EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 Patch Details April 3rd

image
Check out our April 3rd patch details here.

And just like that...the optimism faded

Replies

  • Have you guys ever tinkered with the min reaction times, lowering shooting accuracy and fiddling with the delay?

    I would think if balanced properly you guys could get something that looks really similar to real hockey and can still play well on 4 minute periods.
  • NHLDev
    1668 posts EA NHL Developer
    edited November 2018
    Have you guys ever tinkered with the min reaction times, lowering shooting accuracy and fiddling with the delay?

    I would think if balanced properly you guys could get something that looks really similar to real hockey and can still play well on 4 minute periods.

    Lots of players tune our game offline to try and get something that matches their idea of a more realistic feel but not many have period lengths shorter than 7 minutes as they attempt to do that.

    Our shot totals are already low on competitive with the current shot accuracy, defensive tools/interceptions and incidental contact settings and we know that most people don't want longer periods and/or a bunch of 1-0 games when players are getting good chances to score, so we try and tune everything to what makes sense for competitive play at 4 minute periods.


  • NHLDev wrote: »
    Have you guys ever tinkered with the min reaction times, lowering shooting accuracy and fiddling with the delay?

    I would think if balanced properly you guys could get something that looks really similar to real hockey and can still play well on 4 minute periods.

    Lots of players tune our game offline to try and get something that matches their idea of a more realistic feel but not many have period lengths shorter than 7 minutes as they attempt to do that.

    Our shot totals are already low on competitive with the current shot accuracy, defensive tools/interceptions and incidental contact settings and we know that most people don't want longer periods and/or a bunch of 1-0 games when players are getting good chances to score, so we try and tune everything to what makes sense for competitive play at 4 minute periods.


    I'm gonna fiddle around with offline tuners for the first time in years. I'll post games eventually, also showing comparison between versions (current version vs 1.01 and 1.0) and I'll see if I can find a bit out. Is that why the game's shooting mechanics the way they are? So people can say, "Hey I got 24 shots this game, pretty close to real life!"?

  • It is the game's fault for granting such a high success rate of the same repetitive plays. It is also the player's fault for going to these plays, but how can you blame them when they consistently work, and even worse, work with less effort than setting up plays and moving the puck around?

    Simply put, great players know what to do to get those predictable outcomes, or plays, to then go for those consistent goals.

    Here's an even better one. Get a youtube video of a top VS player, and then find me an NHL game that is very similar. You will not find one because this game doesn't reflect that. The end result here is to make forwards score goals and sell HUT packs. It is, in the end, a business.

    Of course a for profit company wants to sell as much as they can. Nobody is forced to buy packs. Over the last few years they have given us more ways to get items for free. They've been doing the opposite of what you're saying and giving us less reasons to spend money. With all the challenges, monthly rewards, Competitive Seasons, etc, it's easier than ever to build a strong team without spending anything extra and not having to spend a huge chunk of time working the market.
  • LeFury_27 wrote: »
    It's so painfully obvious short side goals are broken.

    Almost half of the last 30 games I played was me saying to myself, here we go again, all I gotta do is just stand in front of this guy every time he enters the zone because the only thing he is attempting to do is go short side.

    That is just boring hockey and ruins all the fun. You don't need to worry much anymore about one timers, rebounds or point shots for the tip. Almost every game is the same story, no team play, just enter zone try to cut in and go short side because it's more effective than cycling and making plays.

    If that is all players are doing now that proves beyond all doubt that short side is broken and EA needs to fix it.

    Exactly. It's boring to play against the same strategy every time. Yeah, it's fun to frustrate those guys and shut them down every time, but it's just not fun. As you get higher up though, I'm seeing more cycling, better shots being set up, etc. They will take advantage of the short side if you give it to them, but I'm pretty regularly now seeing guys work the puck around while they try to set up good shots. They games where they try to exploit the short side still outweigh the ones where they play more like real hockey, but at least it's happening more frequently now.
  • LeFury_27
    203 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    1.0 Tuner skill gap: Players who make good passing plays and cycle the puck will win games.

    1.03 Tuner skill gap: Players who know how to exploit the goalies movement and score short side goals over and over will win games. This more accurately represents real life hockey.

    EA Logic: 1.03 has a bigger skill gap because we said so.

    Okay sure.. :wink:

    I literally just played a guy for 3 full periods and 4 min into over time, he tried scoring short side goals from the same spot about 50 times, it worked twice. I got em in overtime though, nice to beat those fake, overly competitive hockey fans who look to abuse everything in game. He actually lost because he tried to rag the puck in his own end to create a 2 on 1 but he turned it over loll. It's so funny EA thinks that this represents real hockey, it's cringy tbh.
  • LeFury_27 wrote: »
    1.0 Tuner skill gap: Players who make good passing plays and cycle the puck will win games.

    1.03 Tuner skill gap: Players who know how to exploit the goalies movement and score short side goals over and over will win games. This more accurately represents real life hockey.

    EA Logic: 1.03 has a bigger skill gap because we said so.

    Okay sure.. :wink:

    I literally just played a guy for 3 full periods and 4 min into over time, he tried scoring short side goals from the same spot about 50 times, it worked twice. I got em in over time though, nice to beat those fake, overly competitive hockey fans who look to abuse everything in game. It's so funny EA thinks that this represents real hockey, it's cringy tbh.

    This is not even close to what hockey is it's a joke of a game after this last twitch streamers tuner
  • LeFury_27 wrote: »
    1.0 Tuner skill gap: Players who make good passing plays and cycle the puck will win games.

    1.03 Tuner skill gap: Players who know how to exploit the goalies movement and score short side goals over and over will win games. This more accurately represents real life hockey.

    EA Logic: 1.03 has a bigger skill gap because we said so.

    Okay sure.. :wink:

    I literally just played a guy for 3 full periods and 4 min into over time, he tried scoring short side goals from the same spot about 50 times, it worked twice. I got em in over time though, nice to beat those fake, overly competitive hockey fans who look to abuse everything in game. It's so funny EA thinks that this represents real hockey, it's cringy tbh.

    This is not even close to what hockey is it's a joke of a game after this last twitch streamers tuner

    That’s all the game has turned into. Avoid hits and shoot for the cheese. Anyone who hasn’t noticed that the game got numbed down is oblivious.
  • EpiCxOwNeD wrote: »
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    1.0 Tuner skill gap: Players who make good passing plays and cycle the puck will win games.

    1.03 Tuner skill gap: Players who know how to exploit the goalies movement and score short side goals over and over will win games. This more accurately represents real life hockey.

    EA Logic: 1.03 has a bigger skill gap because we said so.

    Okay sure.. :wink:

    I literally just played a guy for 3 full periods and 4 min into over time, he tried scoring short side goals from the same spot about 50 times, it worked twice. I got em in over time though, nice to beat those fake, overly competitive hockey fans who look to abuse everything in game. It's so funny EA thinks that this represents real hockey, it's cringy tbh.

    This is not even close to what hockey is it's a joke of a game after this last twitch streamers tuner

    That’s all the game has turned into. Avoid hits and shoot for the cheese. Anyone who hasn’t noticed that the game got numbed down is oblivious.

    Just goes to show who EA caters to whiners and cheesers
  • EpiCxOwNeD wrote: »
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    1.0 Tuner skill gap: Players who make good passing plays and cycle the puck will win games.

    1.03 Tuner skill gap: Players who know how to exploit the goalies movement and score short side goals over and over will win games. This more accurately represents real life hockey.

    EA Logic: 1.03 has a bigger skill gap because we said so.

    Okay sure.. :wink:

    I literally just played a guy for 3 full periods and 4 min into over time, he tried scoring short side goals from the same spot about 50 times, it worked twice. I got em in over time though, nice to beat those fake, overly competitive hockey fans who look to abuse everything in game. It's so funny EA thinks that this represents real hockey, it's cringy tbh.

    This is not even close to what hockey is it's a joke of a game after this last twitch streamers tuner

    That’s all the game has turned into. Avoid hits and shoot for the cheese. Anyone who hasn’t noticed that the game got numbed down is oblivious.

    Just goes to show who EA caters to whiners and cheesers

    There’s nothing but negativity about the game since they tuned the game. It’s tell you they've done something wrong. Wether they admit to it or not the game isn’t the same product it was released or even in beta and people noticed.
  • EpiCxOwNeD wrote: »
    EpiCxOwNeD wrote: »
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    1.0 Tuner skill gap: Players who make good passing plays and cycle the puck will win games.

    1.03 Tuner skill gap: Players who know how to exploit the goalies movement and score short side goals over and over will win games. This more accurately represents real life hockey.

    EA Logic: 1.03 has a bigger skill gap because we said so.

    Okay sure.. :wink:

    I literally just played a guy for 3 full periods and 4 min into over time, he tried scoring short side goals from the same spot about 50 times, it worked twice. I got em in over time though, nice to beat those fake, overly competitive hockey fans who look to abuse everything in game. It's so funny EA thinks that this represents real hockey, it's cringy tbh.

    This is not even close to what hockey is it's a joke of a game after this last twitch streamers tuner

    That’s all the game has turned into. Avoid hits and shoot for the cheese. Anyone who hasn’t noticed that the game got numbed down is oblivious.

    Just goes to show who EA caters to whiners and cheesers

    There’s nothing but negativity about the game since they tuned the game. It’s tell you they've done something wrong. Wether they admit to it or not the game isn’t the same product it was released or even in beta and people noticed.

    No it isn't and yes people have noticed because they've stop playing because the game isn't fun
  • GOW_LIKE_A_BOSS
    536 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    NHLDev wrote: »
    Have you guys ever tinkered with the min reaction times, lowering shooting accuracy and fiddling with the delay?

    I would think if balanced properly you guys could get something that looks really similar to real hockey and can still play well on 4 minute periods.

    Lots of players tune our game offline to try and get something that matches their idea of a more realistic feel but not many have period lengths shorter than 7 minutes as they attempt to do that.

    Our shot totals are already low on competitive with the current shot accuracy, defensive tools/interceptions and incidental contact settings and we know that most people don't want longer periods and/or a bunch of 1-0 games when players are getting good chances to score, so we try and tune everything to what makes sense for competitive play at 4 minute periods.


    These were the sliders for goalie I came up with in 18 and they still worked well in 19.
    Sliders are:
    Mine (Online) [Full-sim]

    Goalie cross-crease reaction time CPU&Human: 90/100 (50/100) [50/100]
    Goalie save reaction time CPU&Human: 80/100 (50/100) [50/100]
    Goalie deflection reaction time CPU&Human: 70/100 (50/100) [50/100]
    Goalie screen effect CPU&Human: 65/100 (60/100) [60/100]
    Goalie Screen Persistence CPU/Human: 10/100 (60/100) [60/100]

    (Also, one a screen goes away, it only takes the goalie a second to recover. No more 5 second wait before he'll work again)

    Why not just crank up the goalie tuners? It makes them much more realistic in their ending save % numbers, I found.
  • NHLDev
    1668 posts EA NHL Developer
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    1.0 Tuner skill gap: Players who make good passing plays and cycle the puck will win games.

    1.03 Tuner skill gap: Players who know how to exploit the goalies movement and score short side goals over and over will win games. This more accurately represents real life hockey.

    EA Logic: 1.03 has a bigger skill gap because we said so.

    Okay sure.. :wink:

    I literally just played a guy for 3 full periods and 4 min into over time, he tried scoring short side goals from the same spot about 50 times, it worked twice. I got em in overtime though, nice to beat those fake, overly competitive hockey fans who look to abuse everything in game. He actually lost because he tried to rag the puck in his own end to create a 2 on 1 but he turned it over loll. It's so funny EA thinks that this represents real hockey, it's cringy tbh.

    I agree with some of this for sure. You have to remember, I was also responsible for the 1.0 tuner — it isn’t like it was created by the community and we came in and changed it. We have the same goals now as we did then.

    Personally, I countered the skillzone conversations quite often as hockey is a team sport where getting support on defense is a big factor in limiting offense and I still saw it as the offensive players fault when they would lose the puck to the ai rather than it being a passive human defenders fault that they didn’t chase more. That said, I do like the idea of people feeling the skill gap is bigger on defense and we heard a lot about skillzone defense so thought we would try a few more things than what we had already done. The last changes there were fairly subtle relatively to the ones that were there from the start of the Beta onwards in regards to the lack of ai defensive actions against an active puck carrier though.

    I think people still over commit too much with their body on defense and I do think players were losing the puck too easily at times when they had defenders beat so players were getting away with poor defense at times as opposed to the game not rewarding good defense now. Players were pushing players from behind on breakaways at very low relative speeds or pushing back over their shoulder as players skated around them and caused stumbles/puck loss a bit too easily, so that is what we focused on improving with the tuning.

    We definitely want players to have to be creative and cycle the puck and for the best players at it to have a lot of success (which we feel they do) but a lot of that is on the defense to force them to need to do that as well. Was it easier on defense when you could shove players off the puck even after being beat? Of course. But with the current mechanics, good defenders are still forcing players to move the puck way more than others are and that is where we speak about skill gap. We see it in the top players defensive statistics that they are holding teams to very low average goal totals.
  • Sgt_Kelso
    1198 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    NHLDev wrote: »
    We definitely want players to have to be creative and cycle the puck and for the best players at it to have a lot of success (which we feel they do) but a lot of that is on the defense to force them to need to do that as well. Was it easier on defense when you could shove players off the puck even after being beat?

    But it's not just about situations where you could shove players after getting beat. Because of the changes you made, the raggers can now just glide, drag the puck on the side, and turn their back towards the incoming stick, shove or hit, and they're almost invulnerable to it. And that's what they do all game long, this happens all the time in clubs too.

    Not to mention back-skating with the puck as valid offence 'tactic'... :/

    The issue is that these plays are at least as succesful as any plays based on real hockey, and it's the score that decides games, not the way you get your goals. And surprisingly many people are only interested in winning it the 'wrong' way, it's like they get a kick out of playing it like morons. You know, the more you grieve the opponent, the better.
  • Sgt_Kelso wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    We definitely want players to have to be creative and cycle the puck and for the best players at it to have a lot of success (which we feel they do) but a lot of that is on the defense to force them to need to do that as well. Was it easier on defense when you could shove players off the puck even after being beat?

    But it's not just about situations where you could shove players after getting beat. Because of the changes you made, the raggers can now just glide, drag the puck on the side, and turn their back towards the incoming stick, shove or hit, and they're almost invulnerable to it. And that's what they do all game long, this happens all the time in clubs too.

    Not to mention back-skating with the puck as valid offence 'tactic'... :/

    The issue is that these plays are at least as succesful as any plays based on real hockey, and it's the score that decides games, not the way you get your goals. And surprisingly many people are only interested in winning it the 'wrong' way, it's like they get a kick out of playing it like morons. You know, the more you grieve the opponent, the better.

    Exactly. I don't think he quite understands how difficult it is to use the proper tools like angling players to the boards to separate them from the puck, when the tool to separate them isn't useful. Skating them at an angle to the boards is proper defense in real life. In this game you have to contain because the hitting mechanics are so watered down, all you're left to do on defense is to force them to the outside and stay in between them and the net or the lane to pass to. I'm not quite sure he realizes just how difficult it is to "force players to be creative and cycle" on defense now. You can't do it, because hitting was taken away. Now you have to play a collapse and prevent them from danger areas (as you should), but that shouldn't be the only tactic on defense.

    All it's doing is giving more tools to offense, because they don't have to fear being edged out majority of the time because they can turn from it. Yeah, you can still defend in this game, I have numbers to prove it, but it's WAYYYY more passive than necessary, and it doesn't force offense to be creative, it does the complete opposite.
  • LeFury_27
    203 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    Here's how I feel about short side goals with no screen, some of you may agree.

    If what you are saying is the top players in NHL 19 (top 200 or so) that scoring was too low for them, I don't understand why bringing back unrealistic short side goals was the way you went.

    You could of tuned goalies on one timers and deflections. I for the life of me do not understand why you would try to get scoring up in this way, it is unrealistic and it creates selfish play.

    A lot of those elite players high up in the rankings play 1-4 trap, yes it's less effective now but it's one of the reasons they struggle to score. They don't open up and because of it all games are low scoring.

    Honestly if you tuned goalies on one timers and deflections and took out short side cheese the game would feel and play a lot better and remove a ton of frustration just by doing that one thing.
  • NHLDev
    1668 posts EA NHL Developer
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    Here's how I feel about short side goals with no screen, some of you may agree.

    If what you are saying is the top players in NHL 19 (top 200 or so) that scoring was too low for them, I don't understand why bringing back unrealistic short side goals was the way you went.

    You could of tuned goalies on one timers and deflections. I for the life of me do not understand why you would try to get scoring up in this way, it is unrealistic and it creates selfish play.

    A lot of those elite players high up in the rankings play 1-4 trap, yes it's less effective now but it's one of the reasons they struggle to score. They don't open up and because of it all games are low scoring.

    Honestly if you tuned goalies on one timers and deflections and took out short side cheese the game would feel and play a lot better and remove a ton of frustration just by doing that one thing.

    We didn’t make the goalies weaker on short side goals. We made them slower to react to passes they weren’t reading and we changed their ability to recover back against their momentum to reward teams playing the exact style you are recommending.

    As mentioned in another thread, we did make a few changes in terms of how far they challenge a shot when there is a secondary threat due to call outs about weak rebound goals. This could have made it a bit easier to score short side but in our testing, rolling back those changes didn’t really cut down short side shots where the player picked the corner. So the thought is that it is more around players not getting bumped off the puck as easy. In cases where players were beat before they may turn and still shove a player from behind causing puck loss and a lot of those may have led to goals on shots a second later like they may be now.

    Shot percentages are only up 1 percent even in the top 100 and part of that could be coming from a slight increase in one timer goals or breakfast goals from the changes to reacting to passes and recovering against mine run that I mean tokens above. Goals for and goals against are so close at the top level to what they were though that it is most likely the skill gap created on defense by lowering the ai aggression and less ability to still knock a player off the puck when beat. There will always be subjectivity in if we went too far or not with attempts at tuning but those who have adapted on defense or weren’t relying on those things the tuning has minimized aren’t seeing changes in their goals against.

    Player ability in modes like HUT also make a difference. We saw less goals like this earlier as less people had teams filled out with players with good shots and online versus games using standard NHL teams only have so many players that can shoot really well. EASHL games have potential for wide skill gaps with the more human players and various player class choices so there are a lot of factors there that would weigh into different outcomes.

    And none of this is to say we have stopped looking at things. We were playing around with goalie tuning at the end of last week regarding how goalies challenge shooters on the short side. In most cases where it becomes high percentage though, it is their reaction time vs a players ability to get a great shot off and that is why it still comes down to defense not giving good shooters any room.
  • Fair enough,

    I'm having great fun playing lately but it's the odd game where you get players trying to short side and puck rag for full 3 periods. Players like that make the game real boring and infuriating. I've been lucky to only get 2 of those players in my last 15 games, before that it was every other game.

    Hopefully a new tuner will come soon and fix or make some of the ragging and short side goals less noticeable
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    Here's how I feel about short side goals with no screen, some of you may agree.

    If what you are saying is the top players in NHL 19 (top 200 or so) that scoring was too low for them, I don't understand why bringing back unrealistic short side goals was the way you went.

    You could of tuned goalies on one timers and deflections. I for the life of me do not understand why you would try to get scoring up in this way, it is unrealistic and it creates selfish play.

    A lot of those elite players high up in the rankings play 1-4 trap, yes it's less effective now but it's one of the reasons they struggle to score. They don't open up and because of it all games are low scoring.

    Honestly if you tuned goalies on one timers and deflections and took out short side cheese the game would feel and play a lot better and remove a ton of frustration just by doing that one thing.

    We didn’t make the goalies weaker on short side goals. We made them slower to react to passes they weren’t reading and we changed their ability to recover back against their momentum to reward teams playing the exact style you are recommending.

    As mentioned in another thread, we did make a few changes in terms of how far they challenge a shot when there is a secondary threat due to call outs about weak rebound goals. This could have made it a bit easier to score short side but in our testing, rolling back those changes didn’t really cut down short side shots where the player picked the corner. So the thought is that it is more around players not getting bumped off the puck as easy. In cases where players were beat before they may turn and still shove a player from behind causing puck loss and a lot of those may have led to goals on shots a second later like they may be now.

    Shot percentages are only up 1 percent even in the top 100 and part of that could be coming from a slight increase in one timer goals or breakfast goals from the changes to reacting to passes and recovering against mine run that I mean tokens above. Goals for and goals against are so close at the top level to what they were though that it is most likely the skill gap created on defense by lowering the ai aggression and less ability to still knock a player off the puck when beat. There will always be subjectivity in if we went too far or not with attempts at tuning but those who have adapted on defense or weren’t relying on those things the tuning has minimized aren’t seeing changes in their goals against.

    Player ability in modes like HUT also make a difference. We saw less goals like this earlier as less people had teams filled out with players with good shots and online versus games using standard NHL teams only have so many players that can shoot really well. EASHL games have potential for wide skill gaps with the more human players and various player class choices so there are a lot of factors there that would weigh into different outcomes.

    And none of this is to say we have stopped looking at things. We were playing around with goalie tuning at the end of last week regarding how goalies challenge shooters on the short side. In most cases where it becomes high percentage though, it is their reaction time vs a players ability to get a great shot off and that is why it still comes down to defense not giving good shooters any room.

    What I would really be curious about is goals in 3's as that's going to be your best indicator of the most frequently abused goals in this game.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    LeFury_27 wrote: »
    Here's how I feel about short side goals with no screen, some of you may agree.

    If what you are saying is the top players in NHL 19 (top 200 or so) that scoring was too low for them, I don't understand why bringing back unrealistic short side goals was the way you went.

    You could of tuned goalies on one timers and deflections. I for the life of me do not understand why you would try to get scoring up in this way, it is unrealistic and it creates selfish play.

    A lot of those elite players high up in the rankings play 1-4 trap, yes it's less effective now but it's one of the reasons they struggle to score. They don't open up and because of it all games are low scoring.

    Honestly if you tuned goalies on one timers and deflections and took out short side cheese the game would feel and play a lot better and remove a ton of frustration just by doing that one thing.

    We didn’t make the goalies weaker on short side goals. We made them slower to react to passes they weren’t reading and we changed their ability to recover back against their momentum to reward teams playing the exact style you are recommending.

    As mentioned in another thread, we did make a few changes in terms of how far they challenge a shot when there is a secondary threat due to call outs about weak rebound goals. This could have made it a bit easier to score short side but in our testing, rolling back those changes didn’t really cut down short side shots where the player picked the corner. So the thought is that it is more around players not getting bumped off the puck as easy. In cases where players were beat before they may turn and still shove a player from behind causing puck loss and a lot of those may have led to goals on shots a second later like they may be now.

    Shot percentages are only up 1 percent even in the top 100 and part of that could be coming from a slight increase in one timer goals or breakfast goals from the changes to reacting to passes and recovering against mine run that I mean tokens above. Goals for and goals against are so close at the top level to what they were though that it is most likely the skill gap created on defense by lowering the ai aggression and less ability to still knock a player off the puck when beat. There will always be subjectivity in if we went too far or not with attempts at tuning but those who have adapted on defense or weren’t relying on those things the tuning has minimized aren’t seeing changes in their goals against.

    Player ability in modes like HUT also make a difference. We saw less goals like this earlier as less people had teams filled out with players with good shots and online versus games using standard NHL teams only have so many players that can shoot really well. EASHL games have potential for wide skill gaps with the more human players and various player class choices so there are a lot of factors there that would weigh into different outcomes.

    And none of this is to say we have stopped looking at things. We were playing around with goalie tuning at the end of last week regarding how goalies challenge shooters on the short side. In most cases where it becomes high percentage though, it is their reaction time vs a players ability to get a great shot off and that is why it still comes down to defense not giving good shooters any room.

    What I would really be curious about is goals in 3's as that's going to be your best indicator of the most frequently abused goals in this game.

    Honestly, out of any mode in the game, EASHL 3s is nothing but abusing goals such as the same breakaway move that always works.
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!