l-Furyan-l

^ Excellent post.

^ Yes.

This thread could double as a Turing test.

This is a great post, full stop. Valid questions and research all around and count me in amongst those who would like to know the answers. One thing I would like to note is that sometimes with these things (companies in financial difficulty etc.), there are binding contracts (including NDAs) that prevent people within the company/organization from speaking out on certain topics or providing full transparency. I have no idea what the situation is in this particular case, just something to keep in mind as we await further communication and clarification.

Repeating my main (recurring) opinion on this topic for a third time, just in case: Also, on that note, when can we expect the ECL schedule for the NHL 26 'calendar year'? ☺️

Ahh, the good ol' days 🥰

Holy shit. @bMaJuH 🐐

Always enjoy reading these. Good job @bMaJuH & @Mozjayh!

FALUN COAL MINERS [ECL PRO] Since ECL '25 Winter, we've said goodbye to three of our players... Eliekamel_ -> Nordic Nosebleed Supremski -> Retirement (🫡) McSavid -> Golden Buffalos ... and, in turn, recruited an additional two hardhat-wearing workers to the Mine 👷‍♂️ A warm welcome to RD @Wadde95 & G @benuh_ ⛏️

Valid compromise, tbh. Tough to satisfy everyone, especially with the diversity of opinion we've seen, but I think this is as close as you could get. Dub for SG/LA.

While I agree with the general gist of your post, I was curious about the part I bolded above. Just for reference sake, have you tried playing with Snipers (or other "shooting" builds) that are able to raise their slapshot pow/acc up to... say 94/94? Or at the very least 90+ on each? Because we have, and we're seeing plenty of One-Tees from further out go in. Like... at least one a game, pretty much. At the very least a lot more than what you are describing with the 2/3 One-Tee goals in 10+ games. I think a key part with fully embracing the no-traits meta (or, at least giving it a proper chance) is realizing that you can no longer rely on having a build that is "good but not great" across the board, like the PMD, and then have attributes like passing, poke-check or shooting at around 85, expecting them to be as effective as they were with the traits on. You need to actually commit and boost the attributes you value up to 90 or over to get the proper effectiveness, sacrificing other attributes in the process. I'm not saying you haven't tried this, my point is not to question any one individual or team. My point is a general one: if teams are trying to run the exact same meta as they did when they had traits, with similar builds and point distribution, then that will inevitably lead to disappointment. This is a great opportunity to branch out and really try and push what this NHL gameplay can be. That is how I am approaching it, at least. -------- Fantastic post. No notes. 10/10.

To be fair (and I think it is always important to be exactly that when arguing different viewpoints) there were pages upon pages of people writing in "BanThemAll +1" before the last ECL. We're talking up to almost 100 different posts of people saying exactly that. That was easily the most vocal group at the time and the group that were the most organized in getting their opinion across. Go back and check somewhere around Page 6 to like Page 10. This was something that was definitely requested by a lot of people. And this is coming from someone who was initially against banning all traits. Let's be fair, let's stick to facts and let's try to engage with the opposing parties best argument, not their worst ( = Swedes bad, no Finns bad, no Swedes bad etc.).

Yeah, I have to say, after playing quite a few games completely without traits: damn, what an improvement in terms of gameplay! No more unrealistic pokes, no more unrealistic hits... you actually have to make an effort to play proper defense now. Less relying on ability-driven RNG, more relying on proper body- and stick positioning. To me, the game feels a lot better now. Since teams can't line up on the blueline as effectively with the "five-man Stick 'Em-stack" now, the game has opened up as well. Tons of more penalties now as well due to errant pokes, leading to more powerplays and more goals. My team is trying to combat the increase in penalties by adding a "PIM Tax", might be something others want to try as well? 😁

I understand and respect that you feel that way. You have the right to that opinion. But it is just that, an opinion. Not a fact. To give you an example of the difference, part of your earlier argument was this: Even though this was presented as a fact on your part, I just could not disagree with this more. In my opinion, nothing in NHL 25 has been "worse" for the competitive gameplay experience than the overuse of Stick 'Em Up. It has completely defined the current meta where five guys defend by poke-spamming at the blueline (with an unrealistic amount of success). You absolutely can pokecheck without Stick Em, just like you can hit without Trucu. Difference is; one is used by literally everyone (at least 90% or more) in this game, whereas the other is used by about 50% of the players - at most. You tell me which one is more gameplay-defining? You dislike Truculence and think it ruins the game. I dislike Stick 'Em Up and think it ruins the game. None of us are wrong, none of us are right. We just have different preferences and ideas on what makes for "better" gameplay. Which, by the way, isn't always the same as more entertaining gameplay. My point is, our opinions on this matter aren't facts. Let's get a discussion going instead of just "telling people" what is right or wrong.

Yeah, for me: either keep it as it is (only Big Tipper banned) or go with all abilities/traits banned, as SG currently seems to be doing. At least based on what has been confirmed in the World Cup, WECL and SCL, thus far. Arbitrarily banning 3-4 specific traits in order to create a specific play style preferred by specific players? That ain't it.