EA Forums - Banner

Did the devs already bail on this game?

Prev13
Usually they are active on here leading up to the launch, but they been MIA this year and game launches tn. Did they already write this year off and working on next gen?

Replies

  • nyi95
    130 posts Member
    They're probably too embarrassed to give any useful insight as to try and defend this glorified 80$ patch.
  • I'm hoping they're working hard to fix this travesty of a hockey game.
  • nyi95 wrote: »
    They're probably too embarrassed to give any useful insight as to try and defend this glorified 80$ patch.
    Can you even call it a patch?
  • EA_Aljo
    1923 posts EA Community Manager
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    I think there's a pretty big difference between "you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities and gameplay in general" as opposed to what was expressed on these boards. If that's the impression that you guys gathered from the feedback then that really is a shame and I hope things can be interpreted better in the future.
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.... hoollllllld up!

    I have been banned a number of times for pointing this very thing out: The Hockey IQ gods here dispute anything and everything said by people who actually make the game.
    you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general.

    WRONG

    This is so WRONG on so many levels...

    The people who don't want these breakdowns of the mechanics are the people who insist that THEIR version of what THEY think a hockey video game should be is ALWAYS defiant of what is placed in front of them. Why is that? I don't know but my first instinct is pure ego. There's too many users here that parade their ego and try to convince everyone they are the de-facto authority figure when it comes to just exactly how the NHL should be represented in the virtual world despite having ZERO experience in to how that is pulled off.

    Not all users here are like that - there's a lot of people here who genuinely would LOVE more breakdowns from Ben on why things happened, why things react this way versus that, etc.



    This irritates me and you've gotten me fired up. It infuriates me that the negative and condescending way in which these forum members react to Ben taking the time to lay these things out for us is contributing to the lack of said breakdowns. Meanwhile these forum users continue to plague this place with their encyclopedias of their own personal opinions - constantly degrading the people who spend their CAREERS developing this game. - yet I tell a hockey IQ god to 'git gud' and then.. banned.

    I, along with many others, absolutely love Ben's breakdowns. The only one's who don't are the one's who feel their egos are threatened by a real developer telling them that their interpretation of any given situation may, in fact, be wrong.

    It's laughable but again - it drives me NUTS that we no longer get these VERY informative pieces of information that could help the community as a whole simply because some users around here can't keep their own egos in check.
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    I think there's a pretty big difference between "you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities and gameplay in general" as opposed to what was expressed on these boards. If that's the impression that you guys gathered from the feedback then that really is a shame and I hope things can be interpreted better in the future.

    Yeah, I think there’s a distinct difference between us wanting to discuss the outcomes or “realism” (everyone’s favorite word) of scenarios and why those outcomes are hard to watch/accept and wanting a detailed explanation of the mechanics and why those bad scenarios happen so often.

    I don’t really know how to phrase it, but I feel like people here like to discuss the big picture or the issues we experience on a simple level (ex. I hit someone, they fall, they get to keep dislodging all pickup attempts till they recover, then skate off with the puck) and how these scenarios need to not happen for a more fluid and enjoyable experience. So yeah, I don’t need or want to hear what game mechanic is causing these outcomes to happen, I want to know that my issue, one that is “unrealistic” and not fun/rewarding from a game balance perspective, is being heard and though to be legitimate.

    I guess this aligns with my “selective realism” approach I’ve taken in certain scenarios. Hitting can’t be effective at slow speeds because people complained about the bumps and that NHL players aren’t so easily affected by said bumps (somewhat agree) and that it’s bad for game balance, but a poke that results in the tip of the blade glancing the microfiber of a skate takes down an elite skater and that’s deemed acceptable and needed for a “skill gap” you know?

    So, I 100% want to hear opinions on these choices and openly discuss/debate those ideas on here. Just like most people who buy a product or service, I’m not as interested in the nitty-gritty details because otherwise we’d do that job ourselves, but I’m more interested in the final result/product. Am I really wrong when I say that? Do you all care about how hitboxes are precisely calculated/interpreted by the engine when playing a war game, or do you care about why a certain weapon feels OP/UP? I’m guessing the later.

    As HoodHoppers stated, it really is discouraging to hear that our feedback is taken like we don’t want to hear from the deciders of said meta. We want to discuss the meta, not the underlying mechanics of said meta, and this is not mutually exclusive to the NHL series. All end users care about is their experience. Nobody’s cares what OSPF zone their in, or what switch port their Ethernet connection runs to, or what VLAN that port is assigned to, they care about connecting to the internet. We care about the outcomes and discussing what outcomes we’d like to see play out differently compared to what we have. Again, I don’t think this is disrespectful by saying “we don’t care” about those underlying mechanics, but it just doesn’t really advance the dialogue. We report the outcomes we like and don’t like and we hope that something on the backend can be fixed/tweaked to remedy those outcomes that look wonky or nonsensical at times.

    To summarize, this is why most of the people here talk about hockey and compare it to hockey. We are comfortable discussing the hockey play and the outcomes, it’s all we know, so our feedback and discussions need to be centered around the hockey play, not the underlying mechanics. We can’t offer any suggestions to the underlying mechanics. We simply don’t know/understand them enough. That’s why we’re “not interested” in the discussions going that way. We’re interested in dialogue, but our feedback starts and stops with the hockey as any normal end user’s would.
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    I think there's a pretty big difference between "you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities and gameplay in general" as opposed to what was expressed on these boards. If that's the impression that you guys gathered from the feedback then that really is a shame and I hope things can be interpreted better in the future.

    Yeah, I think there’s a distinct difference between us wanting to discuss the outcomes or “realism” (everyone’s favorite word) of scenarios and why those outcomes are hard to watch/accept and wanting a detailed explanation of the mechanics and why those bad scenarios happen so often.

    I don’t really know how to phrase it, but I feel like people here like to discuss the big picture or the issues we experience on a simple level (ex. I hit someone, they fall, they get to keep dislodging all pickup attempts till they recover, then skate off with the puck) and how these scenarios need to not happen for a more fluid and enjoyable experience. So yeah, I don’t need or want to hear what game mechanic is causing these outcomes to happen, I want to know that my issue, one that is “unrealistic” and not fun/rewarding from a game balance perspective, is being heard and though to be legitimate.

    I guess this aligns with my “selective realism” approach I’ve taken in certain scenarios. Hitting can’t be effective at slow speeds because people complained about the bumps and that NHL players aren’t so easily affected by said bumps (somewhat agree) and that it’s bad for game balance, but a poke that results in the tip of the blade glancing the microfiber of a skate takes down an elite skater and that’s deemed acceptable and needed for a “skill gap” you know?

    So, I 100% want to hear opinions on these choices and openly discuss/debate those ideas on here. Just like most people who buy a product or service, I’m not as interested in the nitty-gritty details because otherwise we’d do that job ourselves, but I’m more interested in the final result/product. Am I really wrong when I say that? Do you all care about how hitboxes are precisely calculated/interpreted by the engine when playing a war game, or do you care about why a certain weapon feels OP/UP? I’m guessing the later.

    As HoodHoppers stated, it really is discouraging to hear that our feedback is taken like we don’t want to hear from the deciders of said meta. We want to discuss the meta, not the underlying mechanics of said meta, and this is not mutually exclusive to the NHL series. All end users care about is their experience. Nobody’s cares what OSPF zone their in, or what switch port their Ethernet connection runs to, or what VLAN that port is assigned to, they care about connecting to the internet. We care about the outcomes and discussing what outcomes we’d like to see play out differently compared to what we have. Again, I don’t think this is disrespectful by saying “we don’t care” about those underlying mechanics, but it just doesn’t really advance the dialogue. We report the outcomes we like and don’t like and we hope that something on the backend can be fixed/tweaked to remedy those outcomes that look wonky or nonsensical at times.

    To summarize, this is why most of the people here talk about hockey and compare it to hockey. We are comfortable discussing the hockey play and the outcomes, it’s all we know, so our feedback and discussions need to be centered around the hockey play, not the underlying mechanics. We can’t offer any suggestions to the underlying mechanics. We simply don’t know/understand them enough. That’s why we’re “not interested” in the discussions going that way. We’re interested in dialogue, but our feedback starts and stops with the hockey as any normal end user’s would.

    It's a videogame - if you're "not interested" in the mechanics and just want to talk about what you know about the sport - then maybe the discussions on this part of the forum are better suited for that.

    I'd expect a forum dedicated to a videogame absolutely be interested in the underlying mechanics.....
  • untouchable_BF1
    880 posts Member
    edited October 13
    EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    I think there's a pretty big difference between "you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities and gameplay in general" as opposed to what was expressed on these boards. If that's the impression that you guys gathered from the feedback then that really is a shame and I hope things can be interpreted better in the future.

    Yeah, I think there’s a distinct difference between us wanting to discuss the outcomes or “realism” (everyone’s favorite word) of scenarios and why those outcomes are hard to watch/accept and wanting a detailed explanation of the mechanics and why those bad scenarios happen so often.

    I don’t really know how to phrase it, but I feel like people here like to discuss the big picture or the issues we experience on a simple level (ex. I hit someone, they fall, they get to keep dislodging all pickup attempts till they recover, then skate off with the puck) and how these scenarios need to not happen for a more fluid and enjoyable experience. So yeah, I don’t need or want to hear what game mechanic is causing these outcomes to happen, I want to know that my issue, one that is “unrealistic” and not fun/rewarding from a game balance perspective, is being heard and though to be legitimate.

    I guess this aligns with my “selective realism” approach I’ve taken in certain scenarios. Hitting can’t be effective at slow speeds because people complained about the bumps and that NHL players aren’t so easily affected by said bumps (somewhat agree) and that it’s bad for game balance, but a poke that results in the tip of the blade glancing the microfiber of a skate takes down an elite skater and that’s deemed acceptable and needed for a “skill gap” you know?

    So, I 100% want to hear opinions on these choices and openly discuss/debate those ideas on here. Just like most people who buy a product or service, I’m not as interested in the nitty-gritty details because otherwise we’d do that job ourselves, but I’m more interested in the final result/product. Am I really wrong when I say that? Do you all care about how hitboxes are precisely calculated/interpreted by the engine when playing a war game, or do you care about why a certain weapon feels OP/UP? I’m guessing the later.

    As HoodHoppers stated, it really is discouraging to hear that our feedback is taken like we don’t want to hear from the deciders of said meta. We want to discuss the meta, not the underlying mechanics of said meta, and this is not mutually exclusive to the NHL series. All end users care about is their experience. Nobody’s cares what OSPF zone their in, or what switch port their Ethernet connection runs to, or what VLAN that port is assigned to, they care about connecting to the internet. We care about the outcomes and discussing what outcomes we’d like to see play out differently compared to what we have. Again, I don’t think this is disrespectful by saying “we don’t care” about those underlying mechanics, but it just doesn’t really advance the dialogue. We report the outcomes we like and don’t like and we hope that something on the backend can be fixed/tweaked to remedy those outcomes that look wonky or nonsensical at times.

    To summarize, this is why most of the people here talk about hockey and compare it to hockey. We are comfortable discussing the hockey play and the outcomes, it’s all we know, so our feedback and discussions need to be centered around the hockey play, not the underlying mechanics. We can’t offer any suggestions to the underlying mechanics. We simply don’t know/understand them enough. That’s why we’re “not interested” in the discussions going that way. We’re interested in dialogue, but our feedback starts and stops with the hockey as any normal end user’s would.

    It's a videogame - if you're "not interested" in the mechanics and just want to talk about what you know about the sport - then maybe the discussions on this part of the forum are better suited for that.

    I'd expect a forum dedicated to a videogame absolutely be interested in the underlying mechanics.....

    I disagree. The outcomes or the experiences I have when playing a video game is much more important than hearing what setting a certain variable is at. I don’t have enough information about the underlying mechanics or engine to give the proper feedback. I can articulate how a certain strategy isn’t performing how you’d expect from a hockey standpoint, I can articulate how a goalie should play a scenario given the information he sees/has, but I can’t articulate what needs to change on the backend to get a more desired result. I can only say what the desired result is.

    I think this concept is fairly easy to understand. Again, an end user doesn’t care how their computer connects to the internet. They ask “why am I not connected?” My answer is not “well, your switch port was accidentally assigned into a VLAN group that doesn’t have outbound internet access.” My answer is “i will investigate and troubleshoot.” When it’s resolved, I then ask “are your connection issues resolved?” and I hope they respond with a “yes.”

    So, I think it’s rather unfair/rude to direct me to a part of the forums where no video game related discussions happen. I simply stated that there’s a distinct difference between what users really want to have a discussion about when addressing a “problem” they are having. Some of these problems are expected (intended functionality) like poke checking penalties, but users are still going to want to discuss the outcomes, not what the underlying stick heaviness is or balance point modifier, or whatever calculation goes into the result because we don’t know enough about those mechanics.

    I purposefully ignored your post as I know you’re apparently very passionate about this issue, one that I disagree with, because I didn’t want to have a discussion that will lead nowhere with you. Thanks for validating my decision.
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    @EA_Aljo

    To add to @untouchable_BF1 's thought:

    Very few, if any, of us are capable of understanding how these games are made at a foundational, programming level.

    I believe that is where the miscommunication comes from. It is nice that the dev team is so passionate they will explain the micro-mechanics...we just don't get it and don't feel it is applicable to what we are discussing...which is outcomes.

    So, if you think about it:

    Developer talks about mechanics the user doesn't get
    The user talks about outcomes
    Developer tries to defend/explain the position the user doesn't get
    User tries to defend/explain the position the developer may not fully understand
    It all equals miscommunications.

    If the new stance is to have you be the middle man and Ben work on stuff that is actually important, I think this is a winning combination.
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    I think there's a pretty big difference between "you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities and gameplay in general" as opposed to what was expressed on these boards. If that's the impression that you guys gathered from the feedback then that really is a shame and I hope things can be interpreted better in the future.

    Yeah, I think there’s a distinct difference between us wanting to discuss the outcomes or “realism” (everyone’s favorite word) of scenarios and why those outcomes are hard to watch/accept and wanting a detailed explanation of the mechanics and why those bad scenarios happen so often.

    I don’t really know how to phrase it, but I feel like people here like to discuss the big picture or the issues we experience on a simple level (ex. I hit someone, they fall, they get to keep dislodging all pickup attempts till they recover, then skate off with the puck) and how these scenarios need to not happen for a more fluid and enjoyable experience. So yeah, I don’t need or want to hear what game mechanic is causing these outcomes to happen, I want to know that my issue, one that is “unrealistic” and not fun/rewarding from a game balance perspective, is being heard and though to be legitimate.

    I guess this aligns with my “selective realism” approach I’ve taken in certain scenarios. Hitting can’t be effective at slow speeds because people complained about the bumps and that NHL players aren’t so easily affected by said bumps (somewhat agree) and that it’s bad for game balance, but a poke that results in the tip of the blade glancing the microfiber of a skate takes down an elite skater and that’s deemed acceptable and needed for a “skill gap” you know?

    So, I 100% want to hear opinions on these choices and openly discuss/debate those ideas on here. Just like most people who buy a product or service, I’m not as interested in the nitty-gritty details because otherwise we’d do that job ourselves, but I’m more interested in the final result/product. Am I really wrong when I say that? Do you all care about how hitboxes are precisely calculated/interpreted by the engine when playing a war game, or do you care about why a certain weapon feels OP/UP? I’m guessing the later.

    As HoodHoppers stated, it really is discouraging to hear that our feedback is taken like we don’t want to hear from the deciders of said meta. We want to discuss the meta, not the underlying mechanics of said meta, and this is not mutually exclusive to the NHL series. All end users care about is their experience. Nobody’s cares what OSPF zone their in, or what switch port their Ethernet connection runs to, or what VLAN that port is assigned to, they care about connecting to the internet. We care about the outcomes and discussing what outcomes we’d like to see play out differently compared to what we have. Again, I don’t think this is disrespectful by saying “we don’t care” about those underlying mechanics, but it just doesn’t really advance the dialogue. We report the outcomes we like and don’t like and we hope that something on the backend can be fixed/tweaked to remedy those outcomes that look wonky or nonsensical at times.

    To summarize, this is why most of the people here talk about hockey and compare it to hockey. We are comfortable discussing the hockey play and the outcomes, it’s all we know, so our feedback and discussions need to be centered around the hockey play, not the underlying mechanics. We can’t offer any suggestions to the underlying mechanics. We simply don’t know/understand them enough. That’s why we’re “not interested” in the discussions going that way. We’re interested in dialogue, but our feedback starts and stops with the hockey as any normal end user’s would.

    It's a videogame - if you're "not interested" in the mechanics and just want to talk about what you know about the sport - then maybe the discussions on this part of the forum are better suited for that.

    I'd expect a forum dedicated to a videogame absolutely be interested in the underlying mechanics.....

    I disagree. The outcomes or the experiences I have when playing a video game is much more important than hearing what setting a certain variable is at. I don’t have enough information about the underlying mechanics or engine to give the proper feedback. I can articulate how a certain strategy isn’t performing how you’d expect from a hockey standpoint, I can articulate how a goalie should play a scenario given the information he sees/has, but I can’t articulate what needs to change on the backend to get a more desired result. I can only say what the desired result is.

    I think this concept is fairly easy to understand. Again, an end user doesn’t care how their computer connects to the internet. They ask “why am I not connected?” My answer is not “well, your switch port was accidentally assigned into a VLAN group that doesn’t have outbound internet access.” My answer is “i will investigate and troubleshoot.” When it’s resolved, I then ask “are your connection issues resolved?” and I hope they respond with a “yes.”

    So, I think it’s rather unfair/rude to direct me to a part of the forums where no video game related discussions happen. I simply stated that there’s a distinct difference between what users really want to have a discussion about when addressing a “problem” they are having. Some of these problems are expected (intended functionality) like poke checking penalties, but users are still going to want to discuss the outcomes, not what the underlying stick heaviness is or balance point modifier, or whatever calculation goes into the result because we don’t know enough about those mechanics.

    I purposefully ignored your post as I know you’re apparently very passionate about this issue, one that I disagree with, because I didn’t want to have a discussion that will lead nowhere with you. Thanks for validating my decision.

    LMAO thanks for validating my point: You're more interested in establishing what you know about how things should work rather than getting very good insight from someone who actually makes the game about how things DO work.

  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciated Ben's explanations even though I may have not responded very often. Just because you catch grief from some vocal forum goers doesn't mean you aren't also providing valuable information to others.
  • EA_Aljo wrote: »
    There was a Reddit AMA that you can find here. Normally, when devs post here they get a lot of toxic responses. We've also been told you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities, and gameplay in general. Ben would spend a huge amount of time going into very fine detail, but when that generates people not believing what the senior gameplay producer is saying, his time is better spent gathering feedback for future updates.

    I think there's a pretty big difference between "you guys don't like having breakdowns of mechanics, abilities and gameplay in general" as opposed to what was expressed on these boards. If that's the impression that you guys gathered from the feedback then that really is a shame and I hope things can be interpreted better in the future.

    Yeah, I think there’s a distinct difference between us wanting to discuss the outcomes or “realism” (everyone’s favorite word) of scenarios and why those outcomes are hard to watch/accept and wanting a detailed explanation of the mechanics and why those bad scenarios happen so often.

    I don’t really know how to phrase it, but I feel like people here like to discuss the big picture or the issues we experience on a simple level (ex. I hit someone, they fall, they get to keep dislodging all pickup attempts till they recover, then skate off with the puck) and how these scenarios need to not happen for a more fluid and enjoyable experience. So yeah, I don’t need or want to hear what game mechanic is causing these outcomes to happen, I want to know that my issue, one that is “unrealistic” and not fun/rewarding from a game balance perspective, is being heard and though to be legitimate.

    I guess this aligns with my “selective realism” approach I’ve taken in certain scenarios. Hitting can’t be effective at slow speeds because people complained about the bumps and that NHL players aren’t so easily affected by said bumps (somewhat agree) and that it’s bad for game balance, but a poke that results in the tip of the blade glancing the microfiber of a skate takes down an elite skater and that’s deemed acceptable and needed for a “skill gap” you know?

    So, I 100% want to hear opinions on these choices and openly discuss/debate those ideas on here. Just like most people who buy a product or service, I’m not as interested in the nitty-gritty details because otherwise we’d do that job ourselves, but I’m more interested in the final result/product. Am I really wrong when I say that? Do you all care about how hitboxes are precisely calculated/interpreted by the engine when playing a war game, or do you care about why a certain weapon feels OP/UP? I’m guessing the later.

    As HoodHoppers stated, it really is discouraging to hear that our feedback is taken like we don’t want to hear from the deciders of said meta. We want to discuss the meta, not the underlying mechanics of said meta, and this is not mutually exclusive to the NHL series. All end users care about is their experience. Nobody’s cares what OSPF zone their in, or what switch port their Ethernet connection runs to, or what VLAN that port is assigned to, they care about connecting to the internet. We care about the outcomes and discussing what outcomes we’d like to see play out differently compared to what we have. Again, I don’t think this is disrespectful by saying “we don’t care” about those underlying mechanics, but it just doesn’t really advance the dialogue. We report the outcomes we like and don’t like and we hope that something on the backend can be fixed/tweaked to remedy those outcomes that look wonky or nonsensical at times.

    To summarize, this is why most of the people here talk about hockey and compare it to hockey. We are comfortable discussing the hockey play and the outcomes, it’s all we know, so our feedback and discussions need to be centered around the hockey play, not the underlying mechanics. We can’t offer any suggestions to the underlying mechanics. We simply don’t know/understand them enough. That’s why we’re “not interested” in the discussions going that way. We’re interested in dialogue, but our feedback starts and stops with the hockey as any normal end user’s would.

    It's a videogame - if you're "not interested" in the mechanics and just want to talk about what you know about the sport - then maybe the discussions on this part of the forum are better suited for that.

    I'd expect a forum dedicated to a videogame absolutely be interested in the underlying mechanics.....

    I disagree. The outcomes or the experiences I have when playing a video game is much more important than hearing what setting a certain variable is at. I don’t have enough information about the underlying mechanics or engine to give the proper feedback. I can articulate how a certain strategy isn’t performing how you’d expect from a hockey standpoint, I can articulate how a goalie should play a scenario given the information he sees/has, but I can’t articulate what needs to change on the backend to get a more desired result. I can only say what the desired result is.

    I think this concept is fairly easy to understand. Again, an end user doesn’t care how their computer connects to the internet. They ask “why am I not connected?” My answer is not “well, your switch port was accidentally assigned into a VLAN group that doesn’t have outbound internet access.” My answer is “i will investigate and troubleshoot.” When it’s resolved, I then ask “are your connection issues resolved?” and I hope they respond with a “yes.”

    So, I think it’s rather unfair/rude to direct me to a part of the forums where no video game related discussions happen. I simply stated that there’s a distinct difference between what users really want to have a discussion about when addressing a “problem” they are having. Some of these problems are expected (intended functionality) like poke checking penalties, but users are still going to want to discuss the outcomes, not what the underlying stick heaviness is or balance point modifier, or whatever calculation goes into the result because we don’t know enough about those mechanics.

    I purposefully ignored your post as I know you’re apparently very passionate about this issue, one that I disagree with, because I didn’t want to have a discussion that will lead nowhere with you. Thanks for validating my decision.

    LMAO thanks for validating my point: You're more interested in establishing what you know about how things should work rather than getting very good insight from someone who actually makes the game about how things DO work.

    No, it’s just me wanting to give the best feedback possible. If I get a breakdown of what clipped or failed during a certain frame, I can find that information informative, interesting, cool, but I can’t provide an articulate, useful bit of feedback on how to remedy that situation. For all we know, it’s a bug or a situational/statistical anomaly that only someone as experienced with the underlying mechanics (Ben) could fix. So great, I’m glad he responds and breaks it down, but it doesn’t really lead to any further suggestions or feedback.

    Situations like the AI not playing the trap well (which was vastly improved this year) are things I can give articulate, useful feedback on. If you’re a former or current developer, and those in-depth mechanics breakdowns give you information you can use to provide feedback, then more power to you. I’m not wanting these breakdowns to go away, I’m just wanting more “high-level” discussions to take place as it’s a level where the majority of the player base can get to.

    I can see too many trips for my liking, too many snipes, too many forced passes, etc and give feedback on what I’m seeing and what I’d like to see happen differently. I can’t get a breakdown of frames and mechanics and use that effectively unless Ben really spells it out for me which probably wastes more of his valuable time than it’s be worth.

    There is no “right” answer here, that’s why I didn’t want to engage in the first place. I don’t find anything wrong with the technical feedback, but if they’re interpreting our feedback about said feedback as “we don’t want you to talk”, I just want to articulate why we (people like me who aren’t coders/devs) don’t see a ton of value in that. It’s because we can’t speak to it/aren’t smart enough when it comes to coding, not because we don’t want to hear the high-level reasons something was coded a certain way.

    I don’t have an ego, I just know that I understand the sport and want to continue trying to make this game grow from an offline/realism perspective. There’s more than enough people giving feedback about online/competitive stuff, so I’ll continue advocating/providing feedback in areas I understand and talk to in an articulate manner.
  • The more ben the better - call it B-T-B! But only if it's relevant. Aljo can take care of the rest!

    AMA with ben was the most interesting to take part of before the realese.
  • Sgt_Kelso
    1323 posts Member
    edited October 13

    LMAO thanks for validating my point: You're more interested in establishing what you know about how things should work rather than getting very good insight from someone who actually makes the game about how things DO work.

    So what's the problem, officer? We want changes in the game, and you can't explain them away. It's not relevant why it happens, when we don't want it to happen like that in the first place? Seems like there's a fundamental disconnect in the debate.
  • Sega82mega wrote: »
    The more ben the better - call it B-T-B! But only if it's relevant. Aljo can take care of the rest!

    AMA with ben was the most interesting to take part of before the realese.

    I agree bud, his feedback was real nice to read on there.
  • Sgt_Kelso wrote: »

    LMAO thanks for validating my point: You're more interested in establishing what you know about how things should work rather than getting very good insight from someone who actually makes the game about how things DO work.

    So what's the problem, officer? We want changes in the game, and you can't explain them away. It's not relevant why it happens, when we don't want it to happen like that in the first place? Seems like there's a fundamental disconnect in the debate.

    That’s my point. It’s just a fundamental difference in how we value that super technical feedback. There’s no reason try and convince the other that our respective prioritization of the technical feedback is better/worse. It’s just different.
  • TTZ_Dipsy
    442 posts Member
    edited October 13
    I think users would prefer an in-depth explaination over a "I'm right, you're wrong, case closed".

    Personally I'd love for condensed videos showing exactly how dumb and wrong I am - until you make me eat crow I don't see myself changing my tune.

    The reason why I can never really take Ben and whoever was in charge of the social media years ago seriously is because I was only ever responded to with "nah mate, you just need to stop sucking".

    I understand missing a poke, I get physics without being a rocket math scientist, but it'd be nice to be shown exactly how the code works with no room for error so I just look like a knob complaining here
  • I can see too many trips for my liking, too many snipes, too many forced passes, etc and give feedback on what I’m seeing and what I’d like to see happen differently.

    The problem is that when Ben comes in to threads to explain WHY the trips happen, why the snipes are good and why the forced pass made it through or didn't make it through - it is typically an explanation that implies more responsibility on the user - and the user with the big ego takes it as a shot to their 'hockey knowledge' and then continue to just rip Ben to shreds and argue about it.

    So Ben tells you why something happened, implies you did something wrong - then he gets attacked. (not by you specifically, of course)

    So my point stands - Ben does offer up explanations that can be a little 'technical' for sure - but in the explanations where he explains that X player should've done X differently - there's nothing technical there at all - just an explanation of how he intended the game to play.

    And when that doesn't jive with what some people here think should happen - they get insanely defensive and report anyone who differs with them as "telling me to git gud".

  • TTZ_Dipsy
    442 posts Member
    edited October 13
    The thing is, Showtime, I have literally been told not to suck and to "git gud", that's where my specific problem lies. I've been able to rank pretty high over the years so that response, even if it was just once, just isn't good enough.

    As for the AMA - I think Ben did a good job explaining many things; we should be getting deep dives and AMA's every month imo
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!