EA Forums - Banner

Gameplay Updates Based on Beta Tuner Rollback Feedback

Replies

  • 2. Puck physics on defender skill stick is completely bonkers.
    Puck physics

    The A.I. Initializing DSS in front of the net is very risky now as it seems to cause some funky interactions:

    etMS2Cf.gif

    It isn't just when you initialize DSS in front of the net - puck physics are pretty much broken all over the ice. And while I think the new tuner may have made them worse (for whatever reason), I feel like they've pretty bad all year. Pucks ping-ponging all over the place, accelerating at crazy speeds after being deflected, moving without anyone touching them, or the opposite - having a stick go right through them without reacting at all.

    The real problem is that all feels totally random - not in an RNG sense, but in a "puck behavior is incredibly inconsistent" sense. Really makes the game much less fun than it should be.
  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Here's my take on people complaining about "skillzoning": they don't cry when their AI forwards set up automatically in the offensive zone. They are certainly not the ones who are manually moving their teammates into prime scoring positions.

    So why is it alright for their AI forwards to be automated, but defensive teammates have to be "dumb" and "do nothing"?

    I complain about skill-zoning, and I don't want people's defensive teammates to "do nothing." I want AI teammates to be good off the puck and good at staying with their man. I don't think they should be attacking the puck carrier while the user sits in the middle of the ice. You can obviously win against that style, but it's frustrating.

    As for why people complain about skill-zoning but don't complain about AI forwards setting up automatically, there's no analogy between the two things. On offense, the user has to carry the puck, make every pass, take every shot (at least now that position-locking is gone, thank God). Your AI teammates on offense can help you, but you can't rely on them to carry the burden - if you do, obviously, you lose.

    The basic idea is that what's true of offense should also be true of defense - the user should bear most of the burden of playing on the puck, while his AI teammates help him out. With skill zoning, it's the opposite - the user plays a largely passive role, and the AI teammates do all the work. Which is why people justifiably hate it so much.

    So how would you defend in the situation that kid posted? Cause most times you go to chase, if you miss the pin, hes coming around the goal post for either a wrap or a pass to an open 1 t because the CPU controlling the backside defender is not going to make the play.

    I know it's frustrating to play someone who parks themselves in front of the goalie but to dumb down ai defenders to me isnt the answer.
  • VeNOM2099
    3178 posts Member
    edited February 2019
    Bmh245 wrote: »
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Here's my take on people complaining about "skillzoning": they don't cry when their AI forwards set up automatically in the offensive zone. They are certainly not the ones who are manually moving their teammates into prime scoring positions.

    So why is it alright for their AI forwards to be automated, but defensive teammates have to be "dumb" and "do nothing"?

    I complain about skill-zoning, and I don't want people's defensive teammates to "do nothing." I want AI teammates to be good off the puck and good at staying with their man. I don't think they should be attacking the puck carrier while the user sits in the middle of the ice. You can obviously win against that style, but it's frustrating.

    As for why people complain about skill-zoning but don't complain about AI forwards setting up automatically, there's no analogy between the two things. On offense, the user has to carry the puck, make every pass, take every shot (at least now that position-locking is gone, thank God). Your AI teammates on offense can help you, but you can't rely on them to carry the burden - if you do, obviously, you lose.

    The basic idea is that what's true of offense should also be true of defense - the user should bear most of the burden of playing on the puck, while his AI teammates help him out. With skill zoning, it's the opposite - the user plays a largely passive role, and the AI teammates do all the work. Which is why people justifiably hate it so much.

    Well I'll go back to my original claim: if all an attacker wants to do is do pirouettes in the corner waiting for me to chase him so he can hit his forward for the one-timer after my AI d-man decides to go for ice-cream instead of marking him, and all I do is park myself in position and force him to stay outside, is that skillzoning or is that proper defense?

    Most don't differentiate between standing in your crease and letting the AI run around or playing positional hockey that negates their nonsense. I've had plenty of salty messages after a game where I kept playing positional and they didn't get any good chances on net calling me a *ahem* kitty or a skillzoner.

    As for offense having to be set up automatically, I agree. There's no way you could hope to have an effective attack and NOT have your teammates (who you can't control if they don't have the puck) help you out. Should be the same for defense, no? It's also hard to keep a handle on your positioning while your AI teammate is running around behind you trying to take on the same assignment YOU have. Don't know about you, but my coach taught me than in an even or odd-man situation, if you have TWO players marking the same player that means there's at least ONE player open that's not being guarded. That's bad defense, yet the AI is constantly playing like this. It's infuriating. So the only way to reset that, that I found at least, is to kind of back off your assignment, wait for the AI to pick up the player he's so EAGER to want to harass and then switch to him (if the player switching allows you to). it's a bit of "creative" skillzoning, but there's no other way to stop your AI from sabotaging you sometimes.
  • There's a lot I want to say about the tuner in regards to EASHL, however I don't want to make it too long so I will just get to the basics here.

    What went right:
    -Skating speed and acceleration heavily improved in my opinion.
    -The hits are a tad more realistic
    -Stick lifting doesn't seem to be as big of an issue
    -Holding A to protect the puck actually seems to work

    What went wrong:
    -The update takes away a crucial defensive tool; stick checking
    -Player animations for puck pickups seemed to get worse
    -Using the left trigger to back skate gives an unfair advantage to offensive players as when they are toggling it back and forth a defenseman can not check them, or poke check them.
    -Momentum: Now this is a big one. I don't care what anyone tells me, momentum is a huge part of the game and the most recent tuner allowed it to become the biggest factor in the game. I've noticed that teams that have the momentum swinging in their favor get an overwhelming amount of puck bounces in their favor, they also get away with more risky poke checks and can force passes through the slot that would normally be intercepted.

    I could go more in depth, but I don't think it would be useful. I should probably start recording my games and submit clips that better demonstrate my points.
  • KidShowtime1867
    1839 posts Member
    edited February 2019
    Bmh245 wrote: »

    I complain about skill-zoning, and I don't want people's defensive teammates to "do nothing." I want AI teammates to be good off the puck and good at staying with their man. I don't think they should be attacking the puck carrier while the user sits in the middle of the ice. You can obviously win against that style, but it's frustrating.

    As for why people complain about skill-zoning but don't complain about AI forwards setting up automatically, there's no analogy between the two things. On offense, the user has to carry the puck, make every pass, take every shot (at least now that position-locking is gone, thank God). Your AI teammates on offense can help you, but you can't rely on them to carry the burden - if you do, obviously, you lose.

    The basic idea is that what's true of offense should also be true of defense - the user should bear most of the burden of playing on the puck, while his AI teammates help him out. With skill zoning, it's the opposite - the user plays a largely passive role, and the AI teammates do all the work. Which is why people justifiably hate it so much.

    I agree very much with this.

    The one thing that encourages skill-zoning is the current meta of finding open players in the slot and/or working towards the slot for the top shelf cheese & cross-crease one-timers.

    When this is the go-to strategy for the elite players, you can't help but maintain control of a player in the slot no matter how badly you want to chase a guy and try to strip him of the puck.

    I don't know how the current meta gets changed, so it's hard for me to say 'skill-zoning' is 'cheap' or 'legit'.

    On one hand, it's a legit way to help prevent elite players from scoring the same goals over and over again.

    On the other hand, you're only taking responsibility for 1/5th of the actions required to defend and I can see how allowing your A.I. to keep a player at bay can be considered 'cheap' as there's no human input that's dictating it.

    It's a toss up for me. When I'm down a goal and my opponent is 'skill-zoning', it drives me up the wall because, despite the 'muting' of the A.I., their gap control combined with incidental contact doesn't make them 100% pylons.

    I've had the A.I. strip the puck due to incidental contact combined with my own poor decision making in positioning - which is no problem - but the lack of human input in those cases makes you stop and go... 'for god sakes'.

    That said - it does require some skill to utilize 'skill-zoning' to its full effect. If you do simply maintain control of one player in the D-Zone and you happen to pull him out of position - your A.I. will begin to fall apart.

    I have no evidence of this, but I do truly feel the A.I. is impacted by good & poor decisions made by humans. This is why I think we seee so many claims that the A.I. can be so radically different from game to game: one game you may be making consistently good decisions and you may also recover from bad decisions in a timely way - which results in an A.I. that seems 'good'.

    In another game, you may make a bad decision followed by another, which begins to compound resulting in numerous A.I. errors. You may see this as 'ice tilt' or 'just another example of EA's hockey game being completely random' but I truly believe that if you were to look back through a game replay where you were convinced your A.I. was handicapped versus your opponent's, I would almost guarantee there's a pattern of human errors that was never recognized and/or never recovered from.


    To be a good skill-zoner (not condoning it, btw) it does require some knowledge of positioning and how simple movements can have a major impact on the A.I.

  • WainGretSki
    3660 posts Member
    edited February 2019
    Bmh245 wrote: »

    I complain about skill-zoning, and I don't want people's defensive teammates to "do nothing." I want AI teammates to be good off the puck and good at staying with their man. I don't think they should be attacking the puck carrier while the user sits in the middle of the ice. You can obviously win against that style, but it's frustrating.

    As for why people complain about skill-zoning but don't complain about AI forwards setting up automatically, there's no analogy between the two things. On offense, the user has to carry the puck, make every pass, take every shot (at least now that position-locking is gone, thank God). Your AI teammates on offense can help you, but you can't rely on them to carry the burden - if you do, obviously, you lose.

    The basic idea is that what's true of offense should also be true of defense - the user should bear most of the burden of playing on the puck, while his AI teammates help him out. With skill zoning, it's the opposite - the user plays a largely passive role, and the AI teammates do all the work. Which is why people justifiably hate it so much.

    I agree very much with this.

    The one thing that encourages skill-zoning is the current meta of finding open players in the slot and/or working towards the slot for the top shelf cheese & cross-crease one-timers.

    When this is the go-to strategy for the elite players, you can't help but maintain control of a player in the slot no matter how badly you want to chase a guy and try to strip him of the puck.

    I don't know how the current meta gets changed, so it's hard for me to say 'skill-zoning' is 'cheap' or 'legit'.

    On one hand, it's a legit way to help prevent elite players from scoring the same goals over and over again.

    On the other hand, you're only taking responsibility for 1/5th of the actions required to defend and I can see how allowing your A.I. to keep a player at bay can be considered 'cheap' as there's no human input that's dictating it.

    It's a toss up for me. When I'm down a goal and my opponent is 'skill-zoning', it drives me up the wall because, despite the 'muting' of the A.I., their gap control combined with incidental contact doesn't make them 100% pylons.

    I've had the A.I. strip the puck due to incidental contact combined with my own poor decision making in positioning - which is no problem - but the lack of human input in those cases makes you stop and go... 'for god sakes'.

    That said - it does require some skill to utilize 'skill-zoning' to its full effect. If you do simply maintain control of one player in the D-Zone and you happen to pull him out of position - your A.I. will begin to fall apart.

    I have no evidence of this, but I do truly feel the A.I. is impacted by good & poor decisions made by humans. This is why I think we seee so many claims that the A.I. can be so radically different from game to game: one game you may be making consistently good decisions and you may also recover from bad decisions in a timely way - which results in an A.I. that seems 'good'.

    In another game, you may make a bad decision followed by another, which begins to compound resulting in numerous A.I. errors. You may see this as 'ice tilt' or 'just another example of EA's hockey game being completely random' but I truly believe that if you were to look back through a game replay where you were convinced your A.I. was handicapped versus your opponent's, I would almost guarantee there's a pattern of human errors that was never recognized and/or never recovered from.


    To be a good skill-zoner (not condoning it, btw) it does require some knowledge of positioning and how simple movements can have a major impact on the A.I.

    Good post, I agree.

    For the bold part, it isn't that way most of the time, at least from what I've seen and this is only specific to EASHL:

    There are games where your AI is kind of in a beast mode. They will crush puck carriers, be pretty aggressive with pokes and containment, etc. If you have the puck they will be in positions that give you passing options. In other words, they help the team alot and you can absolutely rely on them. They will generally be where you would expect them to be and make sound decisions as long as you don't have a machine gun stick-tapping monkey on your team. I have seen cases where the AI will make pretty sick snipes too.

    Then there are games where the AI is almost in a "clueless" mode. They are passive, don't press the carrier, will sometimes be in your way and hinder you and seem to struggle a bit with passing and positioning. Most times they miss the net and just play like they are having an "off" game.

    In either case this applies also to offense.

    And in those cases, it is for a complete game. Beast from beginning to end. Case in point, Kurtz. I have seen quite a few games where he will tear it up and get a hat trick.

    Now granted I know VS and HUT is in no way a carbon copy from EASHL when it comes to AI players. I dabble here and there in vs and by no means have played enough to give a proper opinion of it, so I rather not be an "expert" and give opinions on something I don't know.

    EDIT:

    Someone mentioned to me the other night in a game that the AI in EASHL will mimic the human he is replacing. Meaning, if that human was playing a solid game and quits, the replacement AI will be solid. If the human was a bad player, the AI would technically be clueless. If anything, I found that interesting and I will be keeping an eye on this and verify its validity. As of now, I can't say I agree or have ever picked up on this myself. Maybe @NHLDev could chime in on this claim.

  • Someone mentioned to me the other night in a game that the AI in EASHL will mimic the human he is replacing. Meaning, if that human was playing a solid game and quits, the replacement AI will be solid. If the human was a bad player, the AI would technically be clueless. If anything, I found that interesting and I will be keeping an eye on this and verify its validity. As of now, I can't say I agree or have ever picked up on this myself. Maybe @NHLDev could chime in on this claim.

    I can't say if this is true or not since I haven't played drop-in in years, but in club games with AI you definitely get games where the AI is "on" and others where they're just terrible. Mostly just terrible with the odd beast-mode game.

    Personally I don't expect much from the AI and they shouldn't be there to win games for you, but I'd really like to see them as at least competent instead of appearing to be actively trying to lose games.

    This is the one the baffles me the most. Any time we play EASHL 3s with an AI this happens multiple times per game ( for both teams, it's not just bad for us ). Instead of backing out of the zone to defend the rush the AI skates laterally along the blue line before exiting the offensive zone.

  • in club games with AI you definitely get games where the AI is "on" and others where they're just terrible. Mostly just terrible with the odd beast-mode game.

    Again, I think this is directly related to the decision making by human players and how poor decisions can compound in to the "A.i. being terrible".

    I think in an EASHL game, poor decision making can compound more quickly due to more humans making potential errors and force the A.I. to make their own bad decisions.
  • Again, I think this is directly related to the decision making by human players and how poor decisions can compound in to the "A.i. being terrible".

    I think in an EASHL game, poor decision making can compound more quickly due to more humans making potential errors and force the A.I. to make their own bad decisions.

    While your entitled to your opinion, what evidence do you have for this?

    In the clip I posted above what human error causes the AI to essentially say 'please sir, have a breakaway' ? If you know, tell me so we can prevent it.



  • in club games with AI you definitely get games where the AI is "on" and others where they're just terrible. Mostly just terrible with the odd beast-mode game.

    Again, I think this is directly related to the decision making by human players and how poor decisions can compound in to the "A.i. being terrible".

    I think in an EASHL game, poor decision making can compound more quickly due to more humans making potential errors and force the A.I. to make their own bad decisions.

    Not from what I have seen. They are beast or crap the second the puck drops, all game long in EASHL regardless of how your team plays.

    In VS it would make sense if you keep switching and pulling players anywhere and everywhere as the AI will most certainly get overloaded with all the bad decisions from user input.
  • LeFury_27
    203 posts Member
    edited February 2019
    What annoys the hell out of me about the AI in vs/hut is when we don't want them to perform simple defensive actions like stick lift, pokecheck or shove players but somehow it's all good for them to bat pucks out of mid air without looking and deflect pucks? I mean come on.

    Short side goals are still pretty cringey. Overall the gameplay is still much better than 1.03 even though people want AI to be vegetables on defense but bat pucks out of mid air on offense.
  • KidShowtime1867
    1839 posts Member
    edited February 2019
    Again, I think this is directly related to the decision making by human players and how poor decisions can compound in to the "A.i. being terrible".

    I think in an EASHL game, poor decision making can compound more quickly due to more humans making potential errors and force the A.I. to make their own bad decisions.

    While your entitled to your opinion, what evidence do you have for this?

    In the clip I posted above what human error causes the AI to essentially say 'please sir, have a breakaway' ? If you know, tell me so we can prevent it.



    Edit: My below explanation still stands true, but I'd like to preface it with the fact that left defense (which I thought was LW due to green/teal looking so similar) is clearly out of position, forcing the A.I. to take over and it made a bad decision. This clip literally shows exactly what I'm talking about.

    In this clip it is clear you're running an aggressive strategy. Toggle this strategy to passive in order for your d-man to stop trying to anticipate and intercept the breakout pass. That's exactly what happened in this clip.

    Furthermore - After the scrum in front of the net, the center takes a long route back to the play:

    g6rnxhs.gif

    The center should've instead gone the green route in order to provide a better opportunity to catch.

    KPnuz1q.png


    Is it possible the wrong decision by the center gave the A.I. more incentive to try an intercept the pass? Taking more of a 'risk' than being safe, based on the previous human error? Had the center taken the correct route, the center may have been more apt to knock the puck loose or force a pass error with pressure. The A.I. would maybe back off in that scenario, however in the one that played out - the human error was made and the A.I. made an adjustment based on the current strategy which is set to aggressive.

    Zv0dm1Y.gif


    Just to add more fuel to the speculation fire - is it possible the puck carrier had the pass button held and was ready to release, but then cancelled it? Does the defensive A.I. have insight in to what buttons are being pressed by the puck carrier?



  • In this clip it is clear you're running an aggressive strategy. Toggle this strategy to passive in order for your d-man to stop trying to anticipate and intercept the breakout pass.

    Is it possible the wrong decision by the center gave the A.I. more incentive to try an intercept the pass? Taking more of a 'risk' than being safe, based on the previous human error? Had the center taken the correct route, the center may have been more apt to knock the puck loose or force a pass error with pressure. The A.I. would maybe back off in that scenario, however in the one that played out - the human error was made and the A.I. made an adjustment based on the current strategy which is set to aggressive.

    The problem is that you're just speculating here, telling a "What if" story in an attempt to explain/justify self-evidently stupid behavior by the A.I. Being "aggressive" (do you mean "high pressure"?) on defense doesn't mean being completely idiotic, which is what these plays are. And in any case, you could argue just as easily that if "aggressive" means do anything to stop the breakout, the "aggressive" play would be to try to knock down the puck carrier.

    This is clearly just an example of bad AI coding (I wouldn't be surprised if it's the result of code for a 5v5 game, where the defensive player would typically have a partner to look after the puck carrier, being ported into a 3v3 game.)

    A similar, albeit less egregious, example in 1v1 modes is that if your LD, say, is along the boards at the offensive blue line when the puck is turned over and the opposing winger starts skating up the boards, the defenseman's first reaction is to abandon the boards and move a couple of steps inside. This happens regardless of what defensive pressure you're using. And it not only makes the opposing winger's breakout much easier (since no one's in front of him) - it also makes the defenseman a step or two slower in terms of skating back into position.

    The AI's behavior is riddled with stuff like this on offense and defense, and has been for years.

  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    In this clip it is clear you're running an aggressive strategy. Toggle this strategy to passive in order for your d-man to stop trying to anticipate and intercept the breakout pass.

    Is it possible the wrong decision by the center gave the A.I. more incentive to try an intercept the pass? Taking more of a 'risk' than being safe, based on the previous human error? Had the center taken the correct route, the center may have been more apt to knock the puck loose or force a pass error with pressure. The A.I. would maybe back off in that scenario, however in the one that played out - the human error was made and the A.I. made an adjustment based on the current strategy which is set to aggressive.

    The problem is that you're just speculating here, telling a "What if" story in an attempt to explain/justify self-evidently stupid behavior by the A.I. Being "aggressive" (do you mean "high pressure"?) on defense doesn't mean being completely idiotic, which is what these plays are. And in any case, you could argue just as easily that if "aggressive" means do anything to stop the breakout, the "aggressive" play would be to try to knock down the puck carrier.

    This is clearly just an example of bad AI coding (I wouldn't be surprised if it's the result of code for a 5v5 game, where the defensive player would typically have a partner to look after the puck carrier, being ported into a 3v3 game.)

    A similar, albeit less egregious, example in 1v1 modes is that if your LD, say, is along the boards at the offensive blue line when the puck is turned over and the opposing winger starts skating up the boards, the defenseman's first reaction is to abandon the boards and move a couple of steps inside. This happens regardless of what defensive pressure you're using. And it not only makes the opposing winger's breakout much easier (since no one's in front of him) - it also makes the defenseman a step or two slower in terms of skating back into position.

    The AI's behavior is riddled with stuff like this on offense and defense, and has been for years.

    Prime example of this:

    https://xboxdvr.com/gamer/venom3o99/video/68006808

    Please tell me what the friggity-frack is Ceci doing? I get that he's a defenseman and that he's probably tired from his shift, but we're going on an odd-man rush and he needed to continue skating to receive the pass. Instead he stops dead, turns 90° and b-lines it for the bench. Why??

    Here's another one:

    https://xboxdvr.com/gamer/venom3o99/video/68726506

    Towards the end of the clip, you see the LW standing at his post waiting for a pass, waiting, waiting, then when I see a chance I pass it to him... Where did he go? Oh he went to the bench to change. He didn't go for the 10 seconds he was waiting for a pass there, he just chose to go EXACTLY when I passed to him.

    *sigh*

    And on defense, when you're covering the puck handler and your AI teammate is watching the backdoor, then for some inexplicable reason, he decides he wants to come over where you are and pressure the puck handler too? I'm not in bad position, why is he coming over where I am?? Too late though... Now it's a goal because player was left alone in front of the net.

    The AI's behaviour doesn't always depend on the user's positioning. Many times it will do things on it's own and sabotage you for... reasons.
  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    In this clip it is clear you're running an aggressive strategy. Toggle this strategy to passive in order for your d-man to stop trying to anticipate and intercept the breakout pass.

    Is it possible the wrong decision by the center gave the A.I. more incentive to try an intercept the pass? Taking more of a 'risk' than being safe, based on the previous human error? Had the center taken the correct route, the center may have been more apt to knock the puck loose or force a pass error with pressure. The A.I. would maybe back off in that scenario, however in the one that played out - the human error was made and the A.I. made an adjustment based on the current strategy which is set to aggressive.

    The problem is that you're just speculating here, telling a "What if" story in an attempt to explain/justify self-evidently stupid behavior by the A.I. Being "aggressive" (do you mean "high pressure"?) on defense doesn't mean being completely idiotic, which is what these plays are. And in any case, you could argue just as easily that if "aggressive" means do anything to stop the breakout, the "aggressive" play would be to try to knock down the puck carrier.

    This is clearly just an example of bad AI coding (I wouldn't be surprised if it's the result of code for a 5v5 game, where the defensive player would typically have a partner to look after the puck carrier, being ported into a 3v3 game.)

    A similar, albeit less egregious, example in 1v1 modes is that if your LD, say, is along the boards at the offensive blue line when the puck is turned over and the opposing winger starts skating up the boards, the defenseman's first reaction is to abandon the boards and move a couple of steps inside. This happens regardless of what defensive pressure you're using. And it not only makes the opposing winger's breakout much easier (since no one's in front of him) - it also makes the defenseman a step or two slower in terms of skating back into position.

    The AI's behavior is riddled with stuff like this on offense and defense, and has been for years.

    I’m not sure how you can accuse me of being speculative and then continue to say “this is clearly just an example of bad A.I. coding”.

    You, not being an A.I. developer , are being just as speculative as I am - except I at least preface my comments noting that I AM being speculative.

    You just assert “bad A.I. coding” as fact and disregard other opinions.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Please tell me what the friggity-frack is Ceci doing? I get that he's a defenseman and that he's probably tired from his shift, but we're going on an odd-man rush and he needed to continue skating to receive the pass. Instead he stops dead, turns 90° and b-lines it for the bench. Why??

    Ceci is a defenseman - why is he playing the position of the winger on the breakout? Clearly he took over for a player who abandoned the position and then picked a bad time to return to his spot - but regardless - you leave out from this video the elements of human error that possibly contributed to that.
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Here's another one:

    https://xboxdvr.com/gamer/venom3o99/video/68726506

    Towards the end of the clip, you see the LW standing at his post waiting for a pass, waiting, waiting, then when I see a chance I pass it to him... Where did he go? Oh he went to the bench to change. He didn't go for the 10 seconds he was waiting for a pass there, he just chose to go EXACTLY when I passed to him.


    You crossed the blue line and from an anticipatory standpoint, the A.I. likely assumes you would dump or carry based on your position. Passing the exact moment you enter the neutral zone isn't something one would expect - typically once you cross your blue line, the commitment to holding possession until center is assumed.

    You should've passed to him during his "10 seconds of waiting" rather then begin to ramp up your speed while moving in to the neutral zone which implies carry through or dump and giving the A.I. a window to change lines.



  • I’m not sure how you can accuse me of being speculative and then continue to say “this is clearly just an example of bad A.I. coding”.

    You, not being an A.I. developer , are being just as speculative as I am - except I at least preface my comments noting that I AM being speculative.

    You just assert “bad A.I. coding” as fact and disregard other opinions.

    When A.I. players make the same indefensible mistake over and over again (like the one in OP's clip) it's bad coding. We can speculate about why they've coded the game so that the A.I. acts stupidly, but the simple fact is that coding the game that way was a bad thing to do.
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Please tell me what the friggity-frack is Ceci doing? I get that he's a defenseman and that he's probably tired from his shift, but we're going on an odd-man rush and he needed to continue skating to receive the pass. Instead he stops dead, turns 90° and b-lines it for the bench. Why??

    Ceci is a defenseman - why is he playing the position of the winger on the breakout? Clearly he took over for a player who abandoned the position and then picked a bad time to return to his spot - but regardless - you leave out from this video the elements of human error that possibly contributed to that.
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Here's another one:

    https://xboxdvr.com/gamer/venom3o99/video/68726506

    Towards the end of the clip, you see the LW standing at his post waiting for a pass, waiting, waiting, then when I see a chance I pass it to him... Where did he go? Oh he went to the bench to change. He didn't go for the 10 seconds he was waiting for a pass there, he just chose to go EXACTLY when I passed to him.


    You crossed the blue line and from an anticipatory standpoint, the A.I. likely assumes you would dump or carry based on your position. Passing the exact moment you enter the neutral zone isn't something one would expect - typically once you cross your blue line, the commitment to holding possession until center is assumed.

    You should've passed to him during his "10 seconds of waiting" rather then begin to ramp up your speed while moving in to the neutral zone which implies carry through or dump and giving the A.I. a window to change lines.



    "Passing the exact moment you enter the neutral zone isn't something one would expect"

    this is actually what good players do as it allows the player receiving the pass to keep speed and create space before the opponents blueline. Its also in the open space before the trap defense can pick it off.

    "typically once you cross your blue line, the commitment to holding possession until center is assumed."

    This isn't the best advice, if you have skated it until center it's actually assumed you are going to be skating it all the way in, passing at the red line is asking for the 4 defenders trapping the blue line to pick off the pass, and even if the pass gets through its highly likely your forward gets hit as he had nowhere to go nor was he at full speed like he would have if he got the pass earlier.

    i know this especially cause i was chewed out in travel hockey for waiting till the red line to pass it more then once. quick pass at your blue line or skate it in 95% of the time or you will be benched.

    "You should've passed to him during his "10 seconds of waiting" No that would have been settling for a pass that could easily be picked off, he did what you are suppose to by using his space and getting closer making the pass harder to pick off.


  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    I’m not sure how you can accuse me of being speculative and then continue to say “this is clearly just an example of bad A.I. coding”.

    You, not being an A.I. developer , are being just as speculative as I am - except I at least preface my comments noting that I AM being speculative.

    You just assert “bad A.I. coding” as fact and disregard other opinions.

    When A.I. players make the same indefensible mistake over and over again (like the one in OP's clip) it's bad coding. We can speculate about why they've coded the game so that the A.I. acts stupidly, but the simple fact is that coding the game that way was a bad thing to do.

    Maybe the human players are making the same mistakes over and over?

    And who's to say that doesn't fall under the vague blanket of 'bad coding'?

  • Bmh245 wrote: »
    I’m not sure how you can accuse me of being speculative and then continue to say “this is clearly just an example of bad A.I. coding”.

    You, not being an A.I. developer , are being just as speculative as I am - except I at least preface my comments noting that I AM being speculative.

    You just assert “bad A.I. coding” as fact and disregard other opinions.

    When A.I. players make the same indefensible mistake over and over again (like the one in OP's clip) it's bad coding. We can speculate about why they've coded the game so that the A.I. acts stupidly, but the simple fact is that coding the game that way was a bad thing to do.

    Maybe the human players are making the same mistakes over and over?

    And who's to say that doesn't fall under the vague blanket of 'bad coding'?

    But you've seen OP's clips. There's no mistake the human player makes that can explain why the defender abandons the center of the ice, giving the puck carrier a clean breakaway - and then makes the exact same play again. It doesn't matter whether the center took an ideal route on the backcheck (and if it does, that's terrible coding), or what defensive setting they're playing on. The defenseman is facing a developing 2-on-1. The right play is never to turn it on a 1-on-0 by skating away from the center of the ice and the puck carrier. But that's the play the AI keeps making.

    I don't get why you're spending time trying to defend this. It's just like AI players suddenly slamming on the brakes at the faceoff dots when they're on a 2-on-1 or 2-on-0, instead of going to the far post. It should never happen, and the fact that it does happen frequently is a problem with the way the AI is coded.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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