EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 Content Update October 25th


Check out our CHEL notes with our October Patch update here.

An Update on Gameplay Feedback + Action Plan

Replies

  • fumbler161 wrote: »
    Hey EA. Long time supporter of the NHL franchise. Like since the beginning. 1993 which makes that a 25 year on and off relationship. I’m disgusted with this pause-glitch that so many inconsiderate, selfish people are using. I’m busting my balls trying to get somewhere in HUT and have spent a few bucks trying to improve my team. I can live with the ridiculous odds of trying to get a great player in a pack, that’s my decision to take a gamble. But you cannot even provide a safe, fair play environment for us all to enjoy. I had to give up on the competitive season after seeing how much of a fraud these trolls have made it. Now it’s spilling over to the HUT division seasons? I’m trying very hard to reach Div 1, which is a chore for me as I’m not as elite as most of these young bucks haha. But I still try. I feel completely duped by all of this and would like a refund on my 4 purchases so far. How do I go about that??
    Please advise. This may be the wrong spot to post this but wasn’t sure where. Maybe I should just call EA or drive down to the Burnaby, BC office and ask there.

    Thanks
    Andrew

    Go get them man. You are right.
  • iAmJULES2 wrote: »
    When someone is doing the ballerina pivot in the corner/faceoff circle until they can slip far enough towards the slot for that patented "cheese" shortside wrister. Is that a skilled player? Currently, if the offensive player and the defensive player are same size, hitting/bumping heavily favors the offenceman. Even if the defender plays him perfectly and keeps him to the boards for a whole 30 seconds, while he pivots back and forth waiting. More often than not, because of the mechanics of movement in this game, the player making the first action (offenceman trying to pivot) will eventually be able to slip the defender. Sometimes upto 3 bumps, and not able to use stickwork because he is curling the puck all the while.

    There seems to be a divide among the playerbase if this is a skilled player or not. Because the Beta was more about hockey plays, and quick puck movement. Most of the players I knew last year that were those ballerina forwards that played how I described in the first paragraph, were not happy with the Beta, and claimed they took all the skill out of the game.

    So my qurto everyone is, is that a skilled player? If that type of offence is not a skilled individual play, what is? And do you guys want there to be a place for "skilled" players in the game, or is it better off with more teamwork and less independent plays like the example I gave?

    They are both skill gaps. The question is: in a hockey game, do we want the skill gap to be who can play better hockey or do we want it to be who can exploit the game better?

    The overwhelming majority of us want the skill gap in a hockey game to be hockey skill, not exploitation skill.

    true.
  • Thanks for the summary, and rough eta. Can’t wait to give it a shot!
    All Comments pertain to 6v6 drop in unless otherwise stated..
  • EpiCxOwNeD wrote: »
    I think goal tending was the biggest negative after the tuners. Goalies then were good. They could stop unscreened shots from far out and sometimes close in. When you scored it actually felt like you scored as in beating the goalie. Now, it’s just the same routine over and over from the past few years. Wrist shot short side, goal. For once we believed that team hockey was going to win games. For a while it was the way to go. It was fun and refreshing as it seemed the series was going in that direction.

    I think goalies should stay like they were in the beta after the limited time beta tuner is gone. I don’t find it rewarding to score since the goalies were touched.

    I agree. I want the hardest possible goalie to beat.

  • Ps: tune the game for the hockey players. The “gamers” will always adapt..after all..they have those nimble dexterous little hands which haven’t been broken..a few times..each...they’ll be fine..

    Yes and LOL
  • PadrinoIV wrote: »
    EpiCxOwNeD wrote: »
    I think goal tending was the biggest negative after the tuners. Goalies then were good. They could stop unscreened shots from far out and sometimes close in. When you scored it actually felt like you scored as in beating the goalie. Now, it’s just the same routine over and over from the past few years. Wrist shot short side, goal. For once we believed that team hockey was going to win games. For a while it was the way to go. It was fun and refreshing as it seemed the series was going in that direction.

    I think goalies should stay like they were in the beta after the limited time beta tuner is gone. I don’t find it rewarding to score since the goalies were touched.

    I agree. I want the hardest possible goalie to beat.

    Agreed the game was fun when the goalie's were harder to beat but then again I'm not an elite streamer so what do I know
  • Anything is better than what we currently have. This tuner needs to happen sooner. Just about ready to install 18 again.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    Appreciate all the opinions being shared in anticipation of the tuner rollback period.

    [EDITED FOR BREVITY]

    The next bit of feedback I continued to get hit with was regarding 'skillzone defense' and 'bumps'. I took longer to consider tuning around these two pieces of feedback as we had already made the big change to turn off all ai defense against puck carriers after 4 frames of puck possession and that we wanted to maintain what we had tuned with the new physics for longer to see what was player skill in offense/defense/learning curve vs what were holes in the tuning/mechanics.

    Competitive HUT and VS players continued to show clips regarding skill zone and I gave counter arguments around it not being the defensive players responsibility to chase the offensive player when they aren't a threat themselves to score just to be seen as playing 'active defense'. That if they wanted to drop back and block the pass, especially when the ai wasn't actively taking the puck away, that should be in their full right playing defense.

    I was also sent examples of what players meant by 'bumps'. These were commonly players on breakaways that were losing the puck from slight incidental contact from behind on breakaways, or players that would chase and get beat out of the corner only to throw a check back against their momentum only to get a slight piece of the puck carrier and cause them to stumble and lose possession. There were also some of those over the top cases where a player getting shoved from behind would keep attempting to pick up a puck and not be able to even though they were trying to pick up the puck and skate away in the direction they were being pushed to.

    I held ground on both of those for a bit to stand by our original goals and ensure tuning was needed more than players adapting but started to understand with more examples why it was seen as having a lower skill gap on defense where lower skilled players were getting bailed out from poor play. A higher skill gap where we felt that defensive players had more than enough tools to still shut down players when playing properly still completely aligned with our original goals so we looked at tuning what could isolate those issues -- thus the changes around reducing the time of puck possession before the ai couldn't trigger a defensive action on the puck carrier to 0 frames and tuning low relative speed checks from behind a player.

    First off, I wanted to say thank you for the rollback. I've always been an ardent defender of Tuner 1.00, which I found to be perfect (and better than the beta). I agree with your old sentiment that you all had it right at release.

    I summarized a few points from your post below. I only kept your full comments on the skill gap because I want to refer to them later in this post.

    (1) On Defense to get Offense to be creative

    I completely agree. If the defense sucks, the offense shouldn't have much trouble scoring. I think all of us who are looking forward to the rollback would agree with this. I think we'd all also agree that 1.03 removed most - like 90% - of our defensive tools. We'd agree that the burden is on the defense to force the offense to be creative. But when it is so hard to play defense, it becomes nearly impossible to have a skill gap on defense. Stick lifts barely work, hits are unreliable, poking is inconsistent. We want our tools back. Defenders who just fly up for a hit and miss is one thing. Defenders who play great defense but get betrayed by unreliable mechanics is another. All our tools should work. The skill gap should be on positioning, not chasing, not going for dumb hits, etc. But the game should be more forgiving on positioning. If I'm dueling in the corner, I should be able to stick lift without risking a penalty while both players are right next to each other. A penalty should only occur after one player has got the puck and separated themselves. 1.00 got this right. 1.03 got it wrong.

    (2) On not wanting to reward poor defense

    Agreed. I accidentally rolled my answer to this into my response on (1).

    (3) On Skill Zoning

    Let me start this section by saying I think there is a huge difference when you're playing VS or HUT as opposed to when you're playing in EASHL as far as skills on defense goes. Because when you are playing VS or HUT, you are the only player - you cannot have a human teammate help you defend. What this means is that if the offensive player is trying to work himself into a good position to score, you have to try to block that. But, if your AI defenseman on the back side isn't properly covering the pass you will be open to a one-timer with no way to prevent it. Why? Because if you switch to cover the pass, you will get sniped short side while the player you just switched off does nothing.

    Meaning, without any sort of AI assistance on defense, the defense in a VS or HUT game has to choose which way to lose. They cannot choose which way to win. This is a problem, and I think the AI should be able to defend at least for a few frames like you had it initially. Because if I have to try to block a shot I cannot cover a pass at the same time. If my AI is out of position for the pass, and I try to fix that, I will allow the shot and get scored on that way. We need our AI defense to help and do something.

    On the other hand, I absolutely understand and agree that skill zoning as a strategy should not be allowable. So, I think your suggestion of allowing AI defense to do things for a few frames is a good compromise. If I want to move my defender to cover that pass, the guy I left should be able to defend the shot through either a poke, a lift, or a bump if the carrier gets too close.

    Or if I want to block the shot, I should be able to quickly switch to the guy blocking the pass move him, and switch back, and have him still do something to block that pass, or if the pass get through, bump the skater off the shot. In other words, skill zoning should not be a strategy, but the AI defense should be able to do something if you put them in the right position.

    My suggestion is this: Do not allow the AI to make a move within a few frames of a switch, or after several frames after the switch. I don't know if these are good numbers, but say you switch off a player. He should not be able to do any defensive moves for 0-5 frames, he should be able to do things from 6-10 frames, and he should not be able to do things from 11+ frames.. This would prevent Defenders from switching off a player to have his AI make the hit/poke/lift, and would also require offense to actually account for AI defenders. It would also allow for defenders to get SOME help from their AI - while preventing real skill zoning from occurring - to address the problems I just mentioned.

    As I said before, right now defense can only choose which way to lose against a good offensive player. They cannot choose how to win. And this is not ideal at all. And I hope you go back to allowing AI defense to do stuff at least for a few frames. I think the perfect balance is to handicap them for a few frames after switching control off them, allow them to act for a bit, then switch them off. This would give warning to the offensive player that he can't just ignore the AI defense, and he would even know when the AI defense are about to be activated after a player switched off them. But it would prevent skill zoning and would not allow a defenseman to simply skate up to a player, switch off control, and let his AI do the move without risking a penalty. I think this is by far the best of both worlds.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    Appreciate all the opinions being shared in anticipation of the tuner rollback period.

    [EDITED FOR BREVITY]

    The next bit of feedback I continued to get hit with was regarding 'skillzone defense' and 'bumps'. I took longer to consider tuning around these two pieces of feedback as we had already made the big change to turn off all ai defense against puck carriers after 4 frames of puck possession and that we wanted to maintain what we had tuned with the new physics for longer to see what was player skill in offense/defense/learning curve vs what were holes in the tuning/mechanics.

    Competitive HUT and VS players continued to show clips regarding skill zone and I gave counter arguments around it not being the defensive players responsibility to chase the offensive player when they aren't a threat themselves to score just to be seen as playing 'active defense'. That if they wanted to drop back and block the pass, especially when the ai wasn't actively taking the puck away, that should be in their full right playing defense.

    I was also sent examples of what players meant by 'bumps'. These were commonly players on breakaways that were losing the puck from slight incidental contact from behind on breakaways, or players that would chase and get beat out of the corner only to throw a check back against their momentum only to get a slight piece of the puck carrier and cause them to stumble and lose possession. There were also some of those over the top cases where a player getting shoved from behind would keep attempting to pick up a puck and not be able to even though they were trying to pick up the puck and skate away in the direction they were being pushed to.

    I held ground on both of those for a bit to stand by our original goals and ensure tuning was needed more than players adapting but started to understand with more examples why it was seen as having a lower skill gap on defense where lower skilled players were getting bailed out from poor play. A higher skill gap where we felt that defensive players had more than enough tools to still shut down players when playing properly still completely aligned with our original goals so we looked at tuning what could isolate those issues -- thus the changes around reducing the time of puck possession before the ai couldn't trigger a defensive action on the puck carrier to 0 frames and tuning low relative speed checks from behind a player.

    First off, I wanted to say thank you for the rollback. I've always been an ardent defender of Tuner 1.00, which I found to be perfect (and better than the beta). I agree with your old sentiment that you all had it right at release.

    I summarized a few points from your post below. I only kept your full comments on the skill gap because I want to refer to them later in this post.

    (1) On Defense to get Offense to be creative

    I completely agree. If the defense sucks, the offense shouldn't have much trouble scoring. I think all of us who are looking forward to the rollback would agree with this. I think we'd all also agree that 1.03 removed most - like 90% - of our defensive tools. We'd agree that the burden is on the defense to force the offense to be creative. But when it is so hard to play defense, it becomes nearly impossible to have a skill gap on defense. Stick lifts barely work, hits are unreliable, poking is inconsistent. We want our tools back. Defenders who just fly up for a hit and miss is one thing. Defenders who play great defense but get betrayed by unreliable mechanics is another. All our tools should work. The skill gap should be on positioning, not chasing, not going for dumb hits, etc. But the game should be more forgiving on positioning. If I'm dueling in the corner, I should be able to stick lift without risking a penalty while both players are right next to each other. A penalty should only occur after one player has got the puck and separated themselves. 1.00 got this right. 1.03 got it wrong.

    (2) On not wanting to reward poor defense

    Agreed. I accidentally rolled my answer to this into my response on (1).

    (3) On Skill Zoning

    Let me start this section by saying I think there is a huge difference when you're playing VS or HUT as opposed to when you're playing in EASHL as far as skills on defense goes. Because when you are playing VS or HUT, you are the only player - you cannot have a human teammate help you defend. What this means is that if the offensive player is trying to work himself into a good position to score, you have to try to block that. But, if your AI defenseman on the back side isn't properly covering the pass you will be open to a one-timer with no way to prevent it. Why? Because if you switch to cover the pass, you will get sniped short side while the player you just switched off does nothing.

    Meaning, without any sort of AI assistance on defense, the defense in a VS or HUT game has to choose which way to lose. They cannot choose which way to win. This is a problem, and I think the AI should be able to defend at least for a few frames like you had it initially. Because if I have to try to block a shot I cannot cover a pass at the same time. If my AI is out of position for the pass, and I try to fix that, I will allow the shot and get scored on that way. We need our AI defense to help and do something.

    On the other hand, I absolutely understand and agree that skill zoning as a strategy should not be allowable. So, I think your suggestion of allowing AI defense to do things for a few frames is a good compromise. If I want to move my defender to cover that pass, the guy I left should be able to defend the shot through either a poke, a lift, or a bump if the carrier gets too close.

    Or if I want to block the shot, I should be able to quickly switch to the guy blocking the pass move him, and switch back, and have him still do something to block that pass, or if the pass get through, bump the skater off the shot. In other words, skill zoning should not be a strategy, but the AI defense should be able to do something if you put them in the right position.

    My suggestion is this: Do not allow the AI to make a move within a few frames of a switch, or after several frames after the switch. I don't know if these are good numbers, but say you switch off a player. He should not be able to do any defensive moves for 0-5 frames, he should be able to do things from 6-10 frames, and he should not be able to do things from 11+ frames.. This would prevent Defenders from switching off a player to have his AI make the hit/poke/lift, and would also require offense to actually account for AI defenders. It would also allow for defenders to get SOME help from their AI - while preventing real skill zoning from occurring - to address the problems I just mentioned.

    As I said before, right now defense can only choose which way to lose against a good offensive player. They cannot choose how to win. And this is not ideal at all. And I hope you go back to allowing AI defense to do stuff at least for a few frames. I think the perfect balance is to handicap them for a few frames after switching control off them, allow them to act for a bit, then switch them off. This would give warning to the offensive player that he can't just ignore the AI defense, and he would even know when the AI defense are about to be activated after a player switched off them. But it would prevent skill zoning and would not allow a defenseman to simply skate up to a player, switch off control, and let his AI do the move without risking a penalty. I think this is by far the best of both worlds.

    Nice job man.
  • I agree with the sentiment that it is on the defense to get offense to be creative. But even more so, I would say it is on the offense to force the defense out of their comfort zone.
    Meaning bad offence which is easy to read, slow moving and going for the same plays over and over should be easy to defend against. That’s not the case today.
    Puck protection is overpowered / Defensive tools against it is underpowered...? Spin it which way you want, but the matter of the fact is that we have players gliding around in the zone, for crazy amounts of time and there’s very little we can do about it.
    I think the discussion on when you should turn the AI on or off, is the wrong way to go about this. To battle skill-zoning, what you need to do is make the human controlled player the best one out there. The player you control needs to have a high probability of intercepting passes, he needs to be able to put some power into his physical play and so on. Just let the AI be a bit slower, weaker and less accurate, there’s no need to shut them completely off.
    Now, with rolling back the tuner, I know that once again, the AI will have no reaction time and laser presicion on picking off passes from unnatural positions. In the slot, there’s gonna be a lot of sticklifts from behind, performed by AI with incredible timing.
    While a human player trying to defend the slot is full of holes. Passes goes close to your skates? There’s no way your player will adjust for that. You were trying to get into a better position = your player are a lot less likely to stop the puck because you were moving. You glide with two hands on stick, facing the passer 5 feet away? Reaction time says you can’t stop that puck.
    This should be turned around. Let the AI struggle a bit more and let the human controlled player be less hamstringed by gamemechanics we have very little control over. (Other than standing still in the middle).
    All I’m saying is make the users inputs matter more.
  • NHLDev
    1357 posts NHL Developer
    edited January 5

    First off, I wanted to say thank you for the rollback. I've always been an ardent defender of Tuner 1.00, which I found to be perfect (and better than the beta). I agree with your old sentiment that you all had it right at release.

    Always appreciate constructive feedback. The thing is, there is a ton of subjectivity in this quote:
    But when it is so hard to play defense, it becomes nearly impossible to have a skill gap on defense.

    I see things differently and that the skill gap is as wide as it has ever been this year on defense. Obviously my opinion can be seen as subjective as well but I try to use general data and personal statistic experience to back it up as well. If all players got worse on defense, I would be able to understand that claim but in reality, we see top players holding teams to very little scoring still. Personally, I have 10 shutouts in my last 12 online VS games and play decent competition since I am around rank 150 and in the mid 800s for CR. Not sure where I would land if I was able to play more games or not but I get beat when I play 900+ CR players at times so I am close to my sweet spot when playing as the Canucks. So I am speaking from experience, not just defending the game, when I say that I believe players have the tools they need to be successful on defense.

    But that is also why I bring up the point of the style of gameplay we want to promote being separate from straight skill gap conversations. There was still a big skill gap between players before even if a little less on defense specifically, so I feel that if we left that tuner and were where we are today, it would be the same players in the Top 100. I don't think we shifted anything drastically when it comes to the general separation of player skill. However, in tight games, in very competitive play, when you look at players getting bailed out after making bad decisions on defense, when those chances may only happen once in a tight game, it starts to decide games and is a bigger issue and that is why we looked at the tuning we did. I had learned things form this last tuner and had a next tuner that I was dialing in for potential release before the rollback proposal was brought up. One of the things I can judge from the rollback feedback will be how on point I was with my next thoughts for a tuner from my own experiences and what I was hearing from the community.

    I am fairly confident that we could get something that is pretty good but the rollback period and extra feedback should only help us get even more detailed feedback as well as give players a chance to play that tuning with their current experience and at their current competitive ranks which is also a big difference in how the game is perceived (we need to remember that most people played their first 30 games or so on the Beta as they went up the ranks and did so again at launch when everything was reset so weren't commonly playing players at their skill level at the same rate they would be now when they are so many more games in with a CR that is much closer to their actual.)
  • jiajji
    329 posts Member
    edited January 6
    NHLDev wrote: »

    First off, I wanted to say thank you for the rollback. I've always been an ardent defender of Tuner 1.00, which I found to be perfect (and better than the beta). I agree with your old sentiment that you all had it right at release.

    Always appreciate constructive feedback. The thing is, there is a ton of subjectivity in this quote:
    But when it is so hard to play defense, it becomes nearly impossible to have a skill gap on defense.

    I see things differently and that the skill gap is as wide as it has ever been this year on defense. Obviously my opinion can be seen as subjective as well but I try to use general data and personal statistic experience to back it up as well. If all players got worse on defense, I would be able to understand that claim but in reality, we see top players holding teams to very little scoring still. Personally, I have 10 shutouts in my last 12 online VS games and play decent competition since I am around rank 150 and in the mid 800s for CR. Not sure where I would land if I was able to play more games or not but I get beat when I play 900+ CR players at times so I am close to my sweet spot when playing as the Canucks. So I am speaking from experience, not just defending the game, when I say that I believe players have the tools they need to be successful on defense.

    But that is also why I bring up the point of the style of gameplay we want to promote being separate from straight skill gap conversations. There was still a big skill gap between players before even if a little less on defense specifically, so I feel that if we left that tuner and were where we are today, it would be the same players in the Top 100. I don't think we shifted anything drastically when it comes to the general separation of player skill. However, in tight games, in very competitive play, when you look at players getting bailed out after making bad decisions on defense, when those chances may only happen once in a tight game, it starts to decide games and is a bigger issue and that is why we looked at the tuning we did. I had learned things form this last tuner and had a next tuner that I was dialing in for potential release before the rollback proposal was brought up. One of the things I can judge from the rollback feedback will be how on point I was with my next thoughts for a tuner from my own experiences and what I was hearing from the community.

    I am fairly confident that we could get something that is pretty good but the rollback period and extra feedback should only help us get even more detailed feedback as well as give players a chance to play that tuning with their current experience and at their current competitive ranks which is also a big difference in how the game is perceived (we need to remember that most people played their first 30 games or so on the Beta as they went up the ranks and did so again at launch when everything was reset so weren't commonly playing players at their skill level at the same rate they would be now when they are so many more games in with a CR that is much closer to their actual.)

    The more you post your thoughts about gameplay the better I feel about the rollback.

    I feel very good about the defensive tools and offensive abilities. I appreciate that we can hang a high score on bad defensive teams, and we still see plenty of shutouts.

    I'd love to see you focus on situational awareness for the AI goalies, to me it's the well defended SS snipe that's the main problem and I know that you said previously that you were considering addressing it. I'd like to see that stop be at a very high percentage when the cc is properly defended and/or backhand eliminated, but open up to its current % when not properly defended. The ai goalies should be very difficult to beat imo if you cant get them moving, but they should spring all sorts of leaks if the shooter has multiple options on the scoring chance.
  • NHLDev wrote: »

    First off, I wanted to say thank you for the rollback. I've always been an ardent defender of Tuner 1.00, which I found to be perfect (and better than the beta). I agree with your old sentiment that you all had it right at release.

    Always appreciate constructive feedback. The thing is, there is a ton of subjectivity in this quote:
    But when it is so hard to play defense, it becomes nearly impossible to have a skill gap on defense.

    I see things differently and that the skill gap is as wide as it has ever been this year on defense. Obviously my opinion can be seen as subjective as well but I try to use general data and personal statistic experience to back it up as well. If all players got worse on defense, I would be able to understand that claim but in reality, we see top players holding teams to very little scoring still. Personally, I have 10 shutouts in my last 12 online VS games and play decent competition since I am around rank 150 and in the mid 800s for CR. Not sure where I would land if I was able to play more games or not but I get beat when I play 900+ CR players at times so I am close to my sweet spot when playing as the Canucks. So I am speaking from experience, not just defending the game, when I say that I believe players have the tools they need to be successful on defense.

    But that is also why I bring up the point of the style of gameplay we want to promote being separate from straight skill gap conversations. There was still a big skill gap between players before even if a little less on defense specifically, so I feel that if we left that tuner and were where we are today, it would be the same players in the Top 100. I don't think we shifted anything drastically when it comes to the general separation of player skill. However, in tight games, in very competitive play, when you look at players getting bailed out after making bad decisions on defense, when those chances may only happen once in a tight game, it starts to decide games and is a bigger issue and that is why we looked at the tuning we did. I had learned things form this last tuner and had a next tuner that I was dialing in for potential release before the rollback proposal was brought up. One of the things I can judge from the rollback feedback will be how on point I was with my next thoughts for a tuner from my own experiences and what I was hearing from the community.

    I am fairly confident that we could get something that is pretty good but the rollback period and extra feedback should only help us get even more detailed feedback as well as give players a chance to play that tuning with their current experience and at their current competitive ranks which is also a big difference in how the game is perceived (we need to remember that most people played their first 30 games or so on the Beta as they went up the ranks and did so again at launch when everything was reset so weren't commonly playing players at their skill level at the same rate they would be now when they are so many more games in with a CR that is much closer to their actual.)

    What do you think about my suggestion on a middle ground between completely disabled AI defensemen and completely enabled AI defensemen?

    (Reproduced below):
    NHLDev wrote: »
    Appreciate all the opinions being shared in anticipation of the tuner rollback period.

    [EDITED FOR BREVITY]

    The next bit of feedback I continued to get hit with was regarding 'skillzone defense' and 'bumps'. I took longer to consider tuning around these two pieces of feedback as we had already made the big change to turn off all ai defense against puck carriers after 4 frames of puck possession and that we wanted to maintain what we had tuned with the new physics for longer to see what was player skill in offense/defense/learning curve vs what were holes in the tuning/mechanics.

    Competitive HUT and VS players continued to show clips regarding skill zone and I gave counter arguments around it not being the defensive players responsibility to chase the offensive player when they aren't a threat themselves to score just to be seen as playing 'active defense'. That if they wanted to drop back and block the pass, especially when the ai wasn't actively taking the puck away, that should be in their full right playing defense.

    I was also sent examples of what players meant by 'bumps'. These were commonly players on breakaways that were losing the puck from slight incidental contact from behind on breakaways, or players that would chase and get beat out of the corner only to throw a check back against their momentum only to get a slight piece of the puck carrier and cause them to stumble and lose possession. There were also some of those over the top cases where a player getting shoved from behind would keep attempting to pick up a puck and not be able to even though they were trying to pick up the puck and skate away in the direction they were being pushed to.

    I held ground on both of those for a bit to stand by our original goals and ensure tuning was needed more than players adapting but started to understand with more examples why it was seen as having a lower skill gap on defense where lower skilled players were getting bailed out from poor play. A higher skill gap where we felt that defensive players had more than enough tools to still shut down players when playing properly still completely aligned with our original goals so we looked at tuning what could isolate those issues -- thus the changes around reducing the time of puck possession before the ai couldn't trigger a defensive action on the puck carrier to 0 frames and tuning low relative speed checks from behind a player.

    My suggestion is this: Do not allow the AI to make a move within a few frames of a switch, or after several frames after the switch. I don't know if these are good numbers, but say you switch off a player. He should not be able to do any defensive moves for 0-5 frames, he should be able to do things from 6-10 frames, and he should not be able to do things from 11+ frames.. This would prevent Defenders from switching off a player to have his AI make the hit/poke/lift, and would also require offense to actually account for AI defenders. It would also allow for defenders to get SOME help from their AI - while preventing real skill zoning from occurring - to address the problems I just mentioned.

    As I said before, right now defense can only choose which way to lose against a good offensive player. They cannot choose how to win. And this is not ideal at all. And I hope you go back to allowing AI defense to do stuff at least for a few frames. I think the perfect balance is to handicap them for a few frames after switching control off them, allow them to act for a bit, then switch them off. This would give warning to the offensive player that he can't just ignore the AI defense, and he would even know when the AI defense are about to be activated after a player switched off them. But it would prevent skill zoning and would not allow a defenseman to simply skate up to a player, switch off control, and let his AI do the move without risking a penalty. I think this is by far the best of both worlds.
  • Sarreke
    3 posts New member
    Any word on finally getting authentic goal songs back in the game. AKA Chelsea Dagger????!!!!

    Can’t claim “EA, it’s in the game without it.”

  • What do you think about my suggestion on a middle ground between completely disabled AI defensemen and completely enabled AI defensemen?

    (Reproduced below):
    NHLDev wrote: »
    Appreciate all the opinions being shared in anticipation of the tuner rollback period.

    [EDITED FOR BREVITY]

    The next bit of feedback I continued to get hit with was regarding 'skillzone defense' and 'bumps'. I took longer to consider tuning around these two pieces of feedback as we had already made the big change to turn off all ai defense against puck carriers after 4 frames of puck possession and that we wanted to maintain what we had tuned with the new physics for longer to see what was player skill in offense/defense/learning curve vs what were holes in the tuning/mechanics.

    Competitive HUT and VS players continued to show clips regarding skill zone and I gave counter arguments around it not being the defensive players responsibility to chase the offensive player when they aren't a threat themselves to score just to be seen as playing 'active defense'. That if they wanted to drop back and block the pass, especially when the ai wasn't actively taking the puck away, that should be in their full right playing defense.

    I was also sent examples of what players meant by 'bumps'. These were commonly players on breakaways that were losing the puck from slight incidental contact from behind on breakaways, or players that would chase and get beat out of the corner only to throw a check back against their momentum only to get a slight piece of the puck carrier and cause them to stumble and lose possession. There were also some of those over the top cases where a player getting shoved from behind would keep attempting to pick up a puck and not be able to even though they were trying to pick up the puck and skate away in the direction they were being pushed to.

    I held ground on both of those for a bit to stand by our original goals and ensure tuning was needed more than players adapting but started to understand with more examples why it was seen as having a lower skill gap on defense where lower skilled players were getting bailed out from poor play. A higher skill gap where we felt that defensive players had more than enough tools to still shut down players when playing properly still completely aligned with our original goals so we looked at tuning what could isolate those issues -- thus the changes around reducing the time of puck possession before the ai couldn't trigger a defensive action on the puck carrier to 0 frames and tuning low relative speed checks from behind a player.

    My suggestion is this: Do not allow the AI to make a move within a few frames of a switch, or after several frames after the switch. I don't know if these are good numbers, but say you switch off a player. He should not be able to do any defensive moves for 0-5 frames, he should be able to do things from 6-10 frames, and he should not be able to do things from 11+ frames.. This would prevent Defenders from switching off a player to have his AI make the hit/poke/lift, and would also require offense to actually account for AI defenders. It would also allow for defenders to get SOME help from their AI - while preventing real skill zoning from occurring - to address the problems I just mentioned.

    As I said before, right now defense can only choose which way to lose against a good offensive player. They cannot choose how to win. And this is not ideal at all. And I hope you go back to allowing AI defense to do stuff at least for a few frames. I think the perfect balance is to handicap them for a few frames after switching control off them, allow them to act for a bit, then switch them off. This would give warning to the offensive player that he can't just ignore the AI defense, and he would even know when the AI defense are about to be activated after a player switched off them. But it would prevent skill zoning and would not allow a defenseman to simply skate up to a player, switch off control, and let his AI do the move without risking a penalty. I think this is by far the best of both worlds.

    The only reason the ai was doing things for a few frames at the beginning of the year was so that they could hopefully hit a player a few frames after pass reception or still stick lift them slightly after reception to break up passing plays. We realized the main times this was actually occurring though wasn't really after pass receptions but more when a player would pick a puck back up after incidental puck loss to the ai which made people feel that the ai were still having too much of an impact since you would lose it to them through incidental contact and then they would do something even more to take it away the next time as you went to pick it back up and were inside those few frames of possession.

    With the tuning we currently have, the ai is set to All Star for their positioning still and will tie players up and perform pass deflections and interceptions so that they are seen as solid off puck so that the human can focus on defending the current puck carrier where the ai won't do the job for you -- Which overall was the main complaints about skill zone. Personally, I still see the other side and feel that as a team sport, a puck carrier that gets themselves into a jam where another player can support on defense deserves to lose the puck even easier but good human players on defense are shutting players down so I have been fine with how it has turned out while still also removing skillzone as a main strategy.

    AI Player positioning and incidental stick on stick and stick on body contact still requires players to be aware of ai players as the puck carrier but if you really want a good chance of taking the puck back, it is on the human player to force more from the puck carrier and actively play defense against them. I still switch between being aggressive against the puck carrier and defending passes depending on the situation and the current threat of the puck carrier. All part of the strategy.

    As stated in the other post, I don't actually see the current mechanics as limiting on defense or that they are at the mercy of offense the same as you do. I think anyone scoring goals against a good defensive player by making the right reads deserves them and when you start to say they see you do 'x' and can quickly react to do 'y', that is all part of the skill on offense and/or part of the strategy on defense to give them different looks and not fully commit at times to keep them guessing and get them to run into or pass into mistakes and turnovers.
  • Sarreke wrote: »
    Any word on finally getting authentic goal songs back in the game. AKA Chelsea Dagger????!!!!

    Can’t claim “EA, it’s in the game without it.”

    Well, I have a personal bias towards the authentic goal music as I was responsible for presentation and music when we added those in and it was one of my initiatives to see how many we could land.

    I am not as closely tied to it now, with a sole focus on Gameplay but I know they weren't able to re-sign those deals for this year. I am not sure if there are plans to revisit for future years or not.

    Keep in mind, when I made those goal songs a big focus, there were a lot of people that weren't happy with the soundtrack so there are pros and cons to different directions.
  • Nuckles37
    80 posts Member
    edited January 6
    NHLDev wrote: »
    We got two pieces of feedback during the Beta. The unanimous one was that tripping penalties were too harsh and the other was that there wasn't enough differentiation in skating -- that although the skating was almost unanimously liked, big players shouldn't have been as agile. We already had a bunch of updates complete for the Day 0 build of the game for the pokecheck/dss mechanics vs tripping logic so we didn't touch that at all. The only things we tuned in the Beta tuner were increasing the effect agility ratings had on skating to differentiate players more (which was tuning we almost opened the Beta with but waited until we got that feedback first to be sure) and updating how stamina regeneration worked in Ones.

    The two big complaints from the EASHL 6's community regarding skating have been that average size builds also got their skating nerfed pretty noticeably, and that people mostly wanted the smaller builds to get a slight boost in skating, average builds stay the same, and huge builds get a slight nerf in the beta. We loved how the skating felt fast and responsive, and now it just feels very sluggish and unresponsive (especially with higher ping). Keep in mind that most builds don't have very high skating attributes in the EASHL compared to players in HUT/VS. Maybe increasing the skating attributes for all builds would partially help. (some other attributes could use a boost as well, such as shot accuracy and power)
    Post edited by Nuckles37 on
  • Nuckles37 wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    We got two pieces of feedback during the Beta. The unanimous one was that tripping penalties were too harsh and the other was that there wasn't enough differentiation in skating -- that although the skating was almost unanimously liked, big players shouldn't have been as agile. We already had a bunch of updates complete for the Day 0 build of the game for the pokecheck/dss mechanics vs tripping logic so we didn't touch that at all. The only things we tuned in the Beta tuner were increasing the effect agility ratings had on skating to differentiate players more (which was tuning we almost opened the Beta with but waited until we got that feedback first to be sure) and updating how stamina regeneration worked in Ones.

    The two big complaints from the EASHL 6's community regarding skating have been that average size builds also got their skating nerfed pretty noticeably, and that people mostly wanted the smaller builds to get a slight boost in skating, average builds stay the same, and huge builds get a slight nerf in the beta. We loved how the skating felt fast and responsive, and now it just feels very sluggish and unresponsive (especially with higher ping). Keep in mind that most builds don't have very high skating attributes in the EASHL compared to players in HUT/VS. Maybe increasing the skating attributes for all builds would partially help. (some other attributes could use a boost as well, such as shot accuracy and power)

    average size builds did NOT get their skating nerfed. unless you think 6'2 220 is average. I would say that in this game 6 - 6'1 is average. depending on build/attributes probably skate circles around any previous "current gen" game.

    plain and simple people want to play big dmen and pwf/grinders that can skate like mcdavid and hit like scott stevens. Beta had a lot of good but the fact that everyone was playing as large players and builds was so stupid. one of the best players i knew played almost exclusively as enforcer and just dominated offensively. The only problem was the occasional penalties.
  • Nuckles37
    80 posts Member
    edited January 6
    average size builds did NOT get their skating nerfed. unless you think 6'2 220 is average. I would say that in this game 6 - 6'1 is average. depending on build/attributes probably skate circles around any previous "current gen" game.

    plain and simple people want to play big dmen and pwf/grinders that can skate like mcdavid and hit like scott stevens. Beta had a lot of good but the fact that everyone was playing as large players and builds was so stupid. one of the best players i knew played almost exclusively as enforcer and just dominated offensively. The only problem was the occasional penalties.

    Prior to skating nerf I was using 6'2, 210lb TWD. After skating nerf I tried minimum size TWD (6'0, 200lbs) and it still felt noticeably worse. Now I'm using 5'10 or 5'11, 186lb PMD so I can feel like I can move around properly on East servers (from Vancouver).

    TWD is supposed to be an average defenseman build, balancing offense and defense. TWD height ranges from 6'0 to 6'4 or 6'5, and 200lbs to 235/240lbs. That should mean a 6'2, 210-215lb TWD is considered average size for defensemen.

    Almost everyone in the LGHL is using small builds now. It's quite frankly dumb and unrealistic.
  • TheMajjam
    422 posts Member
    edited January 6
    Welp, after hearing a dev say there's nothing wrong with the defensive tools, tuning, etc, it seems that those of us complaining about defense have no clue what we're talking about or complaining about. In essence, if a forward scores on a defensive player deemed as good, he clearly deserves it and the game is good and balanced. Apparently, It was always that defensive players were getting bailed out for making bad decisions. I've played with the top tier on LGHL and I guess those of us that play D on that league are, quite frankly, delusional for thinking the defense sucks. A lot of us take what we are given, play, and succeed anyway. Myself included. However, just because someone can be good at D and adapts to how the game plays, doesn't make it right and doesn't make it fun. This one is the last straw for me. Done.

    Post edited by TheMajjam on
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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