Player Ability Bans - ECL '25 Season Discussion

[Keuschemisch]

vor 28 Minuten schrieb Borjendahlen:

Why don't we just ban all the abilities and x-factors? In my opinion those have always been a bit unrealistic and "fantasy" type of things, one-tee is like everyone can shoot one-timers like Ovechkin (with better aim) and so on, it's a bit too much in my opinion. When these x-factors came to chel some years ago, my instant reaction back then was like why, why EA brings some fantasy traits for players, we don't need these kind of things. Without abilities and x-factors, there would be more options on how to put skill points on builds and because of that there might (yeah, just might) actually be more personalized builds, weight etc would matter more. Like it was back in the days. But like some others have said here, ban all or ban nothing, I would go with that if I had to choose.

Yes, gold big tipper is waay too overpowered, but so is gold one-tee. In my opinion silver truculence is not too op, it has been nerfed for 2 years in a row and as I have been playing with and without it now in NHL 25, it just doesn’t give anything too op. Bumps don’t work with or without it (sometimes yes but not constantly) and as the hitting is harder in this game, only when you can make a big hit (which is not that easy imo) with trucu then the opponent loses more energy and takes some time to get up. But skating full speed your head down with 72 kg player and getting hammered on high speed might sometimes do that, no? But I can live without trucu, no worries.

So after all, my opinion is that let’s ban all x-factors and abilities and play with skill points only, or at least try how that would work out. Playing without abilities would make this game “most realistic” as there would not be any fantasy skills etc and it would be fair for everyone. Let’s not just pick some abilities away and make this a floorball simulator, because this is hockey right?

More than happy to hear your feelings and opinions on this one, let’s discuss about this. Toxic messages are taking all this to a wrong direction, for everyone. Thanks and sorry!

Absolutely agree on this one. I think if certain abilities need to be banned it is Big Tipper. Truculence does not seem to be as strong as in the previous games. Can't say too much about Unstoppable Force, also because of the "Meta Builds" which rarely include that ability. 

 

Also want to bring one more idea to the table which has been stated several times by a few players during the last couple of years:

That each Playertype can only be used once per team. That would also bring some kind of variety to the Gameplay experience. 

[eliekamel87]

You tried to ban nothing - people went nuts.

You tried to ban a few - people went nuts.

You haven't tried to ban everything - try it, people might go nuts. 

 

There was a sauna-cup a while back where everything except elite edges was banned. No idea about the feedback but some of the players who participated in that tournament have suggested it so I can only assume it wasn't that bad. 

 

My opinion:

Ban everything or nothing. If i had the power to decide, i would go with ban everything just to try it out. 

[xDoumi]

I just dont get why do we have to go through this conversation again, atleast 80% elite players want to play without truculence, tipper, uf. Ppl are actually paying money to play in this league so why dont you listen the majority? Just because LA have decided so? Jesus just make a poll and just making it easier for you choices to be like "BAN EVERYTHING" "BAN TRUCULENCE, TIPPER, UF" and "DONT BAN ANYHTING" for elite 😪

 

Edited October 17 by xDoumi

[J0HTAJA]

Omaa paskuutta on turha selitellä

-JohtajaTheGreat

why this same whine happen every year, just shut Up n play, this is no proffesional for anyone, we dont get 50k per year for playing NHL , this is just hobby which cost us some coin’s, past 15y everytime game n gamepaly Has been broken someway, so what has really change in 15y ? Always some ppl are unhappy no matter what u do, has been last few thousand year, so what has really change ?

 

[iSvamp]

17 timmar sedan, J0HTAJA säger:

Omaa paskuutta on turha selitellä

-JohtajaTheGreat

why this same whine happen every year, just shut Up n play, this is no proffesional for anyone, we dont get 50k per year for playing NHL , this is just hobby which cost us some coin’s, past 15y everytime game n gamepaly Has been broken someway, so what has really change in 15y ? Always some ppl are unhappy no matter what u do, has been last few thousand year, so what has really change ?

 

 

What has changed? A lot of things have changed.

For example, there are tools today that reduce the skill gap in the game. Like Big Tipper.

What else has changed? 5, 7, 10 and 15 years ago, when you only had “builds”, the top teams outscored the lower teams by 15-20-25 goals.

Then someone decided to release a game for €100, created on crack.

Today you can see games where a much inferior team scores 7 goals in 4 shots, and the game is ruined even before it has started.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I see this every day when I watch matches or play myself with various teams. It's a bit like playing CS with aimbot - good for the stats, but no fun for anyone.

There is a reason why in other games where similar abundance of accessories and weapons are available, like COD, in competition they chose to ban 90% of the weapons and accessories available in normal multiplayer.

Precisely because these accessories and weapons early in the start of a match can control the outcome and the result without skill or cooperation in the team affecting the direction the match should go towards.

I can think of an argument for a division that competes for money, that that division should be a division where the competition is decided on the combination of pure skill and a developed and good team play.

To see an Elite match decided because someone gets 3 early lucky bounces with big-tipper is just humorous.

It is downright 💩 to have such conditions in a league where you first have to be ruined to even participate, and once you have emptied the month's savings on this, you then have to compete for the money in a product when the game on a good night can do half the job for you.

You asked what had changed. This is what has changed since I started competing myself 15 years ago.

Did these discussions exist then? No, of course not. Back then, the discussions were about how to actually defeat your opponent who was better in terms of skill and teamplay.

 

Edited October 18 by iSvamp

[l-Furyan-l]

10 timmar sedan, Keuschemisch säger:

Absolutely agree on this one. I think if certain abilities need to be banned it is Big Tipper. Truculence does not seem to be as strong as in the previous games. Can't say too much about Unstoppable Force, also because of the "Meta Builds" which rarely include that ability. 

 

Also want to bring one more idea to the table which has been stated several times by a few players during the last couple of years:

That each Playertype can only be used once per team. That would also bring some kind of variety to the Gameplay experience. 

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.

Edited October 18 by l-Furyan-l

[SadaPoika]

15 hours ago, FlyerKungen said:

On 10/15/2024 at 5:23 PM, Eken45jr said:

From a competitive standpoint it would be the best to play tournaments without abilities. But that will never happen...

I have to ask why it will never happen? Every X-Factor is kinda silly in their own way, some being more stupid than others obviously. Anyway, now when EA "removed" Elite Edges, this should be the perfect spot to just ban them all from competitive gameplay, and end this f*cking stupid shitshow circle happening again year after year. No?

If I would need to choose, I would go with "ban all" or "don't ban nothing" at this point.

I really like this take and i think it would be the best way to go forward. But the only thing i know for sure is that there can be no big tipper in competitive leagues.

[J0HTAJA]

9 tuntia sitten, iSvamp kirjoitti:

 

What has changed? A lot of things have changed.

For example, there are tools today that reduce the skill gap in the game. Like Big Tipper.

What else has changed? 5, 7, 10 and 15 years ago, when you only had “builds”, the top teams outscored the lower teams by 15-20-25 goals.

Then someone decided to release a game for €100, created on crack.

Today you can see games where a much inferior team scores 7 goals in 4 shots, and the game is ruined even before it has started.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I see this every day when I watch matches or play myself with various teams. It's a bit like playing CS with aimbot - good for the stats, but no fun for anyone.

There is a reason why in other games where similar abundance of accessories and weapons are available, like COD, in competition they chose to ban 90% of the weapons and accessories available in normal multiplayer.

Precisely because these accessories and weapons early in the start of a match can control the outcome and the result without skill or cooperation in the team affecting the direction the match should go towards.

I can think of an argument for a division that competes for money, that that division should be a division where the competition is decided on the combination of pure skill and a developed and good team play.

To see an Elite match decided because someone gets 3 early lucky bounces with big-tipper is just humorous.

It is downright 💩 to have such conditions in a league where you first have to be ruined to even participate, and once you have emptied the month's savings on this, you then have to compete for the money in a product when the game on a good night can do half the job for you.

You asked what had changed. This is what has changed since I started competing myself 15 years ago.

Did these discussions exist then? No, of course not. Back then, the discussions were about how to actually defeat your opponent who was better in terms of skill and teamplay.

 

Roadhouse !!

[l-Furyan-l]

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. 

Edited October 18 by l-Furyan-l

[Beniittto]

4 tuntia sitten, l-Furyan-l kirjoitti:

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. 

Using different builds wouldn't change top tier gameplay at all, most teams would just go with snp-ply-od as forwards and pmd-twd as defensemen, so do you really think that makes a difference since the builds are almost identical in terms of size and speed, 99% of viewers wouldn't notice any difference between the builds and if the only reason to have this rule is just for the sake of variety, it already fails at that.

[l-Furyan-l]

18 minuter sedan, Beniittto säger:

Using different builds wouldn't change top tier gameplay at all, most teams would just go with snp-ply-od as forwards and pmd-twd as defensemen, so do you really think that makes a difference since the builds are almost identical in terms of size and speed, 99% of viewers wouldn't notice any difference between the builds and if the only reason to have this rule is just for the sake of variety, it already fails at that.

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. 

[Poistin]

38 minuuttia sitten, Beniittto kirjoitti:

Using different builds wouldn't change top tier gameplay at all, most teams would just go with snp-ply-od as forwards and pmd-twd as defensemen, so do you really think that makes a difference since the builds are almost identical in terms of size and speed, 99% of viewers wouldn't notice any difference between the builds and if the only reason to have this rule is just for the sake of variety, it already fails at that.

What if we ban any D-build in offense? So u cant use PMD, OD, TWD or DD on the wing?

I know this sounds really strange and for someone really stupid🤔😁

Edited October 18 by Poistin

[Beniittto]

1 tunti sitten, l-Furyan-l kirjoitti:

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. 

Do you really think top players aren't aware of the differences in builds? 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, if you think you can outplay top teams with power forwards or any other non meta build, i wish you good luck.

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.

1 tunti sitten, Poistin kirjoitti:

What if we ban any D-build in offense? So u cant use PMD, OD, TWD or DD on the wing?

I know this sounds really strange and for someone really stupid🤔😁

So change od for twf, woah what a difference

[l-Furyan-l]

3 timmar sedan, Beniittto säger:

Do you really think top players aren't aware of the differences in builds? 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, if you think you can outplay top teams with power forwards or any other non meta build, i wish you good luck.

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.

So change od for twf, woah what a difference

"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. 

 

Edited October 18 by l-Furyan-l

[iSvamp]

1-0 Furyan

And off-topic, but.
 

Of course, the top teams would have been even more difficult to face if they had dared to learn to play with bigger builds. I've been saying this for years, and we should all be grateful that the top teams were stupid enough not to even try. 
- It is quite logical that it would have been a nightmare for a defender to face an individual top player who could handle both size and balance. Even worse if you faced a team that could handle all these parameters and let the puck pace set the pace of the game. (A bit like the top teams from Finland handled this in 17-19). (I Think KingofApes 1 time per year calls it - "skillhockey")

If these players had spent at least as much time finding weaknesses in attributes as they spend on, for example, playing HUT, the top teams would have been as dominant as they were several years ago. Now, after all, the difference between the top and those behind is not very big. 

Carry on! 

 

[markalla2]

I really think Furyan is on to something here with the pure entertainment value caused by the variety of playstyles. Now, in all honesty, only the off-ice twitter shit creates a strong brand in top leagues. That isn't the case with real hockey leagues where teams play hockey in a variety of strategies. I know the same approach doesn't apply 1:1 to ehockey but it does to some extent.

 

+1 for one build style per team AND banning Big Tipper

[Beniittto]

17 tuntia sitten, l-Furyan-l kirjoitti:

"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. 

 

No one is forcing lower tier teams to use any traits or specific builds, it's their own fault if they use builds they don't know how to utilize. 

I don't really know where you want to go with this discussion since the original discussion was about banning players from using same build type on the same team. How does banning people from using the same build type somehow take away the ability from people to use non-meta builds if they want?

5 tuntia sitten, iSvamp kirjoitti:

1-0 Furyan

And off-topic, but.
 

Of course, the top teams would have been even more difficult to face if they had dared to learn to play with bigger builds. I've been saying this for years, and we should all be grateful that the top teams were stupid enough not to even try. 
- It is quite logical that it would have been a nightmare for a defender to face an individual top player who could handle both size and balance. Even worse if you faced a team that could handle all these parameters and let the puck pace set the pace of the game. (A bit like the top teams from Finland handled this in 17-19). (I Think KingofApes 1 time per year calls it - "skillhockey")

If these players had spent at least as much time finding weaknesses in attributes as they spend on, for example, playing HUT, the top teams would have been as dominant as they were several years ago. Now, after all, the difference between the top and those behind is not very big. 

Carry on! 

 

The reason bigger builds aren't meta currently is because of the difference in speed, acceleration & agility. There was nearly no difference in those stats in NHL 16-18 between power forwards and playmakers which made the bigger builds better.

I'm not sure if you are trolling but i'll answer anyway, if you think people haven't tried bigger builds since NHL 18 you are very much mistaken.

[iSvamp]

15 minuter sedan, Beniittto säger:

No one is forcing lower tier teams to use any traits or specific builds, it's their own fault if they use builds they don't know how to utilize. 

I don't really know where you want to go with this discussion since the original discussion was about banning players from using same build type on the same team. How does banning people from using the same build type somehow take away the ability from people to use non-meta builds if they want?

The reason bigger builds aren't meta currently is because of the difference in speed, acceleration & agility. There was nearly no difference in those stats in NHL 16-18 between power forwards and playmakers which made the bigger builds better.

I'm not sure if you are trolling but i'll answer anyway, if you think people haven't tried bigger builds since NHL 18 you are very much mistaken.

I think that in your replies you should start by stopping answering assertions that no one has made in the thing you are replying to. A bit on the same theme as your answer to Hampus above.

What you refer to as “Meta” is not really a meta linked to the definition, but it is an attribute that you want in the game style you play. In this case you are insinuating that it is the attribute “speed”. A “meta” in a game is a weakness in the game being played, which people exploit. What you describe as “meta” here is more of a play style than a weakness. I think we need to keep the concepts separate here.

You want to be able to skate fast, in straight lines, which is what the Elite teams started doing in NHL 24, and every offense ended with a force into the slot. 

Previous top teams in previous games, such as Havu and Fila when they were at their peak, they played on puck possession, movement and passing, the passing game set the pace of the game, and no other team in their heyday could keep up with that pace. 

The point was, and now I'm going to be overly clear so you don't have to respond to claims that are not claimed, THAT style of play can be achieved without having to be 185cm tall, and 72.5kg heavy build. And this was what I insinuated was damn nice that no top team ever tried to make work. Because it would have been hell for the opposing teams to face in for example NHL 25 where the mobility of the game is still pretty good regardless of the size of the build, and the speed without Elite-edges is not as dominant as it was in for example NHL 24. 

I'm not trolling. I'm responding. 

Edited October 19 by iSvamp

[Beniittto]

3 minuuttia sitten, iSvamp kirjoitti:

I think that in your replies you should start by stopping answering assertions that no one has made in the thing you are replying to. A bit on the same theme as your answer to Hampus above.

What you refer to as “Meta” is not really a meta linked to the definition, but it is an attribute that you want in the game style you play. In this case you are insinuating that it is the attribute “speed”. A “meta” in a game is a weakness in the game being played, which people exploit. What you describe as “meta” here is more of a play style than a weakness. I think we need to keep the concepts separate here.

You want to be able to skate fast, in straight lines, which is what the Elite teams started doing in NHL 24, and every offense ended with a force into the slot. 

Previous top teams in previous games, such as Havu and Fila when they were at their peak, they played on puck possession, movement and passing, the passing game set the pace of the game, and no other team in their heyday could keep up with that pace. 

The point was, and now I'm going to be overly clear so you don't have to respond to claims that are not claimed, THAT style of play can be achieved without having to be 185cm tall, and 72.5kg heavy. And this was what I insinuated was damn nice that no top team ever tried to make work. Because it would have been hell for the opposing teams to face in for example NHL 25 where the mobility of the game is still pretty good regardless of the size of the build, and the speed without Elite-edges is not as dominant as it was in for example NHL 24. 

I'm not trolling. I'm responding. 

Yeah, i can see that you aren't in the loop of the significant differences in game mechanics between different titles and the way top teams have approached and are approaching the game currently and thus i don't see a reason to continue this discussion with you.

[iSvamp]

5 minuter sedan, Beniittto säger:

Yeah, i can see that you aren't in the loop of the significant differences in game mechanics between different titles and the way top teams have approached and are approaching the game currently and thus i don't see a reason to continue this discussion with you.

haha oh my god. 😆
To choose to respond to an argument in the way you just did, is just a clear sign that you have just been run over in the argument and do not really know how to take it further. It is nothing to be ashamed of. 

We all know you are good, and have been good for years. However, this does not automatically mean that everything you think, write and believe is factual. 

Try to be less arrogant, so maybe even young players can look up to you as the person you are, and not just as a damn good player in a damn good team. 

I guess this is just like-fishing. 🙂 Which u most likely will get from the fanboys.
Have fun, and good luck in ECL Winter! 
 

[Sakkem]

I definitely agree that Big Tipper should be banned. It's hard to defend against because tying up sticks in front of the net isn't as effective as it used to be. However, I don’t understand the reasoning behind banning the other two. Do you really think UF is overpowered? Bumping seems really ineffective, and everyone is just using stick checking on defense. Why would people waste an ability spot on UF if nobody is relying on body checking? Also, Trucu has already been nerfed, and I don’t think it’s overpowered anymore. There are better abilities available than that.

It feels like people are demanding the UF ban just because it used to be too strong, but in my opinion, that’s not the case anymore.

That said, if I had to choose between banning all three or banning nothing, I’d choose to ban all three, because the Big Tipper ban is absolutely necessary.

[l-Furyan-l]

3 timmar sedan, Sakkem säger:

I definitely agree that Big Tipper should be banned. It's hard to defend against because tying up sticks in front of the net isn't as effective as it used to be. However, I don’t understand the reasoning behind banning the other two. Do you really think UF is overpowered? Bumping seems really ineffective, and everyone is just using stick checking on defense. Why would people waste an ability spot on UF if nobody is relying on body checking? Also, Trucu has already been nerfed, and I don’t think it’s overpowered anymore. There are better abilities available than that.

It feels like people are demanding the UF ban just because it used to be too strong, but in my opinion, that’s not the case anymore.

That said, if I had to choose between banning all three or banning nothing, I’d choose to ban all three, because the Big Tipper ban is absolutely necessary.

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.

[saaggssy]

Why even to bother not be banned abilities and need this abilities? is that so hard to score if goalies dont trip, and do stupid shits and score on selfs? all this close quarters, one timers abilities makes goalies just unnatural let in shots, so if you all agree that this need to be there for sake of gaming experience, so i assume you all cant score without ea helping you thats all... Close quarters and no timers is just too op, yeah tippers also i got like now some teams who always tips, but tippers is on d, if d plays good dont let attacker alone to tip without challenge, then all is good, but close quarters boost your shot no matter what, if you in face of goalie you are close quartered. one timers is so freaking fast, that you cant even blink and get scored on. no matter how good you read, this one timer boost is so fast, that goalie cant even move in time, and is that fun? i think yes if you all decided to keep close quarters and one timers abilities aviable for ECL.

ban all abilities what makes game unnatural easy and all gonna be fine, Close quarter, One timers and tippers and finaly we get competive gameplay not luck based peace of crap.

Edited October 20 by saaggssy

[l-Furyan-l]

6 minuter sedan, saaggssy säger:

Why even to bother not be banned abilities and need this abilities? is that so hard to score if goalies dont trip, and do stupid shits and score on selfs? all this close quarters, one timers abilities makes goalies just unnatural let in shots, so if you all agree that this need to be there for sake of gaming experience, so i assume you all cant score without ea helping you thats all... Close quarters and no timers is just too op, yeah tippers also i got like now some teams who always tips, but tippers is on d, if d plays good dont let attacker alone to tip without challenge, then all is good, but close quarters boost your shot no matter what, if you in face of goalie you are close quartered. one timers is so freaking fast, that you cant even blink and get scored on. no matter how good you read, this one timer boost is so fast, that goalie cant even move in time, and is that fun? i think yes if you all decided to keep close quarters and one timers abilities aviable for ECL.

 

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? 😉

[saaggssy]

Lol, are you serious now, please tell me which trait abilitie for goalie is op, and i gonna use it. there is no goalie trait what actualy matters to keep, i think if we play without abilities, game will be more fun then its right now anyway. but because there is this overpowered skaters abilities, we goalies need to atleast try to counter something. im sure you never got while you in net niceley timed golden onetimer on yourself, seems like that puck goes with rocket speed and if you glove it, it gonna left burning hole in your glove.

Edited October 20 by saaggssy