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".
But isn't it kind of on us as consumers to direct how the product can improve? Otherwise there's hardly any use for these forums. If we see improvements, there's lots of us who come on here and say, "hey, good job!". When they improved Franchise mode I thought they set up a wonderful foundation to be worked upon and I said, "This improvement single handedly made me buy NHL 20".
On the contrary, we can post things like videos and do comparisons to hockey as seen in real life vs what is presented in a video game. The developers obviously know way more than any of us consumers on why things do and don't work, but sometimes the developers may not know more than us hockey fans who have watched the game for decades upon decades, have played the game for decades, etc. that understand where there's a disconnect from reality vs the video game.
If a developer has an opinion as to why something should be, it doesn't mean that they're automatically correct in their opinion. They could have the opinion that Milan Lucic has a better shot than Sean Monohan. Doesn't mean it's right. But because most fans want an emulation as to the sport they play or watch in real life, doesn't mean that the developer because they make the game should have the final say on what should exist. It should be discussed, as ultimately it is the consumer that is paying for it and if left for too long, the consumer won't pay for it.
Sometimes the explanations aren't solutions, and sometimes the consumers are looking for solutions.
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
I sincerely doubt Ben or any other official representative from EA has actually told you to 'git dut' or said the words "you just need to get better"
No doubt that other members - myself included - have said to git gud, but not EA.
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
I sincerely doubt Ben or any other official representative from EA has actually told you to 'git dut' or said the words "you just need to get better"
No doubt that other members - myself included - have said to git gud, but not EA.
Obviously, there have been times we've said people need to play better defense, take better shots, etc, but we try to choose our words carefully as they are very often taken in a different manner than we intended. Often it's thought that we're being condescending or insulting. I can't recall a time though where we literally said "git gud" to someone. I'm thinking Dipsy meant that we said something along the lines of what I mentioned at the beginning of this post. In that case, he's right, but we also try to be sensitive about the words we choose. We always try to avoid insulting anyone or just putting the blame unnecessarily on the player.
We will of course recognize when something is the fault of the game. A glitch, bug, gameplay mechanic, etc., but there are times when the outcome of games is also very dependent on how you and your opponent play.
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".
But isn't it kind of on us as consumers to direct how the product can improve? Otherwise there's hardly any use for these forums. If we see improvements, there's lots of us who come on here and say, "hey, good job!". When they improved Franchise mode I thought they set up a wonderful foundation to be worked upon and I said, "This improvement single handedly made me buy NHL 20".
On the contrary, we can post things like videos and do comparisons to hockey as seen in real life vs what is presented in a video game. The developers obviously know way more than any of us consumers on why things do and don't work, but sometimes the developers may not know more than us hockey fans who have watched the game for decades upon decades, have played the game for decades, etc. that understand where there's a disconnect from reality vs the video game.
If a developer has an opinion as to why something should be, it doesn't mean that they're automatically correct in their opinion. They could have the opinion that Milan Lucic has a better shot than Sean Monohan. Doesn't mean it's right. But because most fans want an emulation as to the sport they play or watch in real life, doesn't mean that the developer because they make the game should have the final say on what should exist. It should be discussed, as ultimately it is the consumer that is paying for it and if left for too long, the consumer won't pay for it.
Sometimes the explanations aren't solutions, and sometimes the consumers are looking for solutions.
You can't dismiss a software engineer's explanation as to why that poke check you made didn't work like you thought it should and in the same breath - provide a 'solution' to said problem without a software engineer perspective and only a perspective of "I know how hockey should work and this isn't it"
So most users here who talk down to Ben when he provides an explanation aren't providing alternative solutions - they're providing alternative opinions on what they feel should happen instead.
Again - I say most users, not all. There are lots of good members here (yourself included) - but I am irritated that the other users - the ones who preach constantly about their hockey IQ - are the reason why those in depth explanations aren't as prevalent as they once were.
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".
Well again, I’m not necessarily concerned with what game mechanic identified an unscreened wrist shot from beyond the tops of the circle and outside the dot as a “good” or “goal-worthy” shot like we see in NHL 20 when slowly gliding at a diagonal and shooting far side, I’m here to discuss why that shot isn’t in the least bit dangerous IRL.
So again, that’s where the fundamental difference is. I don’t necessarily value the technical reasons why a shot went in, I’m concerned with the end result of a shot going in consistently in game that wouldn’t go in consistently IRL. If a shot goes in consistently, clearly there’s something coded into the logic that results in that shot being a “high percentage” shot and I’m not concerned with the specifics of the coding, I just am wanting to explain why that result shouldn’t consistently go in.
I’m here to discuss why that shot isn’t in the least bit dangerous IRL.
Nobody is debating whether or not that shot is dangerous. Whether you think it's a "dangerous shot IRL" is completely irrelevant.
If the in-game scenario let a goal like that in - there's countless variables that led to why a 'not dangerous' shot finds a way in.
Just like in real life - LOTS of shots considered 'not dangerous' find their way in to the net. Not every single goal scored in real life is the culmination of highly successful decisions - sometimes a shot goes in that makes people go... what... the .... heck..
The fact that this happens in a videogame means that people will argue incessantly about whether or not the shot should be dangerous to begin with - completely ignoring the context of the shot (in this made-up scenario).
I don’t necessarily value the technical reasons why a shot went in, I’m concerned with the end result of a shot going in consistently in game that wouldn’t go in consistently IRL.
But the consistency of games played in real life is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the number of games played by this fanbase as a whole.
So - it goes without saying - you're going to see situations like this (a 'non-dangerous shot' finding a way in) play out FAR more often than you see in real life.
Which brings me to the crux of the issue; Those who come here to argue about what they feel should happen in a scenario where a developer has clearly laid out what happened and why it happened. Those who do that are ignoring context and weaving a tapestry of hyperbole which does literally nothing to provide solutions - just pages upon pages of what people know about how hockey is supposed to be played.
If a **** goes in consistently, clearly there’s something coded into the logic that results in that shot being a “high percentage” shot and I’m not concerned with the specifics of the coding, I just am wanting to explain why that result shouldn’t consistently go in.
Exactly my point.
Ben has never come in here and given us code to look at. That would be ridiculous.
You want an explanation as to why certain shots become goals that aren't initially dangerous, but you want to dismiss any technical explanation that follows.
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.
Lol what? Told my who? I never seen people being toxic when Ben responds with detailed breakdowns.
Aljo has been an excellent person to go back and forth with over the last year; he does a great job informing me how things could have turned out better. I and every other player should never think they are perfect
My chapped behind comes from an old Facebook post sometime around the last transitional games (13-15ish) where whoever was in charge of the post did not want to listen to feedback of any kind - something along the lines of "well if you didn't suck so much maybe you'd have success" It's old news and not worth a hoot since I'm not willing to go back and look for it but I won't let that one go no matter how much things have improved.
Ben gets absolutely ripped into because people don't want to listen to straight facts (ie not what they want to hear). That said, I think the problem is because he is so technical about things. He is 100% right that 1+1=2 and so on, but paper and actual gameplay can differ drastically; by having so many variables messing things up, there will always be a miscommunication between coders and players. This is why i think small videos to go with what they're saying (or heck, maybe go further into the actual percentages of certain shots/plays), is the way to go. Don't just tell them they're wrong but show them too.
Leaving any sort of wiggle room will cause their imagination to run wild and take a firmer stance on what they believe
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.
We just want attributes back along with boost packs no card system. Attributes from day one boost unlocks after the first 20 ranks. Custom music as well thanks
I’m here to discuss why that shot isn’t in the least bit dangerous IRL.
Nobody is debating whether or not that shot is dangerous. Whether you think it's a "dangerous shot IRL" is completely irrelevant.
If the in-game scenario let a goal like that in - there's countless variables that led to why a 'not dangerous' shot finds a way in.
Just like in real life - LOTS of shots considered 'not dangerous' find their way in to the net. Not every single goal scored in real life is the culmination of highly successful decisions - sometimes a shot goes in that makes people go... what... the .... heck..
The fact that this happens in a videogame means that people will argue incessantly about whether or not the shot should be dangerous to begin with - completely ignoring the context of the shot (in this made-up scenario).
I don’t necessarily value the technical reasons why a shot went in, I’m concerned with the end result of a shot going in consistently in game that wouldn’t go in consistently IRL.
But the consistency of games played in real life is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the number of games played by this fanbase as a whole.
So - it goes without saying - you're going to see situations like this (a 'non-dangerous shot' finding a way in) play out FAR more often than you see in real life.
Which brings me to the crux of the issue; Those who come here to argue about what they feel should happen in a scenario where a developer has clearly laid out what happened and why it happened. Those who do that are ignoring context and weaving a tapestry of hyperbole which does literally nothing to provide solutions - just pages upon pages of what people know about how hockey is supposed to be played.
If a **** goes in consistently, clearly there’s something coded into the logic that results in that shot being a “high percentage” shot and I’m not concerned with the specifics of the coding, I just am wanting to explain why that result shouldn’t consistently go in.
Ben has never come in here and given us code to look at. That would be ridiculous.
You want an explanation as to why certain shots become goals that aren't initially dangerous, but you want to dismiss any technical explanation that follows.
It's a little absurd.
So far, I’ve been simply discussing ideas in a respectful manner. I have no idea why you’re one, insinuating that I’m fabricating the far-side shot that goes in repeatedly in 20. That’s a known high percentage shot. And 2, calling me ridiculous for having an opinion, one that you’ve misrepresented to call me ridiculous.
I will stand by what hoodhoppers said and that is, just because a developer believes an unscreeed shot from beyond the tops of the circle, outside the dot should be a high percentage shot, doesn’t mean it is. Sure, bad goals happen in real life, but when teams can go 3/4 on it in game, I think that shot isn’t being considered a “bad” shot, no? Or are we pretending that the shot in question is being considered a bad shot and I’m really losing my dice rolls? Either way, not very fun, not a skill gap, not imo realistic when I watch NHL goalies. As far as context goes, I have the context of the shot laid out right in-front of you (unscreened, location of the shot, placement of the shot) what more do you want? I’m not simply saying “long shot goal BAD, no long shot be a goal” I’m giving you the entire context of a high percentage shot in NHL 20. What does “not initially dangerous “ mean when talking about an unscreened shot? No other variables are added into that equation. Guy shoots puck, goalie sees puck, goal goes in. So I think you need to add more context to your argument about me not adding enough context lol. And Again, I don’t care what values need to be tinkered with or changed, I just want to see such a weak, unskilled shot not going in consistently. Call them a “glitch” a “high percentage” shot , doesn’t matter, the fact of the matter is, this game clearly has some shots that the goalie struggles with, and I will continue contributing feedback from a real life perspective in hopes of these shots becoming less reliable because they’re not good shots.
The last part I don’t think you read right, or purposefully misinterpreted as you’ve done previously in the quoted post, but I’ll assume the best. I don’t want an explanation as to why the shot went in from a mechanics standpoint. I don’t care about the technical issues or variables at play, I will explain from a RL PoV why that shouldn’t have a high success rate, I’d like have high-level discussions about what scenarios should yield a higher success rate, but I’m not going to pretend that I am a developer and have a technical solution for the answer.
If I received a technical explanation to why slowly gliding to your forehand side from beyond the tops of the circle is a high percentage shot, what would I do with that? “Umm can you fix that technical shortcoming? Hey, I know nothing about engine or code but have you tried doing this?” I don’t know how to fix code or animations. I just know the end result is off. I’d rather discuss high-level scenarios with Ben from a hockey PoV as that would help him make those low-level tweaks to see more realistic success rates depending on the scenario.
I’d take a step back, relax, breathe man. No reason to be calling me ridiculous, absurd, or telling me to not contribute to these forums simply for having an opinion on the usefulness of technical breakdowns. I’m not the one advocating that they never return or weren’t cool, I started this entire post off by trying to state that we value dev interactions even if we weren’t always able to use that information provided, hence why I’d value high-level discussions more than technical breakdowns.
Aljo has been an excellent person to go back and forth with over the last year; he does a great job informing me how things could have turned out better. I and every other player should never think they are perfect
My chapped behind comes from an old Facebook post sometime around the last transitional games (13-15ish) where whoever was in charge of the post did not want to listen to feedback of any kind - something along the lines of "well if you didn't suck so much maybe you'd have success" It's old news and not worth a hoot since I'm not willing to go back and look for it but I won't let that one go no matter how much things have improved.
Ben gets absolutely ripped into because people don't want to listen to straight facts (ie not what they want to hear). That said, I think the problem is because he is so technical about things. He is 100% right that 1+1=2 and so on, but paper and actual gameplay can differ drastically; by having so many variables messing things up, there will always be a miscommunication between coders and players. This is why i think small videos to go with what they're saying (or heck, maybe go further into the actual percentages of certain shots/plays), is the way to go. Don't just tell them they're wrong but show them too.
Leaving any sort of wiggle room will cause their imagination to run wild and take a firmer stance on what they believe
Here’s also the thing, with some of the submitted videos, we get a breakdown as to why the situation went south even if there wasn’t really anything the user did wrong (clipping, registering a poke, etc) and while the technical breakdown is interesting, it doesn’t really add to the conversation about what end result would be preferred, you know? I’m sure Ben could give us a laundry list of things to tweak, but we don’t know those variables. All we can speak to is the hockey and result.
I really don’t think this should be such a heated topic lol. How about we all just give feedback and hope we see positive results? No need to fight over what feedback is better, or what breakdowns are better. This is literally arguing over which color is the best.
Aljo has been an excellent person to go back and forth with over the last year; he does a great job informing me how things could have turned out better. I and every other player should never think they are perfect
My chapped behind comes from an old Facebook post sometime around the last transitional games (13-15ish) where whoever was in charge of the post did not want to listen to feedback of any kind - something along the lines of "well if you didn't suck so much maybe you'd have success" It's old news and not worth a hoot since I'm not willing to go back and look for it but I won't let that one go no matter how much things have improved.
Ben gets absolutely ripped into because people don't want to listen to straight facts (ie not what they want to hear). That said, I think the problem is because he is so technical about things. He is 100% right that 1+1=2 and so on, but paper and actual gameplay can differ drastically; by having so many variables messing things up, there will always be a miscommunication between coders and players. This is why i think small videos to go with what they're saying (or heck, maybe go further into the actual percentages of certain shots/plays), is the way to go. Don't just tell them they're wrong but show them too.
Leaving any sort of wiggle room will cause their imagination to run wild and take a firmer stance on what they believe
Here’s also the thing, with some of the submitted videos, we get a breakdown as to why the situation went south even if there wasn’t really anything the user did wrong (clipping, registering a poke, etc) and while the technical breakdown is interesting, it doesn’t really add to the conversation about what end result would be preferred, you know? I’m sure Ben could give us a laundry list of things to tweak, but we don’t know those variables. All we can speak to is the hockey and result.
I really don’t think this should be such a heated topic lol. How about we all just give feedback and hope we see positive results? No need to fight over what feedback is better, or what breakdowns are better. This is literally arguing over which color is the best.
I would love nothing more than to have a serious discussion on the mechanics of the game but for that to take place the game actually has to load at start up…
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.
Lol what? Told my who? I never seen people being toxic when Ben responds with detailed breakdowns.
I'm not getting into who, but this was discussed. I get that not everyone feels this way, but developer and moderator involvement here is often met with unwelcome responses. I'd love to see more interaction, but when it generates frustration and negativity, it's best to limit our discussions. The Reddit AMA was a great way to communicate with Ben and generated some excellent information for the community so hopefully, we'll see more of that going forward.
Aljo has been an excellent person to go back and forth with over the last year; he does a great job informing me how things could have turned out better. I and every other player should never think they are perfect
My chapped behind comes from an old Facebook post sometime around the last transitional games (13-15ish) where whoever was in charge of the post did not want to listen to feedback of any kind - something along the lines of "well if you didn't suck so much maybe you'd have success" It's old news and not worth a hoot since I'm not willing to go back and look for it but I won't let that one go no matter how much things have improved.
Ben gets absolutely ripped into because people don't want to listen to straight facts (ie not what they want to hear). That said, I think the problem is because he is so technical about things. He is 100% right that 1+1=2 and so on, but paper and actual gameplay can differ drastically; by having so many variables messing things up, there will always be a miscommunication between coders and players. This is why i think small videos to go with what they're saying (or heck, maybe go further into the actual percentages of certain shots/plays), is the way to go. Don't just tell them they're wrong but show them too.
Leaving any sort of wiggle room will cause their imagination to run wild and take a firmer stance on what they believe
Here’s also the thing, with some of the submitted videos, we get a breakdown as to why the situation went south even if there wasn’t really anything the user did wrong (clipping, registering a poke, etc) and while the technical breakdown is interesting, it doesn’t really add to the conversation about what end result would be preferred, you know? I’m sure Ben could give us a laundry list of things to tweak, but we don’t know those variables. All we can speak to is the hockey and result.
I really don’t think this should be such a heated topic lol. How about we all just give feedback and hope we see positive results? No need to fight over what feedback is better, or what breakdowns are better. This is literally arguing over which color is the best.
There's no need for that. It's blue. Obviously.
Do you even see colors? How can you say it's blue and honeslty tell me you see colors?
It's obviously green. Anyone with a shred of color IQ would tell you it's green.
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.
Lol what? Told my who? I never seen people being toxic when Ben responds with detailed breakdowns.
I'm not getting into who, but this was discussed. I get that not everyone feels this way, but developer and moderator involvement here is often met with unwelcome responses. I'd love to see more interaction, but when it generates frustration and negativity, it's best to limit our discussions. The Reddit AMA was a great way to communicate with Ben and generated some excellent information for the community so hopefully, we'll see more of that going forward.
Why was the AMA done in the NHL_HUT subreddit? I know it's the more populated EA NHL subreddit - but it's dedicated to just one mode.
Having the AMA in EA_NHL would make more sense and also not give the impression that HUT players are the only players being listened to.
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.
Lol what? Told my who? I never seen people being toxic when Ben responds with detailed breakdowns.
I'm not getting into who, but this was discussed. I get that not everyone feels this way, but developer and moderator involvement here is often met with unwelcome responses. I'd love to see more interaction, but when it generates frustration and negativity, it's best to limit our discussions. The Reddit AMA was a great way to communicate with Ben and generated some excellent information for the community so hopefully, we'll see more of that going forward.
So posting in this EA NHL official forum is pointless? Reddit is the main one?
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.
Lol what? Told my who? I never seen people being toxic when Ben responds with detailed breakdowns.
I'm not getting into who, but this was discussed. I get that not everyone feels this way, but developer and moderator involvement here is often met with unwelcome responses. I'd love to see more interaction, but when it generates frustration and negativity, it's best to limit our discussions. The Reddit AMA was a great way to communicate with Ben and generated some excellent information for the community so hopefully, we'll see more of that going forward.
So now there is:
This forum
The Answers HQ forum
Reddit
Twitter
I don't understand this, please explain. There should be one place for NHL information and support. Why four?
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.
Lol what? Told my who? I never seen people being toxic when Ben responds with detailed breakdowns.
I'm not getting into who, but this was discussed. I get that not everyone feels this way, but developer and moderator involvement here is often met with unwelcome responses. I'd love to see more interaction, but when it generates frustration and negativity, it's best to limit our discussions. The Reddit AMA was a great way to communicate with Ben and generated some excellent information for the community so hopefully, we'll see more of that going forward.
So now there is:
This forum
The Answers HQ forum
Reddit
Twitter
I don't understand this, please explain. There should be one place for NHL information and support. Why four?
This forum is here for discussion - maybe help from time to time but for the most part - discussion about the present and future iterations.
The Answers HQ forum is the official support forum for people having issues with the game.
The Reddit community is divided in to three subreddits; ea_nhl, EASHL and NHL_HUT. Those are community driven and not official avenues of communication by EA - with the exception of Clappy posting in NHL_HUT and Ben's AMA in the same subreddit. (which, in my opinion, clearly demonstrates where the priority lies)
Twitter/Facebook are just the general socials that every company on planet earth uses to gauge the pulse of your consumer base. Of course, as with most social media platforms, those accounts post anything and the comments are just a bunch of parrots - repeating the same crap they say every year, "bring back GMC, make a better game, watch hockey for once, etc etc" - I mean they're not wrong but it's funny watching them post the same comments week after week - seeing all those likes they get from the hivemind - and then doing it again because they enjoy the attention.
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.
Lol what? Told my who? I never seen people being toxic when Ben responds with detailed breakdowns.
I'm not getting into who, but this was discussed. I get that not everyone feels this way, but developer and moderator involvement here is often met with unwelcome responses. I'd love to see more interaction, but when it generates frustration and negativity, it's best to limit our discussions. The Reddit AMA was a great way to communicate with Ben and generated some excellent information for the community so hopefully, we'll see more of that going forward.
So posting in this EA NHL official forum is pointless? Reddit is the main one?
Replies
But isn't it kind of on us as consumers to direct how the product can improve? Otherwise there's hardly any use for these forums. If we see improvements, there's lots of us who come on here and say, "hey, good job!". When they improved Franchise mode I thought they set up a wonderful foundation to be worked upon and I said, "This improvement single handedly made me buy NHL 20".
On the contrary, we can post things like videos and do comparisons to hockey as seen in real life vs what is presented in a video game. The developers obviously know way more than any of us consumers on why things do and don't work, but sometimes the developers may not know more than us hockey fans who have watched the game for decades upon decades, have played the game for decades, etc. that understand where there's a disconnect from reality vs the video game.
If a developer has an opinion as to why something should be, it doesn't mean that they're automatically correct in their opinion. They could have the opinion that Milan Lucic has a better shot than Sean Monohan. Doesn't mean it's right. But because most fans want an emulation as to the sport they play or watch in real life, doesn't mean that the developer because they make the game should have the final say on what should exist. It should be discussed, as ultimately it is the consumer that is paying for it and if left for too long, the consumer won't pay for it.
Sometimes the explanations aren't solutions, and sometimes the consumers are looking for solutions.
I sincerely doubt Ben or any other official representative from EA has actually told you to 'git dut' or said the words "you just need to get better"
No doubt that other members - myself included - have said to git gud, but not EA.
Obviously, there have been times we've said people need to play better defense, take better shots, etc, but we try to choose our words carefully as they are very often taken in a different manner than we intended. Often it's thought that we're being condescending or insulting. I can't recall a time though where we literally said "git gud" to someone. I'm thinking Dipsy meant that we said something along the lines of what I mentioned at the beginning of this post. In that case, he's right, but we also try to be sensitive about the words we choose. We always try to avoid insulting anyone or just putting the blame unnecessarily on the player.
We will of course recognize when something is the fault of the game. A glitch, bug, gameplay mechanic, etc., but there are times when the outcome of games is also very dependent on how you and your opponent play.
You can't dismiss a software engineer's explanation as to why that poke check you made didn't work like you thought it should and in the same breath - provide a 'solution' to said problem without a software engineer perspective and only a perspective of "I know how hockey should work and this isn't it"
So most users here who talk down to Ben when he provides an explanation aren't providing alternative solutions - they're providing alternative opinions on what they feel should happen instead.
Again - I say most users, not all. There are lots of good members here (yourself included) - but I am irritated that the other users - the ones who preach constantly about their hockey IQ - are the reason why those in depth explanations aren't as prevalent as they once were.
Well again, I’m not necessarily concerned with what game mechanic identified an unscreened wrist shot from beyond the tops of the circle and outside the dot as a “good” or “goal-worthy” shot like we see in NHL 20 when slowly gliding at a diagonal and shooting far side, I’m here to discuss why that shot isn’t in the least bit dangerous IRL.
So again, that’s where the fundamental difference is. I don’t necessarily value the technical reasons why a shot went in, I’m concerned with the end result of a shot going in consistently in game that wouldn’t go in consistently IRL. If a shot goes in consistently, clearly there’s something coded into the logic that results in that shot being a “high percentage” shot and I’m not concerned with the specifics of the coding, I just am wanting to explain why that result shouldn’t consistently go in.
Nobody is debating whether or not that shot is dangerous. Whether you think it's a "dangerous shot IRL" is completely irrelevant.
If the in-game scenario let a goal like that in - there's countless variables that led to why a 'not dangerous' shot finds a way in.
Just like in real life - LOTS of shots considered 'not dangerous' find their way in to the net. Not every single goal scored in real life is the culmination of highly successful decisions - sometimes a shot goes in that makes people go... what... the .... heck..
The fact that this happens in a videogame means that people will argue incessantly about whether or not the shot should be dangerous to begin with - completely ignoring the context of the shot (in this made-up scenario).
But the consistency of games played in real life is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the number of games played by this fanbase as a whole.
So - it goes without saying - you're going to see situations like this (a 'non-dangerous shot' finding a way in) play out FAR more often than you see in real life.
Which brings me to the crux of the issue; Those who come here to argue about what they feel should happen in a scenario where a developer has clearly laid out what happened and why it happened. Those who do that are ignoring context and weaving a tapestry of hyperbole which does literally nothing to provide solutions - just pages upon pages of what people know about how hockey is supposed to be played.
Exactly my point.
Ben has never come in here and given us code to look at. That would be ridiculous.
You want an explanation as to why certain shots become goals that aren't initially dangerous, but you want to dismiss any technical explanation that follows.
It's a little absurd.
Lol what? Told my who? I never seen people being toxic when Ben responds with detailed breakdowns.
My chapped behind comes from an old Facebook post sometime around the last transitional games (13-15ish) where whoever was in charge of the post did not want to listen to feedback of any kind - something along the lines of "well if you didn't suck so much maybe you'd have success" It's old news and not worth a hoot since I'm not willing to go back and look for it but I won't let that one go no matter how much things have improved.
Ben gets absolutely ripped into because people don't want to listen to straight facts (ie not what they want to hear). That said, I think the problem is because he is so technical about things. He is 100% right that 1+1=2 and so on, but paper and actual gameplay can differ drastically; by having so many variables messing things up, there will always be a miscommunication between coders and players. This is why i think small videos to go with what they're saying (or heck, maybe go further into the actual percentages of certain shots/plays), is the way to go. Don't just tell them they're wrong but show them too.
Leaving any sort of wiggle room will cause their imagination to run wild and take a firmer stance on what they believe
We just want attributes back along with boost packs no card system. Attributes from day one boost unlocks after the first 20 ranks. Custom music as well thanks
So far, I’ve been simply discussing ideas in a respectful manner. I have no idea why you’re one, insinuating that I’m fabricating the far-side shot that goes in repeatedly in 20. That’s a known high percentage shot. And 2, calling me ridiculous for having an opinion, one that you’ve misrepresented to call me ridiculous.
I will stand by what hoodhoppers said and that is, just because a developer believes an unscreeed shot from beyond the tops of the circle, outside the dot should be a high percentage shot, doesn’t mean it is. Sure, bad goals happen in real life, but when teams can go 3/4 on it in game, I think that shot isn’t being considered a “bad” shot, no? Or are we pretending that the shot in question is being considered a bad shot and I’m really losing my dice rolls? Either way, not very fun, not a skill gap, not imo realistic when I watch NHL goalies. As far as context goes, I have the context of the shot laid out right in-front of you (unscreened, location of the shot, placement of the shot) what more do you want? I’m not simply saying “long shot goal BAD, no long shot be a goal” I’m giving you the entire context of a high percentage shot in NHL 20. What does “not initially dangerous “ mean when talking about an unscreened shot? No other variables are added into that equation. Guy shoots puck, goalie sees puck, goal goes in. So I think you need to add more context to your argument about me not adding enough context lol. And Again, I don’t care what values need to be tinkered with or changed, I just want to see such a weak, unskilled shot not going in consistently. Call them a “glitch” a “high percentage” shot , doesn’t matter, the fact of the matter is, this game clearly has some shots that the goalie struggles with, and I will continue contributing feedback from a real life perspective in hopes of these shots becoming less reliable because they’re not good shots.
The last part I don’t think you read right, or purposefully misinterpreted as you’ve done previously in the quoted post, but I’ll assume the best. I don’t want an explanation as to why the shot went in from a mechanics standpoint. I don’t care about the technical issues or variables at play, I will explain from a RL PoV why that shouldn’t have a high success rate, I’d like have high-level discussions about what scenarios should yield a higher success rate, but I’m not going to pretend that I am a developer and have a technical solution for the answer.
If I received a technical explanation to why slowly gliding to your forehand side from beyond the tops of the circle is a high percentage shot, what would I do with that? “Umm can you fix that technical shortcoming? Hey, I know nothing about engine or code but have you tried doing this?” I don’t know how to fix code or animations. I just know the end result is off. I’d rather discuss high-level scenarios with Ben from a hockey PoV as that would help him make those low-level tweaks to see more realistic success rates depending on the scenario.
I’d take a step back, relax, breathe man. No reason to be calling me ridiculous, absurd, or telling me to not contribute to these forums simply for having an opinion on the usefulness of technical breakdowns. I’m not the one advocating that they never return or weren’t cool, I started this entire post off by trying to state that we value dev interactions even if we weren’t always able to use that information provided, hence why I’d value high-level discussions more than technical breakdowns.
Here’s also the thing, with some of the submitted videos, we get a breakdown as to why the situation went south even if there wasn’t really anything the user did wrong (clipping, registering a poke, etc) and while the technical breakdown is interesting, it doesn’t really add to the conversation about what end result would be preferred, you know? I’m sure Ben could give us a laundry list of things to tweak, but we don’t know those variables. All we can speak to is the hockey and result.
I really don’t think this should be such a heated topic lol. How about we all just give feedback and hope we see positive results? No need to fight over what feedback is better, or what breakdowns are better. This is literally arguing over which color is the best.
There's no need for that. It's blue. Obviously.
I'm not getting into who, but this was discussed. I get that not everyone feels this way, but developer and moderator involvement here is often met with unwelcome responses. I'd love to see more interaction, but when it generates frustration and negativity, it's best to limit our discussions. The Reddit AMA was a great way to communicate with Ben and generated some excellent information for the community so hopefully, we'll see more of that going forward.
Do you even see colors? How can you say it's blue and honeslty tell me you see colors?
It's obviously green. Anyone with a shred of color IQ would tell you it's green.
Why was the AMA done in the NHL_HUT subreddit? I know it's the more populated EA NHL subreddit - but it's dedicated to just one mode.
Having the AMA in EA_NHL would make more sense and also not give the impression that HUT players are the only players being listened to.
So posting in this EA NHL official forum is pointless? Reddit is the main one?
So now there is:
This forum
The Answers HQ forum
Reddit
Twitter
I don't understand this, please explain. There should be one place for NHL information and support. Why four?
This forum is here for discussion - maybe help from time to time but for the most part - discussion about the present and future iterations.
The Answers HQ forum is the official support forum for people having issues with the game.
The Reddit community is divided in to three subreddits; ea_nhl, EASHL and NHL_HUT. Those are community driven and not official avenues of communication by EA - with the exception of Clappy posting in NHL_HUT and Ben's AMA in the same subreddit. (which, in my opinion, clearly demonstrates where the priority lies)
Twitter/Facebook are just the general socials that every company on planet earth uses to gauge the pulse of your consumer base. Of course, as with most social media platforms, those accounts post anything and the comments are just a bunch of parrots - repeating the same crap they say every year, "bring back GMC, make a better game, watch hockey for once, etc etc" - I mean they're not wrong but it's funny watching them post the same comments week after week - seeing all those likes they get from the hivemind - and then doing it again because they enjoy the attention.
Operation sports