l-Furyan-l

I'd like to reiterate a couple of points I made earlier. This was way back in early September: We got that definitive, non-reversible decision when @Kenu & LA on October 15th announced the following: This was later adjusted, albeit slightly, when Kenu & LA on October 22nd announced that, based on community feedback Big Tipper (Gold and Silver) would be banned. The discussion continued at a brisk pace, and some good points were raised. Two ideas seemed to take off, both quite radical; the banning of all traits and the "one player type for each skater"-suggestion. The banning of all traits seemed to be the more popular one, and it is a suggestion I'd probably support myself (under the right conditions). However, I once again highlighted the importance of foresight and consistency: With just days to go until the first official tournament of NHL 25 (Qualifiers), I would like to emphasize foresight, consistency and structure one final time. LA laid out the proposed structure of the upcoming tournament back in early September. They confirmed the prerequisites and structure for the upcoming tournament in mid-October. They confirmed the tournament structure a second time about a week later (with one small adjustment, that had about a 99 percent approval rating). To completely rip up everything and start over from scratch at this point would be a disservice to SportsGamer, the League Administration and to the competitive structure of the ECL as we know it. Knowing that we can trust what is said in official statements and rulings from LA and SportsGamer, should (and must) be a core tenet of this league. If we don't have that core tenet, if every decision made and communicated is up for suggestion and is subject to change with the proper lobbying, then the rules, trust and structure built over the years are essentially worth nothing. Not to mention the fact that for a radical change like the one suggested - and let's be frank here, it IS a radical change when compared to every other tournament ever played on the website - there should be: - a proper period of time for the topic to be discussed, - a proper period of time for various different official suggestions (on competitive structure) to be drafted, - a proper period of time for these official suggestions to be voted on by the community, - a massive effort made to make sure that as many people in the community as possible get involved and get to have their voices heard (perhaps by way of an official news story, social media posts and emails sent out to all members) We're talking about a process here that could, and honestly probably should, take months. And a process that should be completely transparent all the way, allowing all members - regardless of how active they are on these forums or the website in general - to understand what is going on and to have their voice heard. My personal philosophy has always been that change and innovation works best when applied by the proper amount, with the proper support, over a proper period of time - so yeah, I might be biased. But on this topic, based on the points I've argued, I really believe that it is the only reasonable way to move forward.

First of all, I think it's great that you - and by extension the gameplay producer in question - are able to supply us with this type of information. Even though one might argue they should've just released all of this information by themselves (like, years ago....), they haven't and probably never will. So, kudos to you for getting to a position where you can get a 1-on-1 with the gameplay producer on our behalf. Anyway, the traits I'd like to know about are not the obvious ones. The eye-test already tells me/us certain abilities work reasonably well. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd like to know more about the abilities that aren't as popular. Mostly to see if we've been overlooking them, for whatever reason. So, I'd like to know about: - Shutdown (does three things; accuracy for pokes against momentum or at speed in 1 on 1's, buffs shot blocking and buffs hitting strength in 1on1s' - but I'd like to know by how much?) - Quick Pick (what's the buff for interceptions and range of interceptions?) - No Contest (what's the buff for likelihood of winning puck battles?) - Unstoppable Force (what's the buff for strength with the puck and holding on to the puck when off balance?) - Thunder Clap (what's the buff for power and accuracy for point slap shots - does it include one-timers?) - ...and my personal favorite: Spin-O-Rama (what's the buff for speed and puck control in the spin, and whats the buff for shot and pass accuracy coming out of it, and for how long does that buff last?)

I would pay cold, hard cash (more than I'd admit) for a similar breakdown of all the traits and abilities currently in the game.

I don't agree fully with your post, but you argue your point well and I can definitely see the internal logic behind it, essentially: ban everything (or ban nothing) to make it fair. I do think if something quite radical like that, meaning "Ban all abilities" (or for that matter the "1 Player Type per Skater"-suggestion voiced earlier), were to be put in place, I would urge SportsGamer to lock in that decision WELL ahead of time - like say announcing now that this will be the prerequisites for the Spring ECL. Finally, I would like to add that I think you hit the bullseye with the segment I bolded in your post. It summed up this entire topic quite nicely, tbh.

Agree to disagree 🤝

I was mostly kidding, mirroring the words you used, haha 😊 I just disagree with you, is all. Big Tipper is the only attribute worth banning and it is not even close, IMO. If I were forced to add another attribute to that list, I'd be Stick 'Em Up. If you were to look at all the opposing players you face in an evening, the one trait (Silver or Gold) that would used by more than 90% of the players (defenders and forwards) it wouldn't be BT, QC, OT, TRUC or UF... It would be SEU. And that includes 3/5 players on my team, we use it too. The amount of errant poke- and stick checks that players get away with right now is hilarious. But still not worth banning, IMO.

Well, this is of course anecdotal, but I have seen plenty of goalies stop both Golden CQ and OT... quite a few they had no business stopping, if you ask me. Perhaps we should ban certain goalie traits? Is it so hard to save without them? 😉

Agree with essentially all of this, except the last sentence. UF and Truc (or any of the other abilities in 25, for that matter) aren't game-breaking enough to be banned, IMO, and shouldn't be lumped in with Big Tipper "just because". But that's almost exactly what you said, so 😄 However, I have come around fully on banning Big Tipper. It does change the entire dynamic of the game and it does rely almost solely on RNG. If LA were to compromise and change their "No Ban"-stance to "No Bans, except BT", I don't think anyone would shed any tears.

"Do you really think top players aren't aware of the differences in builds?" At no point in my post did I insinuate this. The reason the top players use the builds that they use is because they are the best builds, atleast for the ways top teams like to play, But that's... exactly the point I was trying to make? So, we agree with one another? Look here, this is what I wrote, word for word: Yes, for a team of five top-tier Elite players, maybe the 4 PMD's + 1 PLY is the absolute best setup possible to maximize their skill, but that doesn't have to hold true for everyone else. One does not have to copy everything from the top teams, even if I understand the psychology behind it (Hint: The top teams are top teams mainly because of their individual and team skill, not their player builds). I was mainly talking about everyone else, not the 7-8 best teams in Europe, or the 50-60 players that play on these teams. My point was that the Meta these teams create, does not have to be the Meta everyone else uses, as very few teams can match the pace, style and skill of the absolute top teams. if you think you can outplay top teams with power forwards or any other non meta build, i wish you good luck. At no point in my post did I insinuate this. What I did insinuate was that the lower level teams, which from your perspective would be every team below Elite, might (and I am saying "MIGHT" here, not "WILL") have a better chance to keep up with the top teams if they decided to break free from the Meta that's been specifically created by the top teams to match the way they like to play (like you yourself said), and instead tried to build their own meta with player types, builds and a style that better suits their strengths. I also said I personally would enjoy watching an Elite broadcast if a team decided to break free from the typical Meta and play something like a PWF with Gold UF. But that was just my personal opinion (in this case as a viewer of the product). Regarding the world finals the builds NA players used weren't much different than eu builds, apart from using gold one tee and 1 inch shorter builds to get "better animations", the bigger difference was in tactical approach to the game, where Tunnel vision had a much slower play style where as Entourage played much faster and it had nothing to do with the builds. That's fair, I respect your perspective. You obviously competed at the same level as teams involved and would know what to look for. What I would argue, and this is more of a general argument, is that the fact that they did use Gold One-Tee and 1 inch shorter builds (something very, very few EU teams if any did at this point), played a major part in why they decided to use the faster play style. It's like arguing what came first, the chicken or the egg. I would argue that these two factors (the different traits/builds and the playing style) at the very least had an impact on each other. Saying "it had nothing to do with the builds", I would argue is incorrect.

Yes, I really think it would make a difference. And yes, I really think viewers would notice a difference. I also think there'd be a lot more variety than you'd think. We haven't seen anyone try something like this yet, so how would we really know, right? Best we can do is make assumptions of how it would look. You are arguing this hypothetical rule would fail at creating variety, I am arguing it would be successful in creating variety. Chances are neither of us will ever find out if we were correct. However, I get where you're coming from. And I think you can see my point as well. Anyway, the main point of my entry wasn't to argue this "rule" NEEDED to happen, it was to pitch the idea and also to encourage teams to actually try using different player types, builds and playing styles instead of being beholden to a Meta that is pretty much exclusively set by 7-8 teams at the very top. For an example of how "using unusual builds and playstyles" can create a new and different viewing experience, one need not look further than the World Finals, where the NA Meta - which was quite different from the EU Meta - made the World Finals a lot more fun to watch than the 6v6 EU finals right before that. At least in my opinion.

This might not be the place, but I'm already like five paragraphs into this so screw it. I'd like to delve deeper into the "each player type only used once per team" idea. Now, it might never get the traction it needs to actually become a rule, but I'd like to challenge teams and players to try it anyway. After thinking about it, I soon realized we actually run this exact setup on our team. We run a PMD-PLY-SNP, OFD-DFD lineup, meaning five different player types, and we've been doing something similar for the past two tournaments (SCL, ECL) we've participated in as well. And while I don't know if a setup like that will ever be viable at the Elite level (I hope to find out!), it is definitely viable as high up as the top tier of Pro - as evidenced by last season. It does require some extra effort in adapting your playstyle, both as a team and as individuals, but it can also yield some unexpectedly positive results. What I mean to say is that, the "Meta" doesn't have to be as all-encompassing as people make it out to be. Yes, for a team of five top-tier Elite players, maybe the 4 PMD's + 1 PLY is the absolute best setup possible to maximize their skill, but that doesn't have to hold true for everyone else. One does not have to copy everything from the top teams, even if I understand the psychology behind it (Hint: The top teams are top teams mainly because of their individual and team skill, not their player builds). In short, I'd like to encourage players and teams to try something different in order to see if it works for you. And if someone doesn't like your personal playstyle or the way your team plays...? Who gives a shit, haha. My frenemy Pardy has been ruining my life as a defender for going on ten years now, yet I wouldn't want to see anything other than a 173 cm, 72 kg "speedy boi" coming down my wing when I play TIKI Talk. Variety is the spice of life and I can't be the only one who still remembers players like Kriketski, Maise and Alex28 using strong, powerful builds at the Elite level. Krike with his 6000+ hits as a Grinder (I think?) during his time with JYP, Maise as the tall, lanky Grinder center you couldn't take the puck away from and Alex as the massive Powerforward using golden Truculence and hitting everything in sight on the forecheck. I, and I think many others in this community, still remember these players and their builds to this day for one simple reason: they dared to be the different. And they didn't just do it as a gimmick to be special and different, they did it in a way that made them incredibly effective for their teams - and forced other teams to adapt to their style. Hell, why NOT a PWF winger with Golden Unstoppable Force at the Elite level? I for one would love to see someone try it and force all the other teams to adapt to their unique playing style. Personally, that would be enough to get me to tune into a broadcast. People are arguing that certain traits would make the games unwatchable, and they might have a point with a few of them (mainly Tipper), whereas I'd argue that it has become so goddamn boring to see the exact same builds and traits being used by literally everyone.

Personally I love this idea that Keusch mentioned (the bolded). Even if it would just end up being the default/safe option of TWF-PLY-SNP, PMD-TWD, it would still bring a LOT of variety and encourage teams to try new things. Count me in for this idea rather than any bans etc. -- On the main topic, I am on team "No Bans", with the exception of maybe Big Tipper (at least the Golden variety) as I can see the arguments for it equalizing the playing field in a way that is detrimental to the gameplay experience. However, Truc (and it's dumb cousin UF) certainly aren't the powerhouses they are made out to be - not in NHL 25. To me, there is a clear difference compared to how it was when they were at their "worst". And banning One-Tee? Come the fuck on, haha. The OFD is FINALLY vaguely useable in NHL 25 (but just barely) with Elite Edges being taken out and the extra 80+ points added in certain categories, and now people are asking for the one strength it has to be taken out? I guess some really do hate variety in player types and just want to see the same "4 PMDs + 1 PLY"-meta we've been seeing for literally YEARS now... If people are just throwing shit to the wall and suggesting banning traits they seem to personally dislike, I'd like to introduce banning Stick 'Em Up and Shutdown to the mix. Let's see how well people can stick-check each other without having training wheels, crutches and aim bot on their sticks. I am kidding in the sense that I don't actually want Stick 'Em Up and Shutdown banned... but if there is ONE trait that has been comically overused and is comically overpowered in NHL 25, it is Stick 'Em Up. At least, that is my personal opinion. Which is all we really have here in this thread. On that note, some people really need to learn the difference between presenting their opinions on a matter, and stating something as a "fact" when it really isn't.

I asked myself, what could possibly be worth reviving this topic for? The answer is this video. Everyone, we bid you... Welcome to Falun. Put together by Coal Miners co-founder Pontus @LastMandalorian Duvefelt, with the utmost respect and admiration for the hit FX show 'Welcome to Wrexham' ⛏️🥰 Don't forget to sing when you win

OHHHH, I was wondering what that vibration shit was, haha. I too use the "regular" vibration setting and have found it very inconsistent. Sometimes you get enhanced vibration, like the controller is trying to shock you before a whistle, and sometimes you get nothing at all. And sometimes it works somewhat as intended (I think?). Or maybe I have not been paying enough attention.

Thanks for the clarification, appreciate it! Does this mean the "unique" loadouts ( = Deepfreeze etc) will also be allowed? Obviously not appearance-wise, but loadout-wise?