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

  • MikeyAU630 wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    I don't really think they are two camps so much as one "camp" is the logical extension of the first.

    Both sides agree defense have no tools, but one camp can still "defend" by trying to block shots and cause incidental contact.

    The important takeaway is that both of those camps agree they have no tools. I'm in the first camp. I believe @WainGretSki is in the other camp but will agree with me that his camp also agrees defense has no tools.
    Hah, alright. Maybe there are 3 camps then =)

    My main point was more about the details of those thoughts than number of camps though. An interesting thing is the camps who feel they have no tools only lost strength in tools that have to do with chasing the puck carrier from behind. Even if we increase the effectiveness of those pieces, I highly suggest those camps work more on staying goal side.

    I don't chase raggers into the corner, I try to stay goal side, as you say. The problem is with the nerfed skating since 1.02 I can't make the small adjustments needed to keep the ragger contained. I try to make a small adjustment and my player over-commits and I'm toast.

    Another issue along these lines is when I just make taps on the left stick to stay positioned, there are times were I tap twice and get a sidestepping animation that pulls me away from where I wanna be. This was a TPS implementation that I feel needs to be removed, It does much more harm than any good. I have yet to see it be useful honestly.
  • jiajji
    329 posts Member
    MikeyAU630 wrote: »
    NHLDev wrote: »
    I don't really think they are two camps so much as one "camp" is the logical extension of the first.

    Both sides agree defense have no tools, but one camp can still "defend" by trying to block shots and cause incidental contact.

    The important takeaway is that both of those camps agree they have no tools. I'm in the first camp. I believe @WainGretSki is in the other camp but will agree with me that his camp also agrees defense has no tools.
    Hah, alright. Maybe there are 3 camps then =)

    My main point was more about the details of those thoughts than number of camps though. An interesting thing is the camps who feel they have no tools only lost strength in tools that have to do with chasing the puck carrier from behind. Even if we increase the effectiveness of those pieces, I highly suggest those camps work more on staying goal side.

    I don't chase raggers into the corner, I try to stay goal side, as you say. The problem is with the nerfed skating since 1.02 I can't make the small adjustments needed to keep the ragger contained. I try to make a small adjustment and my player over-commits and I'm toast.

    Which is why they're able to "rag" the puck, and it's the best argument in favor of keeping the SS cheese.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    SpillGal wrote: »
    This is so to the core of how the game is/could be tuned, that I really thinks it needs the extra focus. What are the D doing when they are not forcing offense to be creative, then? Have they gone of the ice?
    Of course not. They would be in their prefered positions, having an easy time playing together as a team, since they’re not being challenged.
    The statement that it is on the Defense to force Offense to be creative, and not the other way around, is a dangerous philosophy to have as grounds for a hockeygame.
    I don't understand what you mean by a dangerous philosophy and that it should be the other way around. The Offense already is forcing the defense to play in certain ways. They are doing that in every action as they are driving the play by being in control of the puck until the defense makes them alter their plan. However, if the defense doesn't shut them down in such a way that they feel they need to switch up their game to have success, they are going to keep doing the same thing.

    There are two camps on the negative side. One says that they have no tools to defend and the other says they can defend it all day but it is boring. If they are defending it all day but the offense still isn't changing things up, there isn't much you can do other than start to see the fun in frustrating a one trick pony. For those that say that defense doesn't have any tools, we start to look at players that aren't having trouble on defense as examples of what should be possible for everyone if they adapt.

    If they can no longer score on the short side shot regardless if you defend it or not and still keeping taking it over and over to try and/or move to skating down trying a cross crease pass over and over, will it be any less boring? The reason why I say that the defense has to drive this is that they are the only ones that can force the offense to switch up their game and even then, they may not choose to.

    I am not sure why when a puck carrier enters the zone and curls towards the boards and/or down away into the corner why the defense follows them to the point they over commit. They have already eliminated themselves as a threat all on their own and they have to expose the puck to you at some point if they want to take the puck towards the net.

    Even with the current tuning, we don't see many true short side shots where the puck carrier has the puck to the outside as they are kept outside. So, how are those defenders then in a position where they are chasing from behind from the outside towards the middle as the puck carrier heads with the puck exposed heading in towards the slot? Where is the defender goal side to disrupt that puck?

    And before you all think this is a stance I am making that we shouldn't tune things or that I was against the previous tuning, if you remember, I stood behind the tuning 3 months ago as well when people said you couldn't score, especially with nice hockey plays and had posted this video of goals scored in my games at the time:

    We all can defend but at the mercy of which way you want us to play the game, which is where I believe the disconnect is. This passive D style we've been forced to play for so long is silly, especially for a sport that today is built on skill, speed and physicality. I've had games where I have played lights out D against an opponent who abuses the mechanics to negate hits and find lanes to score either SS goals or cross crease one timers. The fact that they weren't having much success didnt deter them from attempting the same tactics over and over. Why? Because eventually they know that a few of those attempts have a high chance of finding the back of the net with even the slightest defensive miscue. You say it's up to the D to force the offense to be creative, yet I see daily examples of good D not forcing opponents to switch their style of attack.

    So, my whole argument is this:

    How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize curling in the corners/slowing down and curling their stick away from the defender is going to result in either a big hit, turnover or both? How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize the AI goalies have regained consciousness (with beta rollback) and they cannot abuse SS wristers? In my eyes, the tools that we have may be "sufficient", they're not sufficient enough to warrant a change in game play tactics for a large portion of the community who has abused this "skill gap" for too long.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    SpillGal wrote: »
    This is so to the core of how the game is/could be tuned, that I really thinks it needs the extra focus. What are the D doing when they are not forcing offense to be creative, then? Have they gone of the ice?
    Of course not. They would be in their prefered positions, having an easy time playing together as a team, since they’re not being challenged.
    The statement that it is on the Defense to force Offense to be creative, and not the other way around, is a dangerous philosophy to have as grounds for a hockeygame.
    I don't understand what you mean by a dangerous philosophy and that it should be the other way around. The Offense already is forcing the defense to play in certain ways. They are doing that in every action as they are driving the play by being in control of the puck until the defense makes them alter their plan. However, if the defense doesn't shut them down in such a way that they feel they need to switch up their game to have success, they are going to keep doing the same thing.

    There are two camps on the negative side. One says that they have no tools to defend and the other says they can defend it all day but it is boring. If they are defending it all day but the offense still isn't changing things up, there isn't much you can do other than start to see the fun in frustrating a one trick pony. For those that say that defense doesn't have any tools, we start to look at players that aren't having trouble on defense as examples of what should be possible for everyone if they adapt.

    If they can no longer score on the short side shot regardless if you defend it or not and still keeping taking it over and over to try and/or move to skating down trying a cross crease pass over and over, will it be any less boring? The reason why I say that the defense has to drive this is that they are the only ones that can force the offense to switch up their game and even then, they may not choose to.

    I am not sure why when a puck carrier enters the zone and curls towards the boards and/or down away into the corner why the defense follows them to the point they over commit. They have already eliminated themselves as a threat all on their own and they have to expose the puck to you at some point if they want to take the puck towards the net.

    Even with the current tuning, we don't see many true short side shots where the puck carrier has the puck to the outside as they are kept outside. So, how are those defenders then in a position where they are chasing from behind from the outside towards the middle as the puck carrier heads with the puck exposed heading in towards the slot? Where is the defender goal side to disrupt that puck?

    And before you all think this is a stance I am making that we shouldn't tune things or that I was against the previous tuning, if you remember, I stood behind the tuning 3 months ago as well when people said you couldn't score, especially with nice hockey plays and had posted this video of goals scored in my games at the time:

    We all can defend but at the mercy of which way you want us to play the game, which is where I believe the disconnect is. This passive D style we've been forced to play for so long is silly, especially for a sport that today is built on skill, speed and physicality. I've had games where I have played lights out D against an opponent who abuses the mechanics to negate hits and find lanes to score either SS goals or cross crease one timers. The fact that they weren't having much success didnt deter them from attempting the same tactics over and over. Why? Because eventually they know that a few of those attempts have a high chance of finding the back of the net with even the slightest defensive miscue. You say it's up to the D to force the offense to be creative, yet I see daily examples of good D not forcing opponents to switch their style of attack.

    So, my whole argument is this:

    How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize curling in the corners/slowing down and curling their stick away from the defender is going to result in either a big hit, turnover or both? How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize the AI goalies have regained consciousness (with beta rollback) and they cannot abuse SS wristers? In my eyes, the tools that we have may be "sufficient", they're not sufficient enough to warrant a change in game play tactics for a large portion of the community who has abused this "skill gap" for too long.

    I concur. Nicely said.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    SpillGal wrote: »
    This is so to the core of how the game is/could be tuned, that I really thinks it needs the extra focus. What are the D doing when they are not forcing offense to be creative, then? Have they gone of the ice?
    Of course not. They would be in their prefered positions, having an easy time playing together as a team, since they’re not being challenged.
    The statement that it is on the Defense to force Offense to be creative, and not the other way around, is a dangerous philosophy to have as grounds for a hockeygame.
    I don't understand what you mean by a dangerous philosophy and that it should be the other way around. The Offense already is forcing the defense to play in certain ways. They are doing that in every action as they are driving the play by being in control of the puck until the defense makes them alter their plan. However, if the defense doesn't shut them down in such a way that they feel they need to switch up their game to have success, they are going to keep doing the same thing.

    There are two camps on the negative side. One says that they have no tools to defend and the other says they can defend it all day but it is boring. If they are defending it all day but the offense still isn't changing things up, there isn't much you can do other than start to see the fun in frustrating a one trick pony. For those that say that defense doesn't have any tools, we start to look at players that aren't having trouble on defense as examples of what should be possible for everyone if they adapt.

    If they can no longer score on the short side shot regardless if you defend it or not and still keeping taking it over and over to try and/or move to skating down trying a cross crease pass over and over, will it be any less boring? The reason why I say that the defense has to drive this is that they are the only ones that can force the offense to switch up their game and even then, they may not choose to.

    I am not sure why when a puck carrier enters the zone and curls towards the boards and/or down away into the corner why the defense follows them to the point they over commit. They have already eliminated themselves as a threat all on their own and they have to expose the puck to you at some point if they want to take the puck towards the net.

    Even with the current tuning, we don't see many true short side shots where the puck carrier has the puck to the outside as they are kept outside. So, how are those defenders then in a position where they are chasing from behind from the outside towards the middle as the puck carrier heads with the puck exposed heading in towards the slot? Where is the defender goal side to disrupt that puck?

    And before you all think this is a stance I am making that we shouldn't tune things or that I was against the previous tuning, if you remember, I stood behind the tuning 3 months ago as well when people said you couldn't score, especially with nice hockey plays and had posted this video of goals scored in my games at the time:

    While it is true that D can force forwards to change their game (which is practically never cause the money shots are too worth it to pass up), can't the same be said for game tunings? The last 5 years or so have tremendously favored puck ragging and the go-to goals, but this year's beta had changed all that.

    I think if you tune a game that favors victories by team play and puck cycling, then these hoggers will have to change their game if they want to win. Stop rewarding hogging and you will see D will make a difference in game.
  • NHLDev
    1370 posts EA NHL Developer
    We all can defend but at the mercy of which way you want us to play the game, which is where I believe the disconnect is. This passive D style we've been forced to play for so long is silly, especially for a sport that today is built on skill, speed and physicality. I've had games where I have played lights out D against an opponent who abuses the mechanics to negate hits and find lanes to score either SS goals or cross crease one timers. The fact that they weren't having much success didnt deter them from attempting the same tactics over and over. Why? Because eventually they know that a few of those attempts have a high chance of finding the back of the net with even the slightest defensive miscue. You say it's up to the D to force the offense to be creative, yet I see daily examples of good D not forcing opponents to switch their style of attack.

    So, my whole argument is this:

    How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize curling in the corners/slowing down and curling their stick away from the defender is going to result in either a big hit, turnover or both? How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize the AI goalies have regained consciousness (with beta rollback) and they cannot abuse SS wristers? In my eyes, the tools that we have may be "sufficient", they're not sufficient enough to warrant a change in game play tactics for a large portion of the community who has abused this "skill gap" for too long.
    Yep, that is the whole discussion. My thought is that no matter how it is tuned, your one dimensional players will still just do those things over and over. That is why I was saying we can't necessarily help the boredom that some players feel from defending the same things. They may win a slightly higher percentage of their games as those other players will score even less but the fun factor associated with the play style and boring nature of repetitive play will remain when playing those types of players.
  • NHLDev
    1370 posts EA NHL Developer
    While it is true that D can force forwards to change their game (which is practically never cause the money shots are too worth it to pass up), can't the same be said for game tunings? The last 5 years or so have tremendously favored puck ragging and the go-to goals, but this year's beta had changed all that.

    I think if you tune a game that favors victories by team play and puck cycling, then these hoggers will have to change their game if they want to win. Stop rewarding hogging and you will see D will make a difference in game.
    Sure, that is what our high level goals are for sure. The change for low relative speed hits wasn't to favor puck ragging -- it came up just as much from the competitive 6's community that was saying that defense is too strong in situations they shouldn't have been and that ultimately hurt cycling the puck and team based play as teams never have control even when the defense is out of position.

    I actually had a discussion today with one of the better players in the world that specifically said this after playing a top level tournament in Europe with the current tuners: 'defensive players have too many tools against offenses and the games are often very low scoring, especially when 2 top teams are playing each other.'
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    We all can defend but at the mercy of which way you want us to play the game, which is where I believe the disconnect is. This passive D style we've been forced to play for so long is silly, especially for a sport that today is built on skill, speed and physicality. I've had games where I have played lights out D against an opponent who abuses the mechanics to negate hits and find lanes to score either SS goals or cross crease one timers. The fact that they weren't having much success didnt deter them from attempting the same tactics over and over. Why? Because eventually they know that a few of those attempts have a high chance of finding the back of the net with even the slightest defensive miscue. You say it's up to the D to force the offense to be creative, yet I see daily examples of good D not forcing opponents to switch their style of attack.

    So, my whole argument is this:

    How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize curling in the corners/slowing down and curling their stick away from the defender is going to result in either a big hit, turnover or both? How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize the AI goalies have regained consciousness (with beta rollback) and they cannot abuse SS wristers? In my eyes, the tools that we have may be "sufficient", they're not sufficient enough to warrant a change in game play tactics for a large portion of the community who has abused this "skill gap" for too long.
    Yep, that is the whole discussion. My thought is that no matter how it is tuned, your one dimensional players will still just do those things over and over. That is why I was saying we can't necessarily help the boredom that some players feel from defending the same things. They may win a slightly higher percentage of their games as those other players will score even less but the fun factor associated with the play style and boring nature of repetitive play will remain when playing those types of players.

    I agree with this, to an extent, but in my personal opinion (not that it's worth anything) what we saw in the beta and beta tuner was that you had to mix it up to be successful. There wasn't one or two things that consistently worked that could be abused, alas the one dimensional players calling for easier goal scoring which I believe was a request that was granted much easier than the request a large portion of us have been asking for, for quite some time. Sure there were "kinks in the armor" such as vision control speed burst, but we still had the proper tools to defend against those sort of antics. With enough time, any elite player who's main goal is winning at all costs in a video game, will try to find what works consistently given the tuning of the game. Let's just give both sides of the puck a level playing field because at the end of the day that's what we are truly asking for.
  • NHLDev
    1370 posts EA NHL Developer
    Another issue along these lines is when I just make taps on the left stick to stay positioned, there are times were I tap twice and get a sidestepping animation that pulls me away from where I wanna be. This was a TPS implementation that I feel needs to be removed, It does much more harm than any good. I have yet to see it be useful honestly.
    It was removed when we changed locomotion systems this year. There aren't any tap or double tap mechanics in the game anymore. Anything with the left stick is purely the motion model so as soon as you let go of the stick, you are blending out. So a tap will start the flinch of the start of an acceleration but will cancel the request as soon as you are no longer pressing. That is why a tap will just make him flinch and stop or a double tap will make him flinch twice and stop.

    If you hold it long enough to get a full cross over and then let go, he will cross over and then blend into a standing stop which may be similar but it is in the players control frame to frame on their input and not a tap that equals an animation like the one you are referring to.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    I actually had a discussion today with one of the better players in the world that specifically said this after playing a top level tournament in Europe with the current tuners: 'defensive players have too many tools against offenses and the games are often very low scoring, especially when 2 top teams are playing each other.'

    Assuming this is re: EASHL and not OnlineVs, I think the success of the trap (and failure of dumps to counter it) is where defense is too strong. Seems any decent team drops 5 back to the blue line asap.
    EASHL player
  • langowski39
    71 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    NHLDev wrote: »

    I actually had a discussion today with one of the better players in the world that specifically said this after playing a top level tournament in Europe with the current tuners: 'defensive players have too many tools against offenses and the games are often very low scoring, especially when 2 top teams are playing each other.'
    And here is where people feel is the disconnect. You are tuning for top players but not tuning for the vast majority of players. If you want to listen to members of your community who are uber competitive while screwing the group of friends who are just trying to enjoy the game with as little time we have available thats your right. I'm really getting worried your going to ignore peoples opinions if they are not deemed skilled enough using your CR system.
    If you see Grammar or Spelling errors. I am starting to experience the long term effects of ten plus concussions.
  • LeFury_27
    203 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    I don't know if it's just me, during the beta I found that you seen a lot more creative goals and good passing plays. Once ragging and cheese goals returned all you see is the same 1-2 goals every dang game. It was not that way during beta because the defensive tools and goaltending forced more realistic hockey resulting in different types of goals scored. It's unbearable playing this game after the last couple years seeing the same ragging and 1-2 goals. I also found when you played people who tried to rag and cheese all game they would get crushed, not anymore, that is the go-to way to win.

    I wonder out of all the times we've played NHL since new console how many times have we scored or had short side goals scored on us?

    I really can't wait for beta to return, upsetting it's for a limited time but hopefully we can see creative hockey again.

    I would tune the game to reflect more realistic hockey, don't cater to overly competitive "top" players who want it tuned so they can exploit the mechanics to win. This is the problem, most of us just want a fun realistic game, win OR lose. And to me that's what the beta was.
  • LeFury_27
    203 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    On passive defensive: If you watch a lot of penalty kills in the NHL you notice a lot of teams penalty killers are extremely aggressive on the penalty kill looking for the slightest fumble of the puck to take off the other way. NHL 19 passive defense is really the only way to play without getting sniped short side because of the lack of physical contact at low speeds, stick lifts and poor goaltending.

    Look at Michael Grabner for instance, 25 games played and 4 short handed goals before he got injured. Calgary leads with 14 short handed goals this year. I don't why there is this perception that NHL is all about being passive on defense. You see more aggressive defense than ever before.

    Teams aren't sitting around waiting for opponent to set up, they are trying to pick off the puck at all times and create odd man rushes. Once a team turns it over with the fast skating in NHL now it's almost impossible to catch up. Mark stone leads that with yes (70 take aways in 43 games).
  • WainGretSki
    3250 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    NHLDev wrote: »
    While it is true that D can force forwards to change their game (which is practically never cause the money shots are too worth it to pass up), can't the same be said for game tunings? The last 5 years or so have tremendously favored puck ragging and the go-to goals, but this year's beta had changed all that.

    I think if you tune a game that favors victories by team play and puck cycling, then these hoggers will have to change their game if they want to win. Stop rewarding hogging and you will see D will make a difference in game.
    Sure, that is what our high level goals are for sure. The change for low relative speed hits wasn't to favor puck ragging -- it came up just as much from the competitive 6's community that was saying that defense is too strong in situations they shouldn't have been and that ultimately hurt cycling the puck and team based play as teams never have control even when the defense is out of position.

    I actually had a discussion today with one of the better players in the world that specifically said this after playing a top level tournament in Europe with the current tuners: 'defensive players have too many tools against offenses and the games are often very low scoring, especially when 2 top teams are playing each other.'

    I am not saying that the game was tuned to favor puck ragging. Rather, it is more of a by-product, or unintended but very viable option after that tuning was done.

    Very interesting. Was this a vs mode of some kind, or EASHL 6s? Here is my train of thought, although maybe this would be better served as its own thread.

    I think this is where a complete overhaul of how player class attributes play out on the ice should be considered. I'll try to be clear, concise and to the point.

    This biggest change should be player speed. Having every class have the same relative high end speed really limits what you guys can tune on the ice. Take for example the Sniper class. He should be able to have good speed bursts and excellent shooting. Those are his strengths, yet having very similar speed across the board hampers this option. It affects forwards and it affects D because the Snipers are easier to keep in check. Sniper cannot exploit his speed or burst. His speed should help him blaze past a defender to negate any physical play options unless the D man is really well prepared and capable to have proper gap but given enough space, he should be able to eventually distance the D man with top speed.

    Danglers should have to rely on dangles to beat defense. I think their deke ability should be cranked up just a bit as it is their strength after all. Maybe tone down the sniping ability just a bit to compensate. He is after all, a deker and not a sniper.

    Playmakers are the most tricky. How do you make their strongest attribute matter while considering a D man in the passing lane who feels he should intercept the pass for being in the right place? Maybe the solution resides in saucer passes and what you guys can do with them via programming. Maybe make it so they can pull off stronger saucer passes than other classes without overshooting their mark. I admit this is really a tricky build to tune. Maybe have their backhand passes and behind the backpasses be much more accurate than every other class while slightly dimishing the other classes abilities to pull off behind the back (or blind) passes ?

    Grinder should win most of his puck battles along the boards and some physical play. He should be able to absorb hits from any class other than DD and Enforcer D unless those 2 classes are not properly lining up their checks. He should be good at pinning players and breaking away from pinners. For the other defensive classes, they should not necessarily lay out a Grinder but they should at least be able to throw the Grinder off his skating line and keep him to the outside. Powerforward should have similar attributes, but swap out puck battles as his strength and substitute it for stronger net battles and fighting off stick checks and tie-ups. They both should have decent to good checking abilities as well. They both should be a little hard to knock off the puck as well. Wrist and slap shot accuracy should be in the decent to good range.

    Enforcers should just be about pure muscle to make space for themselves. Their class is actually pretty decent, but their checking ability should be cranked up a bit. Their strength after all is supposed to be pure physical play and intimidation with powerful but not very precise slap shots. They should be able to wear down opponent's stamina and make players want to stay away from them. Defensive D should be similar, but have less physical abilities but better pass interceptions and shot blocking than Enforcers.

    PMD is also pretty decent considering their agility and mobility and passing abilities. However, with passing assist as an option maybe this skill can be toned down a bit while giving them a bit better checking abilities. They are not good at stick checking or tie-ups either, so pumping up their hitting ability just a bit should be considered.

    TWD and TWF should be balanced and excel at nothing, but not really weak at anything. More or less a vanilla build. I think the current class tuning is ok for this class.

    Board friction should be implemented to a certain degree as a defensive tool. If a Sniper wants to blast past a D man and tries to do so along the boards, then it should be more of a high risk, low reward play if a D man is in position to cut him off and pinch him along the boards. This would compensate for the Snipers higher speed higher acceleration class strength.

    I think stick checks should be toned down while giving the physical play a boost to the classes that are supposed to excel at it. Stick checks are relatively easy to do and require no user input and therefore should not be more effective than body checking which requires user input. Something along those lines to give puck carriers some options and breathing room. But that should stem from their class's strengths and not from "negating" body checks and low speeds.

    Slowing down your speed as a puck carrier to negate low speed physical play should not ever be considered a good hockey play. Those players should get creamed most of the time. They are practically immobile and at a standstill yet somehow deflect body checks. It should be a weakness, not a strength as a puck carrier.

    I also think the right stick curl vs the X button should be reviewed. The only time a RS curl should be effective is if a defender is coming in from and angle and curling your stick pulls your shoulder away from the defenders target. If you want to muscle your away along the boards with some momentum, then the X button should be practically the only viable option. This should be more effective for Enforcers, Powerforwards and grinders more-so than any other build. You need mass and strength to pull this off normally, not just momentum.

    Wow, this was not short and to the point as I promised lol. Sorry for the novel.

    Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?

    Anyways, just spit-balling here and any or all input would be well received and welcomed on my part.

    Thanks for the interaction Ben. Much appreciated.

    Post edited by WainGretSki on
  • WainGretSki
    3250 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    NHLDev wrote: »
    Another issue along these lines is when I just make taps on the left stick to stay positioned, there are times were I tap twice and get a sidestepping animation that pulls me away from where I wanna be. This was a TPS implementation that I feel needs to be removed, It does much more harm than any good. I have yet to see it be useful honestly.
    It was removed when we changed locomotion systems this year. There aren't any tap or double tap mechanics in the game anymore. Anything with the left stick is purely the motion model so as soon as you let go of the stick, you are blending out. So a tap will start the flinch of the start of an acceleration but will cancel the request as soon as you are no longer pressing. That is why a tap will just make him flinch and stop or a double tap will make him flinch twice and stop.

    If you hold it long enough to get a full cross over and then let go, he will cross over and then blend into a standing stop which may be similar but it is in the players control frame to frame on their input and not a tap that equals an animation like the one you are referring to.

    Hmm, good to know.

    Yea I think it does come from say a tap, then a second tap which I hold for a short time. Does give it that side step animation feel to it. I will pay more attention to that. Maybe it is too sensitive or too responsive for my personal taste.

    Thanks for the clarification.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    While it is true that D can force forwards to change their game (which is practically never cause the money shots are too worth it to pass up), can't the same be said for game tunings? The last 5 years or so have tremendously favored puck ragging and the go-to goals, but this year's beta had changed all that.

    I think if you tune a game that favors victories by team play and puck cycling, then these hoggers will have to change their game if they want to win. Stop rewarding hogging and you will see D will make a difference in game.
    Sure, that is what our high level goals are for sure. The change for low relative speed hits wasn't to favor puck ragging -- it came up just as much from the competitive 6's community that was saying that defense is too strong in situations they shouldn't have been and that ultimately hurt cycling the puck and team based play as teams never have control even when the defense is out of position.

    I actually had a discussion today with one of the better players in the world that specifically said this after playing a top level tournament in Europe with the current tuners: 'defensive players have too many tools against offenses and the games are often very low scoring, especially when 2 top teams are playing each other.'

    Because they take away each other's cheese/exploit goals away since that's their bread-n-butter. Having nothing but actual hockey plays to score on, or them getting lucky, naturally their games are going to be low scoring. But there's also the flip-side where two top level players meet and it's a scoring fest of non-stop cheese goals back and forth.

    Everyone talks about defense or offense or goaltending as the cause of why the game is "bad", but the truth is that the REAL issue was and still is the skating. Why are we still playing a game in 2019 where skating is based on 360° rotation like player's bodies are on a swivel? I get it back in the NHL 09-14 days on past gen consoles. But on today's hyper powered consoles, there's just no excuse to have such an unrealistic and decidedly arcadey mechanic.

    If you want to recreate hockey and eliminate the cheese while promoting GOOD play that rewards GOOD players, simply eliminate the rotation from skating. How many NHL games have you seen where a player will hold out a puck on his backhand or forehand and still have the ability to rotate left or right while not moving his skates? Yet you see it all the time in EA's game.

    Remove the swivel effect. That was my #1 gripe with the NHL 19 BETA, which I thought was the best feeling EA NHL game to date (since NHL 14). The only problem was that there was still some swivel skating or what you call "lateral acceleration", IIRC. And yet with every little tweak and update you guys made to the game, the swivel slowly but surely crept it's way more and more into the game's skating.

    Nothing you do, not reverting back to BETA or tweaking the settings will affect things in a more positive way than removing the swivel skating. Or at least toning it way, way down.
  • renamed57635
    201 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    NHLDev wrote: »
    While it is true that D can force forwards to change their game (which is practically never cause the money shots are too worth it to pass up), can't the same be said for game tunings? The last 5 years or so have tremendously favored puck ragging and the go-to goals, but this year's beta had changed all that.

    I think if you tune a game that favors victories by team play and puck cycling, then these hoggers will have to change their game if they want to win. Stop rewarding hogging and you will see D will make a difference in game.
    Sure, that is what our high level goals are for sure. The change for low relative speed hits wasn't to favor puck ragging -- it came up just as much from the competitive 6's community that was saying that defense is too strong in situations they shouldn't have been and that ultimately hurt cycling the puck and team based play as teams never have control even when the defense is out of position.

    I actually had a discussion today with one of the better players in the world that specifically said this after playing a top level tournament in Europe with the current tuners: 'defensive players have too many tools against offenses and the games are often very low scoring, especially when 2 top teams are playing each other.'

    Low scoring games versus two top teams, in the actual NHL is pretty realistic. Hense why they are top teams. They allow their defense to create them offensive opportunities. Unless a team is loaded with great forwards in their top 9 and can consistently outscore their opponent every night, they aren't going to have much success. It's super unrealistic, if you look at the EASHL 6s leaderboards and see how many forwards carry a points per game average of over 3. Its unrealistic for these players to average 2 goals or more per game.

    The average goals per game in the NHL hovers slightly above or below 3 per game as does power play opportunities.

    These EASHL teams complaining they never have control is because they play the same style and their interpretation of cycling isnt really cycling. All they are doing is just moving the puck around. They aren't moving their bodies.

    Never on this gen consoles NHL games, when you enter a matchup lobby, do you hear players being concerned about the other teams defensemen. You do hear players get concern about the other teams forwards and teams backout of games because of the other teams forwards, never because of the D pairing.

    I'm all for the beta but wish the stick checking would be tuned to what we have now at least, even though that needs improvement still. And yes, as another poster made comment on. Us defensemen are forced play passively out of fear of handicapping our teams because of flukey and inconsistent penalty calling is. Granted, most of the time, its user error but there too many circumstances where animations or mechanic errors cause penalties too.

    I was happy we could adjust our height/weight this year but no so much with parameters at which they were set to. The thinking of a certain build type being a certain body type and being limited to certain attributes is per posterous. To make an even balance is to just give us all one build and a certain amount of points where we can allocate them however we deem fit to out play style and allow us to have a broader physique template. I also wish you guys would bring back the stick flex, blade curve and skate blade radius options. Full customization within the builds on how they affect the player on the ice is what people want, not a closet full of flashy survival outfits.

    Like I said numerous times, these auto animations in place of controller inputs and one touch dekes, etc need to go.

    I may sound like a broken record but I will keep bringing these issues up until I get acknowledged.
  • GOW_LIKE_A_BOSS
    536 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    NHLDev wrote: »
    We all can defend but at the mercy of which way you want us to play the game, which is where I believe the disconnect is. This passive D style we've been forced to play for so long is silly, especially for a sport that today is built on skill, speed and physicality. I've had games where I have played lights out D against an opponent who abuses the mechanics to negate hits and find lanes to score either SS goals or cross crease one timers. The fact that they weren't having much success didnt deter them from attempting the same tactics over and over. Why? Because eventually they know that a few of those attempts have a high chance of finding the back of the net with even the slightest defensive miscue. You say it's up to the D to force the offense to be creative, yet I see daily examples of good D not forcing opponents to switch their style of attack.

    So, my whole argument is this:

    How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize curling in the corners/slowing down and curling their stick away from the defender is going to result in either a big hit, turnover or both? How many trips down the ice do you think it would take an opponent to change their play style when they realize the AI goalies have regained consciousness (with beta rollback) and they cannot abuse SS wristers? In my eyes, the tools that we have may be "sufficient", they're not sufficient enough to warrant a change in game play tactics for a large portion of the community who has abused this "skill gap" for too long.
    Yep, that is the whole discussion. My thought is that no matter how it is tuned, your one dimensional players will still just do those things over and over. That is why I was saying we can't necessarily help the boredom that some players feel from defending the same things. They may win a slightly higher percentage of their games as those other players will score even less but the fun factor associated with the play style and boring nature of repetitive play will remain when playing those types of players.


    I think the whole problem with the current tuning can be summed up as a rewards imbalance problem.

    In the beta tuner, after a while people STOPPED trying to force those "money shots" from 18. Why? Because the reward was unlikely. It was very hard to get to those spots, and if you did, your shot probably wasn't going to go in anyway. People realized this, and they stopped. Because the risk outweighed the reward.

    Fast forward to 1.03, and forwards repeatedly force themselves towards those areas because they know if they get there, the shot has an unrealistically high chance of going in. The reward outweighs the risk.

    You can tune the game to remove that behavior - because y'all did so successfully in Beta.

    If those spots are hard to get to (against good defense), and are hard to score from - as they should be (because scoring in the NHL is hard, even from good spots) - that "I must force my guy into the money zone" mentality will die. Just as it was dying before 1.02 and 1.03.
  • NHLDev wrote: »
    While it is true that D can force forwards to change their game (which is practically never cause the money shots are too worth it to pass up), can't the same be said for game tunings? The last 5 years or so have tremendously favored puck ragging and the go-to goals, but this year's beta had changed all that.

    I think if you tune a game that favors victories by team play and puck cycling, then these hoggers will have to change their game if they want to win. Stop rewarding hogging and you will see D will make a difference in game.
    Sure, that is what our high level goals are for sure. The change for low relative speed hits wasn't to favor puck ragging -- it came up just as much from the competitive 6's community that was saying that defense is too strong in situations they shouldn't have been and that ultimately hurt cycling the puck and team based play as teams never have control even when the defense is out of position.

    I actually had a discussion today with one of the better players in the world that specifically said this after playing a top level tournament in Europe with the current tuners: 'defensive players have too many tools against offenses and the games are often very low scoring, especially when 2 top teams are playing each other.'

    I'd be curious to see the stream of one of these "top player vs top player" games. I have a feeling the exploits would be on full display and actual hockey would be at a minimum.
  • NHLDev
    1370 posts EA NHL Developer
    I'd be curious to see the stream of one of these "top player vs top player" games. I have a feeling the exploits would be on full display and actual hockey would be at a minimum.
    I think you would be surprised then. The European championships had some really great hockey and team play in the clips that I saw.
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!