 shots and losing to a player that only has 9?

    If we considered any shot as a high chance to score, wouldn't these players with high shot totals that are complaining end up winning all of their games?

    Simplified, our models are all based around what we see in the real world of hockey around control/accuracy/power and commitment/reaction time.

    If you take a weak backhand wrister from the blue line, it has a higher chance of going in the net than no shot at all but it has almost a zero chance relative to a great forehand wrister from the slot when the goalie has to rely purely on reaction time to make the save. Get the goalie moving and committing to the original puck carriers shot chance before making your pass for the wheel house one timer, you have a way better chance to score than obviously showing pass before sliding it over to a player that only has an angle to jam the puck cross body into the goalies pad that is flush with the ice.

    You may not agree with the tuning but I don't think the theories you think we aren't considering are the culprit here.

    The argument is about taking shots and scoring vs. actually working the puck around and finding scoring chances. Ideally I should let an opponent shoot from everywhere on the ice that I know my goalie will be (or rather should be) stopping. In that respect he'll have a high shot count and relatively low TOA and a matching tally on the score sheet.

    One of my last games I ended with like a dozen shots and about 8 minutes of TOA to my opponent's 28 shots and 5 minutes of TOA. Yet I won 6-2, though the game should've probably ended more like 3-1 as three of my goals and one of his were a simple shot from the high slot on an unscreened goalie.

    That's the issue here: the unnecessary boosting of the goal count by shots that have no business finding the back of the net in the first place. The end results for that match would've been the same; I would've won. But it would've felt more satisfying (probably on both ends) if the score had actually resembled our efforts and not just some random occurrences in the game.

    Don't get me wrong, if you get worked by your opponent, you should get thrashed accordingly. But if your opponent is just taking shots and getting rewarded, while you work the puck like crazy and get really good chances but come up empty, how is that supposed to be indicative of my skill vs. my opponent's skill? I know what you'll say: "But it happens in real life too"... Granted. How many times have you seen in one NHL game someone dump the puck from the red line and puck goes through the goalie's pads allowing a goal? Or an NHL team taking 3 muffins from the blue line resulting in a goal? Because that happens much too often in this game. Especially a game that plays with 4 minute periods. We should be seeing those things MUCH, MUCH less frequently. Even seeing it once every 10 games would be too much.

    If you are considering those things, then it's not working very well within the game's environment and some more tweaking is probably in order. This is not just MY opinion. It's the opinions of many people who you and your dev team probably don't hear every day. Or maybe you do... I hear many of the REAL gamechangers, people like Nuge, Miller and johnwayne aren't too happy with how the game turned out after the last update.

    I don't think the game is completely terrible, mind you. It's just very frustrating on a mechanics basis in that you can work your tail off and get nothing. Sometimes you do nothing and always get rewarded. And I haven't even touched on the human goaltending yet... :P
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »

    You're near the mark, but not entirely accurate. The problem with this game is that it rewards simple shooting (which CAN happen on occasion in the NHL) instead of scoring chances which should be the REAL bread an butter for scoring in hockey.

    Shots don't necessarily equate to having a scoring chance. Once the Devs get this in their heads, the game will be one thousand percent better than it is right now.

    Is this not what the argument is about? Players complaining that they have 25 shots and losing to a player that only has 9?

    If we considered any shot as a high chance to score, wouldn't these players with high shot totals that are complaining end up winning all of their games?

    Simplified, our models are all based around what we see in the real world of hockey around control/accuracy/power and commitment/reaction time.

    If you take a weak backhand wrister from the blueline, it has a higher chance of going in the net than no shot at all but it has almost a zero chance relative to a great forehand wrister from the slot when the goalie has to rely purely on reaction time to make the save. Get the goalie moving and committing to the original puck carriers shot chance before making your pass for the wheel house one timer, you have a way better chance to score than obviously showing pass before sliding it over to a player that only has an angle to jam the puck cross body into the goalies pad that is flush with the ice.

    You may not agree with the tuning but I don't think the theories you think we aren't considering are the culprit here.

    I am by no means trying to disrespect you, or discredit you, however I must ask this. If indeed this game is modeled around what you see in the real world, why are body checks now so weak? Why can puck carriers dangle around in the corners and never lose the puck by simply shrugging off body checks as if they were thrown by kids? That Bacon Country video that is here and posted by Barrett is a tremendously great example.

    This was absolutely not the case during beta and launch versions.
  • jake19ny wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    Sinbin wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    If it’s not DDA then what is it?

    Why does it even have to be something? There are lopsided games in the real world too. Flukey goals happen, passes miss. pucks take weird bounces, etc. Do you ever watch replays to see how plays develop? People talk about the team with less shots winning. Do you watch how those goals happened and take any accountability for the turnover or change of possession that gave them the chance to score? You know, there used to be tape to tape passes a few years ago. People complained they weren't realistic. Passing changed to be looser and more skill based. Now we get complaints that passing is bad or one team's passes connect more than the other's. There's rarely someone admitting their passing wasn't up to par.

    The community wanted a more skill based and realistic game. It was given to us and now many have a hard time with the physics causing what seems to be randomness that can occur in games. People even think these are predetermined to benefit the supposed weaker team. However we have people believing there is some mystical force moves the puck in the favor of the team that's going to quit playing if they don't get the win.

    The more this game resembles its real world counterpart, the more they complain that skill isn't be rewarded. Maybe you just aren't as skilled as you think you are.

    Come on man. I know you’ve been reading the thread....this is not about losing a game, having a lopsided game, or having someone get lucky. Whatever....I give up. EA will never answer my questions because they can’t without exposing either DDA or admitting that something is horribly wrong with their game. Without EA seriously addressing it rather than blanket denials or asking irrelevant counter questions these threads become redundant with the same wash, rinse, and repeat posts by everyone. We will just have to agree to disagree but mark my words...the nonsense going on is at a minimum but once they get the player items into 92-97 and people build great teams the nonsense that you experience when playing a weaker built team will stand out big time.... you are going to see more threads like this and more people complain about DDA.

    This game does not resemble its real life counter part by a long shot but that’s another whole discussion.

    I am obviously not is a position to guarantee you are wrong, but what about the loads of people complaining they can't win against stacked HUT teams? Why isn't the DDA kicking in for them? If it did kick in and made them competitive, why would they want to buy HUT packs? Isn't the goal to sell as many HUT packs as possible? I have seen too many people whine that it is a pay-to-win mode. Weird because DDA would help them win and therefore we shouldn't see those types of comments unless you are a very horrible player.

    What about people, such as myself, that strictly play EASHL? DDA, imo, cannot function with the variables of 12 different people being connected, yet we still see many of the shenanigans that we hear about in HUT and VS.

    Well the theory behind DDA isn’t to make people win against better teams but keep them competitive. The thought process being that if you are not good at the game and lose the vast majority of the time you won’t keep playing and certainly won’t buy packs. So if every now then the boost helps them win a game here and there or at least keep it close to a better team, be it skill wise or stacked wise, the player will comeback for more, try and get better, and most important, hopefully buy packs in an effort to improve his team. You have to admit from a business aspect it makes great sense even if you don’t buy into.

    When it comes to EASHL I don’t believe the mechanic kicks in. I honestly believe it’s solely in HUT. In those other modes it’s poor AI and legacy issues that plague it along with EA having a very difficult time finding the right balance with stick lifts and poke. Although poke is not so bad now.

    This is the correct analysis, it's the same thing with claiming a cop did first degree muder, they didn't they were doing their job meaning it's manslaughter, you need to accurately accuse them of something for them to confirm or deny and be found lying or not.

    The idea of ice tilt is balancing the game between two players who should not be. nothing else.
  • jake19ny
    688 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    NHLDev wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »

    You're near the mark, but not entirely accurate. The problem with this game is that it rewards simple shooting (which CAN happen on occasion in the NHL) instead of scoring chances which should be the REAL bread an butter for scoring in hockey.

    Shots don't necessarily equate to having a scoring chance. Once the Devs get this in their heads, the game will be one thousand percent better than it is right now.

    Is this not what the argument is about? Players complaining that they have 25 shots and losing to a player that only has 9?

    If we considered any shot as a high chance to score, wouldn't these players with high shot totals that are complaining end up winning all of their games?

    Simplified, our models are all based around what we see in the real world of hockey around control/accuracy/power and commitment/reaction time.

    If you take a weak backhand wrister from the blueline, it has a higher chance of going in the net than no shot at all but it has almost a zero chance relative to a great forehand wrister from the slot when the goalie has to rely purely on reaction time to make the save. Get the goalie moving and committing to the original puck carriers shot chance before making your pass for the wheel house one timer, you have a way better chance to score than obviously showing pass before sliding it over to a player that only has an angle to jam the puck cross body into the goalies pad that is flush with the ice.

    You may not agree with the tuning but I don't think the theories you think we aren't considering are the culprit here.

    But everyone has it wrong here. What we, who complain of DDA are saying is when you lose those games where you dominate every aspect of the game and out shoot your opponent 33-7 but lose 4-2 (example) you are setting up great chances. The opposing goalie stands on his head but when your badly outplayed opponent finally gets into your end and takes that weak backhand you mention or a weak wrister from way out that finds it’s way through, your goalie just kind of waves at it as floats over his shoulder into the net. Can it happen in real
    Hockey? Sure, but not as often as it does in this game by a long shot.

    Another subject debated in this thread is whether a bad P2P connection causes your AI to play brain dead. I don’t believe connection dictates whether your AI covers someone or wanders aimlessly. Too many games see one teams AI play extremely well and the other teams wander aimlessly about. Trying to play the puck in the corner and watching your AI skate away from his man in front of the net leaving him wide open for the one timer money goal is infuriating. Almost as bad is having a 2 on 2 coming into your zone and watching your AI teammates collapse to the man you are covering, sometimes skating into you, once again setting up an easy one timer.

    These are some of the things that give rise to the DDA argument.
  • NHLDev
    1668 posts EA NHL Developer

    I am by no means trying to disrespect you, or discredit you, however I must ask this. If indeed this game is modeled around what you see in the real world, why are body checks now so weak? Why can puck carriers dangle around in the corners and never lose the puck by simply shrugging off body checks as if they were thrown by kids? That Bacon Country video that is here and posted by Barrett is a tremendously great example.

    This was absolutely not the case during beta and launch versions.

    We originally tuned the game very aware that people don't like players just shrugging off hits. The model is still fully capable of handling leverage in push checks from low relative speed based on the strength and balance of the players involved

    We had examples shown to us and saw them ourselves when players were by a player and they would just turn and get a piece of the player with a push check from the back causing a stumble. Or when a player was trailing from behind a player at the same speed, with no relative speed leverage and could shove them off the puck. They felt much weaker than they should. We held ground on the tuning for a while, playing many more competitive games ourselves and watching more examples that people posted. I would respond back saying that players could get pushed into stumbles but could still regain the puck so it was technically still quite accurate where body position was rewarded. There were definitely cases where it was far too weak though and we needed to decide if that was just a less ideal consequence of what it was getting right or if we could tune around it to fix that issue.

    We started to try some tuning over several weeks, doing different play tests and getting feedback and weighing that against what we were trying to solve. Players can still get shoved off the puck if you get good angles and defenders have an easier time doing that the more their advantage to the offensive players in size, attributes, angle and relative speed. But we won't see those really weak occurrences anymore.

    Of course, we then hear the other side of how people liked those bumps off the puck but it should never be black and white. You can still push players off the puck, closer to what is intended and in the situations it makes more sense. Tuning will always be subjective though as people can show you clips of players driving through players unaffected by push checks and they can show you examples of players easily pushed off pucks. That is why our variables take all of those conditions into account within the model.


  • headup81
    99 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    What gives rise the DDA argument is the game plays precisely like a game with DDA would. You can win 20 face offs in a row, take a lead then proceed to lose the bulk of the next 20 despite your opponent still doing what caused him to lose them in the first place. With no DDA you’d keep winning as long as your opponent keeps doing the same thing.
  • NHLDev
    1668 posts EA NHL Developer
    As a former goalie myself, I’d like to wonder why weak wristers and backhands from the boards still kick out 20 foot rebounds while point-blank slapshots stick to pads like glue?
    I mean if you seriously understand the position and you genuinely care about real hockey being represented, why are those shots still plaguing the series?

    There’s just a lack of believability to you goalies right now. Movements are absurdly quick when down, reactions are top-notch in-tight yet questionable from far away. Way too many shoulder shrugs result in pucks slowly flipping over the goalie into the net rather than deflecting up into the high netting like expected. Armpit goals look incredibly scripted in this game when the shot isn’t screened. Why would a goalie do a half-tight save from far out but leave a little armpit hole? Not to mention the fact that half of these armpit goals hit center mass then deflect at an impossibly flat, sideways angle into the armpit...it’s just not believable.

    Goalies should be your next major overhaul because they are holding this game back a lot.

    Due to the puck physics, it is due to the animations in some cases. I know you are suggesting that things feel scripted but it is actually because they aren't when it comes to the puck that you get the big rebounds or that pucks find armpits after hitting the goalie, etc.

    The puck velocity and angle angle of rotation vs the collisions volumes it hits, produces the physics result. I would be surprised if you aren't seeing big rebounds on slapshots off the pads but I do know that if the puck ramps up off the stick into the chest, the goalie can smother it. You will see big rebounds at times off weak wristers as the goalie plays a kick save that tries to kick the puck out as that is what the save coverage plays and the frame at which is makes contact, sometimes too late or at an angle that isn't ideal can produce a more juicy rebound that you would want. Other times, they deflect the puck perfectly into the corner. It is something that is on the top of our list to look at moving forward though as we would like a lot more save coverage there with some specific work of the stick to direct pucks properly as well as move with the puck during a save more often to be there when there is an unintended result from a rebound, etc.

    We did make some changes in the latest tuner as far as the goalie positioning is concerned and allowed the goalie to cover pucks more often when they come in at lower speeds they can handle as well but until we improve/add some more animations there will be cases that could be better for sure.

    We removed x/y error on saves this year when the goalie is unscreened no matter what they attributes are so when a shot finds an arm pit, it is mostly that they are just late or that as you say may get a bounce they didn't intend from another part of their body that was meant to stop the puck. If the save itself was a dead center chest save, they may not have needed to seal their arm as much in the way they puck reacted when we originally got the save but in the puck physics in our game, it may find a way through. We try to fix these up as we come across them which is why you will see patch notes saying that we have improved/updated goalie animations. Those are when we try to catch cases of pads not being flush with the ice at certain frames or seals not being closed off as expected, etc.

    As you know as a former goalie, the last line of defense takes the heat. This happens even more when it is an ai goalie as the human factor of what it takes to perform well is lost for people and they just blame the game but getting a believable goalie right has got to be one of the toughest things in sports videogames as they need to have organic and realistic error in their decision making, reaction time, etc. and the people that they are playing in front of also expect them to keep them in games as we do with any goalie. Not making excuses for it but I think they will be called out no matter how close we get and we just have to keep looking for ways to improve them.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »

    You're near the mark, but not entirely accurate. The problem with this game is that it rewards simple shooting (which CAN happen on occasion in the NHL) instead of scoring chances which should be the REAL bread an butter for scoring in hockey.

    Shots don't necessarily equate to having a scoring chance. Once the Devs get this in their heads, the game will be one thousand percent better than it is right now.

    Is this not what the argument is about? Players complaining that they have 25 shots and losing to a player that only has 9?

    If we considered any shot as a high chance to score, wouldn't these players with high shot totals that are complaining end up winning all of their games?

    Simplified, our models are all based around what we see in the real world of hockey around control/accuracy/power and commitment/reaction time.

    If you take a weak backhand wrister from the blueline, it has a higher chance of going in the net than no shot at all but it has almost a zero chance relative to a great forehand wrister from the slot when the goalie has to rely purely on reaction time to make the save. Get the goalie moving and committing to the original puck carriers shot chance before making your pass for the wheel house one timer, you have a way better chance to score than obviously showing pass before sliding it over to a player that only has an angle to jam the puck cross body into the goalies pad that is flush with the ice.

    You may not agree with the tuning but I don't think the theories you think we aren't considering are the culprit here.

    That sounds nice but I have yet to see evidence of it. How come shots from the slot are about as successful as shots above the circles and poor angles?

    I would love the game if this was the case. Getting to those good areas would be rewarding but I have yet to see any evidence of that in over a decade.
  • NHLDev
    1668 posts EA NHL Developer
    That sounds nice but I have yet to see evidence of it. How come shots from the slot are about as successful as shots above the circles and poor angles?

    I would love the game if this was the case. Getting to those good areas would be rewarding but I have yet to see any evidence of that in over a decade.

    Well that is a subjective view as that isn't actually the case when it comes to the actual statistics and math behind it all but that perception would be driven by the goalies being too slow and shot accuracy being too high at their worst and best.

    The current tuning is such that it should reward those good chances in the slot but to further eliminate chances from farther out would also lower the success rate of those good chances as it is all relative and things may feel more random for people as it is all based on reaction and accuracy models, etc.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    That sounds nice but I have yet to see evidence of it. How come shots from the slot are about as successful as shots above the circles and poor angles?

    I would love the game if this was the case. Getting to those good areas would be rewarding but I have yet to see any evidence of that in over a decade.

    Well that is a subjective view as that isn't actually the case when it comes to the actual statistics and math behind it all but that perception would be driven by the goalies being too slow and shot accuracy being too high at their worst and best.

    The current tuning is such that it should reward those good chances in the slot but to further eliminate chances from farther out would also lower the success rate of those good chances as it is all relative and things may feel more random for people as it is all based on reaction and accuracy models, etc.

    Then why do so many clean, unscreened shots from cutting in at the blue go in? Most good players don't shoot from the middle of the slot (the best statistical area in the NHL to score), they shoot before they get to the middle shortside. Far side shots work more often in the nyl because the goalies are trained from a young age not to give up the short side. But in this game, it's ten times harder to score on the far side than it is the short side.

    In this game, you need snipes to score 90% of the time. Most goals that are scored aren't snipes, but shots that beat goaltenders from good areas on the ice that leave little reaction time to shots.

    This isn't emulated whatsoever in this game. The accuracy is stupidly buffed (because you feel 4 minute periods needs to have this), and the goalies reactions are stupidly buffed to balance out the ridiculous shooting mechanics.

    Why don't you guys ever try lowering both? Your game looks pretty good this way.
  • jake19ny
    688 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    Nice to see the Dev jump back into this conversation but still no answers to my original questions and then I responded to an answer gave with 2 additional questions topical to the current conversation in RBIs thread. He glanced right over that but continued to answer the other responses. I’m starting to think my questions cannot be addressed without the answers exposing DDA or major flaws in the game itself.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    When goalie save percentages are trending at 91-94% rates, almost every shot isn’t a scoring chance statistically speaking. You take shots to get the defense moving and make the goalie make a save. This is why rebounds are so effective in real hockey.

    You also shoot the puck to make your opponent respect the shot. When your opponent is worried about shots, it makes them play tighter gaps and open the door for more 1-on-1 chances for you elite players to exploit.

    Every hockey player who has played at even a moderately high level and knows the game knows every shot isn’t a scoring chance. It’s like running the ball in football to setup the PA. You shoot for chaos, you shoot to make your opponent think, you shoot at pads no thinking you’re going to score, but so your teammate has a high opportunity to score.

    This is hockey 101.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    How is a shot on net not considered a scoring chance?

    Although I understand that the way in which the shot is directed at the goalie effects it's chances of resulting in a goal - a shot on net is a scoring chance, regardless of how it got there.

    Of course some chances are better than others - but a shot on net is a shot on net.

    Saying that shots don't equal scoring chances is quite absurd, in my opinion.

    Well it could be that you don't really understand hockey then.


    LMAO

    That's right - nobody understands hockey like you ;)


    Considering real life broadcasts use “scoring chances” as a stat and they are usually 1/3rd to 1/4th the amount of shots, I’m going to go Venom here on this one. A shot is not considered a scoring chance.

    Every shot is a scoring chance. Real life broadcast 'scoring chances' are subjective.

    If you don't think every shot on net has a chance of going in, why take shots?

    That's because you are taking things in the extreme literal sense. While a shot does have a chance to go in, it isn't necessarily a scoring chance.

    For instance, you are behind the net, goalie is flush to the post and you decide to try a wrap on that very same post. Goalie is there waiting for it, then sorry to inform you, it isn't considered a scoring chance by any hockey expert even though there is that minuscule chance it can pay off.

    Generally, if the goalie has to put in decent effort and/or movement to make a save, you could say he took away a scoring chance. An unscreened wrister from the blue line is not considered a scoring chance.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    As a former goalie myself, I’d like to wonder why weak wristers and backhands from the boards still kick out 20 foot rebounds while point-blank slapshots stick to pads like glue?
    I mean if you seriously understand the position and you genuinely care about real hockey being represented, why are those shots still plaguing the series?

    There’s just a lack of believability to you goalies right now. Movements are absurdly quick when down, reactions are top-notch in-tight yet questionable from far away. Way too many shoulder shrugs result in pucks slowly flipping over the goalie into the net rather than deflecting up into the high netting like expected. Armpit goals look incredibly scripted in this game when the shot isn’t screened. Why would a goalie do a half-tight save from far out but leave a little armpit hole? Not to mention the fact that half of these armpit goals hit center mass then deflect at an impossibly flat, sideways angle into the armpit...it’s just not believable.

    Goalies should be your next major overhaul because they are holding this game back a lot.

    Due to the puck physics, it is due to the animations in some cases. I know you are suggesting that things feel scripted but it is actually because they aren't when it comes to the puck that you get the big rebounds or that pucks find armpits after hitting the goalie, etc.

    The puck velocity and angle angle of rotation vs the collisions volumes it hits, produces the physics result. I would be surprised if you aren't seeing big rebounds on slapshots off the pads but I do know that if the puck ramps up off the stick into the chest, the goalie can smother it. You will see big rebounds at times off weak wristers as the goalie plays a kick save that tries to kick the puck out as that is what the save coverage plays and the frame at which is makes contact, sometimes too late or at an angle that isn't ideal can produce a more juicy rebound that you would want. Other times, they deflect the puck perfectly into the corner. It is something that is on the top of our list to look at moving forward though as we would like a lot more save coverage there with some specific work of the stick to direct pucks properly as well as move with the puck during a save more often to be there when there is an unintended result from a rebound, etc.

    We did make some changes in the latest tuner as far as the goalie positioning is concerned and allowed the goalie to cover pucks more often when they come in at lower speeds they can handle as well but until we improve/add some more animations there will be cases that could be better for sure.

    We removed x/y error on saves this year when the goalie is unscreened no matter what they attributes are so when a shot finds an arm pit, it is mostly that they are just late or that as you say may get a bounce they didn't intend from another part of their body that was meant to stop the puck. If the save itself was a dead center chest save, they may not have needed to seal their arm as much in the way they puck reacted when we originally got the save but in the puck physics in our game, it may find a way through. We try to fix these up as we come across them which is why you will see patch notes saying that we have improved/updated goalie animations. Those are when we try to catch cases of pads not being flush with the ice at certain frames or seals not being closed off as expected, etc.

    As you know as a former goalie, the last line of defense takes the heat. This happens even more when it is an ai goalie as the human factor of what it takes to perform well is lost for people and they just blame the game but getting a believable goalie right has got to be one of the toughest things in sports videogames as they need to have organic and realistic error in their decision making, reaction time, etc. and the people that they are playing in front of also expect them to keep them in games as we do with any goalie. Not making excuses for it but I think they will be called out no matter how close we get and we just have to keep looking for ways to improve them.

    Thanks for the insight. Didn’t mean to call you out, I just think when playing offline, goalies are one of the bigger immersion breakers at times. I think their save selection has greatly improved the last two years, and maybe that’s why the armpit goals and the shoulder shrugs that go up and over are so noticeable.

    I’d suggest making goalie shoulders a little more diagonal in shape as goalie armor is definitely pointed and jagged so those pucks don’t hit rounded shoulders are arc over you. Honestly I run goalies at 50 reaction time, 65 cross-crease, and 100 screen effect offline and I get a good variation of 5+ combined goal games and 2-1 slugfests so it’s not to say that they aren’t good or challenging. They just need to feel a little more real and I get that what I mentioned is the hardest part.

    Thanks for the effort. V1.01 with my sliders is the best hockey video game I’ve ever played!
  • DDA is also rampant and ridiculously obvious in HUT challenges. Need to win faceoffs? CPU will be a master. Need a certain amount of attack zone time? CPU will have glue on their sticks....Need to take no penalties? One of your CPU AI teammates will take one. Just played the Rangers on superstar for the collectible. Winning 1-0 with 16 seconds left in the game the Rangers score on their first and only shot on net, a weak baby shot, then win in a shootout by scoring with all 3 skaters against my AI goalie....what joke
  • jake19ny wrote: »
    Winning 1-0 with 16 seconds left in the game the Rangers score on their first and only shot on net, a weak baby shot, then win in a shootout by scoring with all 3 skaters against my AI goalie....what joke

    Video?
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!