EA Forums - Banner

Forward Thinking (NHL 22 and Beyond)

Replies

  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    Well the truth is this is more or less the system already in place and people do already cherry pick and forwards get more RP if they score goals.

    I don't believe that's the case currently. Are you taking about your proposed system or the current one? My understanding of RP is that it's strictly win/loss based, weighted with the RP of you and your teammates vs the RP of your opponents. If everyone is equal it seems like the default RP gain/loss is about 450. I don't think individual stats come into play at all. They don't seem to in club games is drop-in different somehow? If I'm wrong on this I'd like to be corrected. @EA_Aljo?

    IceLion68 wrote: »
    At the risk of being controversial/callous, I am actually OK with that. In that scenario, I hope we can agree that at least one of the forwards should have changed their class. If none do, the guy who couldn't get the job done ultimately being punished for it is something I am fundamentally ok with. But just to be clear, in my previous example, I wasn't necessarily saying the forward who scores no goals gets a *negative* RP for that, just that they fare worse than the forwards that do score. Not scoring does not automatically mean net negative RP.

    Sure one of them probably should have changed builds. I'm sure they'll have a calm, reasoned discussion about it in the dressing room :).

    And you still need to contend with being the sniper who can't get the puck because teammate's won't pass or the playmaker who can't get an assist because the sniper's can't score, etc.

    The main complaint seems to be "I played great but my teammates sucked, why don't I get lots of RP?" Making everyone worried about their own stats rather than the team game won't fix that IMO.
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    This is admittedly a little trickier. In my ideal scenario, a Dman like that would get kicked for poor teamplay if it is habitual which solves the issue.

    The other answer is that a deficit in not fulfilling their class obligations (i.e. scoring) could be overcome by exemplary play in other areas potentially.

    Yeah, it gets really complicated. I almost think it might be easier to get people to not care about rank as much. Maybe not lol.

  • jrago73
    746 posts Member
    I think the real answer is no ratings at all for dropin and just put in anti troll and anti quitting measures.
  • IceLion68
    1618 posts Member
    edited July 15
    I don't believe that's the case currently. Are you taking about your proposed system or the current one? My understanding of RP is that it's strictly win/loss based, weighted with the RP of you and your teammates vs the RP of your opponents. If everyone is equal it seems like the default RP gain/loss is about 450. I don't think individual stats come into play at all. They don't seem to in club games is drop-in different somehow? If I'm wrong on this I'd like to be corrected. @EA_Aljo?

    I just assumed your grades factored in somewhat but I am quite likely mistaken on that point. Perhaps it is simply W/L.
    Sure one of them probably should have changed builds. I'm sure they'll have a calm, reasoned discussion about it in the dressing room :).
    LOL I am speaking about drops. I assume clubs would sort this out beforehand.
    And you still need to contend with being the sniper who can't get the puck because teammate's won't pass or the playmaker who can't get an assist because the sniper's can't score, etc.
    Yes I understand this could be an issue.

    Playmakers could easily be graded on completing passes in addition to assists. If a playmaker makes a number of successful passes that do not result in goals, a judgement call could be made there.

    The fact still remains that the game is already currently assigning three grades (O, D, Teamplay) to each player. Even as unevenly as it is doing this now, I would prefer my RP be tied to this than straight win/loss.

    Alternately I would be ok with some sort of balance sheet calculation:
    • A win grants the winning team members a certain amount of RP collectively
    • A loss penalizes the losing team members a certain amount of RP collectively.

    The game then determines based on individual ratings how that lump sum RP should be doled out amongst the players. Players who played well gain more (and lose less) RP than those who did not. So ultimately if I played well and team loses, maybe I only lose a little bit of RP - I am ok with that. If I play badly I "own" a much larger percentage of the negative RP.

    Similarly the share of goal scoring responsibility - and associated +/- RP - could be distributed amongst the forwards based on class. Snipers and power forwards should be expected to score more than grinders and playmakers for example.
    The main complaint seems to be "I played great but my teammates sucked, why don't I get lots of RP?" Making everyone worried about their own stats rather than the team game won't fix that IMO.
    Well, *MY* main complaint is simply I hate the RP being tied at all to win/lose.

    Yeah, it gets really complicated. I almost think it might be easier to get people to not care about rank as much. Maybe not lol.

    LOL I don't necessarily disagree but the only thing is we still need *some* sort of progression system for people who play dropins. Esp those who ONLY play dropins.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • jrago73 wrote: »
    I think the real answer is no ratings at all for dropin and just put in anti troll and anti quitting measures.

    Have you ever played drop ins on the days EA does their “Audit” when ratings and such don’t matter?

    It’s a complete **** show! The amount of trolling increases and the amount of people not caring how they play. Those are usually the days when I take a “break” from the game.

  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    Well, *MY* main complaint is simply I hate the RP being tied at all to win/lose.

    You're right. I bundled in other people's complaints about RP when discussing it directly with you and ended up conflating things. My apologies.
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    LOL I don't necessarily disagree but the only thing is we still need *some* sort of progression system for people who play dropins. Esp those who ONLY play dropins.

    I get it. I still think a lot of people are wildly misinterpreting what RP actually is in it's current form and would be much happier if they recognized that it isn't a measure of personal skill and isn't intended to be. I think I got hung up on that too much here.

    One thing I will add is that there should probably be two different measures. One for skill and one used for progression. The skill based measure could be similar to RP in that it could fluctuate up and down due to how you're playing. But I think any measure used for progression ( ie tied to unlocking skills or customization items ) should only ever move forward. If you play well it should move forward faster, but a metric for progression probably shouldn't backslide. Putting players in a progression hole they can't get out of would be frustrating.
  • IceLion68
    1618 posts Member
    edited July 16
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Well, *MY* main complaint is simply I hate the RP being tied at all to win/lose.

    You're right. I bundled in other people's complaints about RP when discussing it directly with you and ended up conflating things. My apologies.
    OMG dude no apology required! (fist bump)
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    LOL I don't necessarily disagree but the only thing is we still need *some* sort of progression system for people who play dropins. Esp those who ONLY play dropins.

    I get it. I still think a lot of people are wildly misinterpreting what RP actually is in it's current form and would be much happier if they recognized that it isn't a measure of personal skill and isn't intended to be. I think I got hung up on that too much here.

    One thing I will add is that there should probably be two different measures. One for skill and one used for progression. The skill based measure could be similar to RP in that it could fluctuate up and down due to how you're playing. But I think any measure used for progression ( ie tied to unlocking skills or customization items ) should only ever move forward. If you play well it should move forward faster, but a metric for progression probably shouldn't backslide. Putting players in a progression hole they can't get out of would be frustrating.

    Agreed with all this - especially the bolded part. The thing though is that it is a measure of accomplishment: gaining RP is how you achieve Gold, Platinum etc status, which some people care about - a great deal in some cases.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    Agreed with all this - especially the bolded part. The thing though is that it is a measure of accomplishment: gaining RP is how you achieve Gold, Platinum etc status, which some people care about - a great deal in some cases.

    Even the color status system is flawed IMO. It's just a representation of your maximum RP in the current season. I could get carried by a strong club early in the season to get a high color badge and then lose the next hundred games and I'd still visually appear as a high-ranked player even though my RP fell massively.

    I think EA has done a poor job explaining RP, and I get why some ( maybe most? ) people look at it as a measure of their individual skill. Especially for drop-ins ( which ironically is where it's least meaningful as it is currently calculated ). And yes, it's only natural for competitive people to want to have some way to measure themselves against other players, so I get when people latch onto it.

    I'd keep RP as it currently is but hide it and use it for matchmaking purposes only.

    Forward-facing I'd like to see some kind of skill-based ranking like you've described ( details to be determined later ) but have it only consider the last x games ( similar to how the old system used your letter grades from the last 10 games to determine if you qualified for the next "legend level" ). How you're playing lately is IMO a better indicator of current skill. Use this as the measuring stick for players.

    Separate from that would be the system used for "progression" ( ie unlocking things ). There would probably be some overlap in metrics with the skill system but this system would just accumulate metrics and give players "levels" or unlock things at certain milestones. This would be something a player could see but wouldn't need to be shown during match making. This is kind of already in the game as hockey bag ( blech! ) acquisition is tied to XP which you get be doing things and hitting milestones.




  • jrago73
    746 posts Member
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Agreed with all this - especially the bolded part. The thing though is that it is a measure of accomplishment: gaining RP is how you achieve Gold, Platinum etc status, which some people care about - a great deal in some cases.

    Forward-facing I'd like to see some kind of skill-based ranking like you've described ( details to be determined later ) but have it only consider the last x games ( similar to how the old system used your letter grades from the last 10 games to determine if you qualified for the next "legend level" ). How you're playing lately is IMO a better indicator of current skill.

    I think you're drastically over estimating the size of the pool of players in any given game mode. Something like this may have worked back in the pre ones/threes days but to be a valid system now you would have to see a huge influx of new players, especially this year where the generation split is probably going to really hurt the match making population.
  • jrago73 wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Agreed with all this - especially the bolded part. The thing though is that it is a measure of accomplishment: gaining RP is how you achieve Gold, Platinum etc status, which some people care about - a great deal in some cases.

    Forward-facing I'd like to see some kind of skill-based ranking like you've described ( details to be determined later ) but have it only consider the last x games ( similar to how the old system used your letter grades from the last 10 games to determine if you qualified for the next "legend level" ). How you're playing lately is IMO a better indicator of current skill.

    I think you're drastically over estimating the size of the pool of players in any given game mode. Something like this may have worked back in the pre ones/threes days but to be a valid system now you would have to see a huge influx of new players, especially this year where the generation split is probably going to really hurt the match making population.

    There isn't going to be a generation split, that's not occurring until 23's release
  • jrago73
    746 posts Member
    twhite1387 wrote: »
    jrago73 wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Agreed with all this - especially the bolded part. The thing though is that it is a measure of accomplishment: gaining RP is how you achieve Gold, Platinum etc status, which some people care about - a great deal in some cases.

    Forward-facing I'd like to see some kind of skill-based ranking like you've described ( details to be determined later ) but have it only consider the last x games ( similar to how the old system used your letter grades from the last 10 games to determine if you qualified for the next "legend level" ). How you're playing lately is IMO a better indicator of current skill.

    I think you're drastically over estimating the size of the pool of players in any given game mode. Something like this may have worked back in the pre ones/threes days but to be a valid system now you would have to see a huge influx of new players, especially this year where the generation split is probably going to really hurt the match making population.

    There isn't going to be a generation split, that's not occurring until 23's release

    How sure are you about that? Last year on madden if you had the series x version you couldn't link up with those who didn't. I've seen nothing official for NHL22 obviously since they haven't announced its existence yet.
  • jrago73 wrote: »
    I think you're drastically over estimating the size of the pool of players in any given game mode. Something like this may have worked back in the pre ones/threes days but to be a valid system now you would have to see a huge influx of new players, especially this year where the generation split is probably going to really hurt the match making population.

    I don't understand what you're getting at here. Why would new players be needed? What I'm suggesting is that a skill-based metric (SBM) would only take into account the last x games a player played for any give mode ( RP is already tracked independently for different modes so that's not a stretch ).

    Let's say x is 20.

    Player A has played 1000 games so their SBM would take into account games 981 to 1000. When they play game 1001, game 981 drops out of the equation and it's calculated using 982 to 1001.

    Player B has played 15 games so all of their games get used to determine their SBM.

    I don't see where the size of the player pool matters.

  • IceLion68
    1618 posts Member
    twhite1387 wrote: »
    jrago73 wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Agreed with all this - especially the bolded part. The thing though is that it is a measure of accomplishment: gaining RP is how you achieve Gold, Platinum etc status, which some people care about - a great deal in some cases.

    Forward-facing I'd like to see some kind of skill-based ranking like you've described ( details to be determined later ) but have it only consider the last x games ( similar to how the old system used your letter grades from the last 10 games to determine if you qualified for the next "legend level" ). How you're playing lately is IMO a better indicator of current skill.

    I think you're drastically over estimating the size of the pool of players in any given game mode. Something like this may have worked back in the pre ones/threes days but to be a valid system now you would have to see a huge influx of new players, especially this year where the generation split is probably going to really hurt the match making population.

    There isn't going to be a generation split, that's not occurring until 23's release

    Do you have a citation on this? FIFA is already split as of 21, so I assumed NHL would be split this year
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68
    1618 posts Member
    jrago73 wrote: »
    I think you're drastically over estimating the size of the pool of players in any given game mode. Something like this may have worked back in the pre ones/threes days but to be a valid system now you would have to see a huge influx of new players, especially this year where the generation split is probably going to really hurt the match making population.

    I don't understand what you're getting at here. Why would new players be needed? What I'm suggesting is that a skill-based metric (SBM) would only take into account the last x games a player played for any give mode ( RP is already tracked independently for different modes so that's not a stretch ).

    Let's say x is 20.

    Player A has played 1000 games so their SBM would take into account games 981 to 1000. When they play game 1001, game 981 drops out of the equation and it's calculated using 982 to 1001.

    Player B has played 15 games so all of their games get used to determine their SBM.

    I don't see where the size of the player pool matters.

    Because without a sizeable enough pool of players to throw together 12 in a lobby, the rankings will be all but meaningless as there will be too few players to segregate them based on anything really. The dropins population is woefully small. You will just get matched with the same people over and over.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • jrago73 wrote: »
    twhite1387 wrote: »
    jrago73 wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Agreed with all this - especially the bolded part. The thing though is that it is a measure of accomplishment: gaining RP is how you achieve Gold, Platinum etc status, which some people care about - a great deal in some cases.

    Forward-facing I'd like to see some kind of skill-based ranking like you've described ( details to be determined later ) but have it only consider the last x games ( similar to how the old system used your letter grades from the last 10 games to determine if you qualified for the next "legend level" ). How you're playing lately is IMO a better indicator of current skill.

    I think you're drastically over estimating the size of the pool of players in any given game mode. Something like this may have worked back in the pre ones/threes days but to be a valid system now you would have to see a huge influx of new players, especially this year where the generation split is probably going to really hurt the match making population.

    There isn't going to be a generation split, that's not occurring until 23's release

    How sure are you about that? Last year on madden if you had the series x version you couldn't link up with those who didn't. I've seen nothing official for NHL22 obviously since they haven't announced its existence yet.

    I'm on PS, that being said, Aljo pointed out in another post that Madden more or less does things it's own way
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    jrago73 wrote: »
    I think you're drastically over estimating the size of the pool of players in any given game mode. Something like this may have worked back in the pre ones/threes days but to be a valid system now you would have to see a huge influx of new players, especially this year where the generation split is probably going to really hurt the match making population.

    I don't understand what you're getting at here. Why would new players be needed? What I'm suggesting is that a skill-based metric (SBM) would only take into account the last x games a player played for any give mode ( RP is already tracked independently for different modes so that's not a stretch ).

    Let's say x is 20.

    Player A has played 1000 games so their SBM would take into account games 981 to 1000. When they play game 1001, game 981 drops out of the equation and it's calculated using 982 to 1001.

    Player B has played 15 games so all of their games get used to determine their SBM.

    I don't see where the size of the player pool matters.

    Because without a sizeable enough pool of players to throw together 12 in a lobby, the rankings will be all but meaningless as there will be too few players to segregate them based on anything really. The dropins population is woefully small. You will just get matched with the same people over and over.

    I'm still not seeing it. How is it different now? RP is already used ( at least in club ) to control the search window for matchups.

    I'm not saying you only play against people with the same number of games played as you. I'm proposing that the stats used to calculate the SBM is limited to your last x games. In my example if player A and B played at a similar skill level over their last few games they'd have a similar SBM and be matched up. The allowance for what skill levels get matched can be tweaked.
  • IceLion68
    1618 posts Member
    edited July 16
    I'm still not seeing it. How is it different now? RP is already used ( at least in club ) to control the search window for matchups.

    I'm not saying you only play against people with the same number of games played as you. I'm proposing that the stats used to calculate the SBM is limited to your last x games. In my example if player A and B played at a similar skill level over their last few games they'd have a similar SBM and be matched up. The allowance for what skill levels get matched can be tweaked.

    So first I can't speak for @jrago73 but I mean, I love the idea of skill based matchmaking. I LIKE your idea and I think it would work.

    What I am (and I think HE is also) saying is that there simply aren't enough people playing for this to actually have much if any impact on who you end up in a lobby with. So even if this works, you just end up playing with/against the same people all the time.

    I mean, that's happening now - I see the same people all the time.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    I'm still not seeing it. How is it different now? RP is already used ( at least in club ) to control the search window for matchups.

    I'm not saying you only play against people with the same number of games played as you. I'm proposing that the stats used to calculate the SBM is limited to your last x games. In my example if player A and B played at a similar skill level over their last few games they'd have a similar SBM and be matched up. The allowance for what skill levels get matched can be tweaked.

    So first I can't speak for @jrago73 but I mean, I love the idea of skill based matchmaking. I LIKE your idea and I think it would work.

    What I am (and I think HE is also) saying is that there simply aren't enough people playing for this to actually have much if any impact on who you end up in a lobby with. So even if this works, you just end up playing with/against the same people all the time.

    I mean, that's happening now - I see the same people all the time.

    Ok, so the issue isn't how a SBM is calculated, it's using it as a matchmaking tool that's the issue. But using it as a measure to compare the relative skill of two players would be ok?
  • IceLion68
    1618 posts Member
    edited July 16
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    I'm still not seeing it. How is it different now? RP is already used ( at least in club ) to control the search window for matchups.

    I'm not saying you only play against people with the same number of games played as you. I'm proposing that the stats used to calculate the SBM is limited to your last x games. In my example if player A and B played at a similar skill level over their last few games they'd have a similar SBM and be matched up. The allowance for what skill levels get matched can be tweaked.

    So first I can't speak for @jrago73 but I mean, I love the idea of skill based matchmaking. I LIKE your idea and I think it would work.

    What I am (and I think HE is also) saying is that there simply aren't enough people playing for this to actually have much if any impact on who you end up in a lobby with. So even if this works, you just end up playing with/against the same people all the time.

    I mean, that's happening now - I see the same people all the time.

    Ok, so the issue isn't how a SBM is calculated, it's using it as a matchmaking tool that's the issue. But using it as a measure to compare the relative skill of two players would be ok?

    That's what *I* am saying yes. And not just what you have proposed: using anything as a matchmaking tool due to the population being so small is going to either potentially limit the already small player pool or have no discernable effect.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    That's what *I* am saying yes. And not just what you have proposed: using anything as a matchmaking tool due to the population being so small is going to either potentially limit the already small player pool or have no discernable effect.

    I hadn't realized the pool for drop-ins had dropped to those levels. Club games use RP as a matchmaking parameter and the player pool seems large enough to allow for it. At least on PS4/5 in "prime time" hours.

  • Sega82mega
    4249 posts Member
    A sample from the HyperMotion in action..



    Spoild Fifa fans.... 😡😥
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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