Nope, that is timing and Defencive Awarness. Checking is body checks.

> Thank you, sir. As far as "backwards", I really
> haven't see much difference between Hitting power at
> 0 and it maxed. I still get big hits just as easy on
> each setting.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the info!

So getting into a bit more detail on how this one works, the relative speed of the players is a factor in the intensity of the hit and this slider scales that value. Lower slider values will result in less intensity in the hits. It might not get rid of the big hits if you tune it down, but it definitely should make them take more of a hard collision to get triggered.

The aggression slider has a profound effect on the overall aggressiveness of CPU players. In BAP the game is much tougher as a forward with this setting higher, and if it is put to the lowest setting the CPU defenders will not attack the puck carrier as hard or go for as many bodychecks. It's a lot easier to score when it's low. Anyways, I bring this up because in the OP it says that this slider is broken and does nothing. That is incorrect.

Also, according to this it says the shot recovery stat for goalies is useless, is that right? What about the puck playing stat? How does that help human goalies if at all?

he said the cpu would check more

but i'm not convinced the d-awareness attribute does what he says it does either, at least for human players. which puts into question how accurate the rest of the stuff is.

I'd like one of the earlier questions answered, when you have a chance to inquire. Exactly what do the stars that come along with skates and stick flex translate to in attribute points.

Thanks.

nvm bahnzo

Message was edited by: Verbal---Kint (PS3)

> he said the cpu would check more
>
> but i'm not convinced the d-awareness attribute does
> what he says it does either, at least for human
> players. which puts into question how accurate the
> rest of the stuff is.

Defensive Awareness
-Pass interceptions
-Reaction time for defensively deflecting passes away
-For CPU, more effort on when backchecking

Which part of it are you not convinced about? I am going by the code, so I am pretty sure.

> The aggression slider has a profound effect on the
> overall aggressiveness of CPU players. In BAP the
> game is much tougher as a forward with this setting
> higher, and if it is put to the lowest setting the
> CPU defenders will not attack the puck carrier as
> hard or go for as many bodychecks. It's a lot easier
> to score when it's low. Anyways, I bring this up
> because in the OP it says that this slider is broken
> and does nothing. That is incorrect.

Um...you realize you're disagreeing with a developer, right? I mean, there's a chance he's mistaken (which I'm sure he'll readily admit as he has done before) but I think most of us are going to take his word for it as he is LOOKING AT THE CODE and you are simply basing your belief on your own experiences, where a number of other factors unrelated to the Aggression slider could have influenced your perspective as we've seen the AI's logic does change throughout the game.

Think about it. It could be the defensemen you're playing against out there, the score of the game, your offensemen, or purely coincidental that your attack was foiled more when the Aggression slider was up. I doubt you tested this enough to definitively say, with certainty, that the aggression slider is not broken. If you feel so inclined, here's what you need to do:

Replicate the same play with the exact same players at the exact same time in the game with the exact same score at least 50 (pref 100) times. Do it 25 times with the Aggression slider at max, and 25 times with the aggression slider at 0. If your theory is true, we should see a significant statistical difference in the amount of times you get through and the amount of times you get checked/poked; all of this is assuming all the other sliders and factors remain constant.

Or we could take the developer's word for it, who happens to be looking at the infrastructure of the game itself.

prolly a good idea to take the devs word for it, as the post above me said he is looking at the code lol

> prolly a good idea to take the devs word for it, as
> the post above me said he is looking at the code lol

Hence my point in describing the long, drawn out process which would be necessary to disprove the developer who is looking at the code, not simply coming on here and disagreeing with him based on some limited, random experiences.

ok i'll take rupert's word for it, but the effect is really minimal.

i'm thankful that he's here's and he's done a thorough and thoughtful job answering questions. sorry if i'm a tad skeptical when the guy in charge of gameplay has to go look over the code to figure out how the gameplay works. shouldn't he already be aware of that, it being his job and all. and shouldn't someone have a firm grasp of what the "legacy" code that he referenced earlier does. i dunno. i'm more frustrated by the fact that it's taken 3 years to give a real description of the attributes and that's not his fault.

It is a scary thought to think that elements of NHL 2001 are still alive and kicking in NHL 09, but it has to be true. As he mentioned, the code which controls the penalty predates any programmer currently on the team. Someone probably should have a grasp on this like you said, but it doesn't surprise me that they don't. There are a ton of other things they have to worry about before they can look at old, old code. Hence this brings us to the age old debate: new features or fix the old ones? And we get the age old answer: what will sell more copies? A new online league or the correction of bugs in dynasty mode? Everyone knows the answer.

I am no developer but it's certainly logical to assume that video games are terribly complex beasts, and expecting a developer, even ones who focus specifically on gameplay, to be familiar with every line of code in a game and what that specific string's effects are on all other aspects of the game is a little unreasonable.

> ok i'll take rupert's word for it, but the effect is
> really minimal.
>
> i'm thankful that he's here's and he's done a
> thorough and thoughtful job answering questions.
> sorry if i'm a tad skeptical when the guy in charge
> of gameplay has to go look over the code to figure
> out how the gameplay works. shouldn't he already be
> aware of that, it being his job and all. and
> shouldn't someone have a firm grasp of what the
> "legacy" code that he referenced earlier does. i
> dunno. i'm more frustrated by the fact that it's
> taken 3 years to give a real description of the
> attributes and that's not his fault.

Awkward...

In my own defense, there are hundreds of thousands of lines of code and a small team of people who work on gameplay, not just me. No one person knows all of it inside out. This is typical of a large software project.

It is only the fact that I am comfortable admitting this that allows me to post here. Otherwise I would have to fake omniscience about the game and shy away from tough questions or lie. The fear of having to make that choice is probably what has kept anyone from answering questions for years.

mmm omnipotent being, reminds me of Q from star trek

Message was edited by: skyline5gtr (XBox)

> > The aggression slider has a profound effect on
> the
> > overall aggressiveness of CPU players. In BAP
> the
> > game is much tougher as a forward with this
> setting
> > higher, and if it is put to the lowest setting
> the
> > CPU defenders will not attack the puck carrier
> as
> > hard or go for as many bodychecks. It's a lot
> easier
> > to score when it's low. Anyways, I bring this
> up
> > because in the OP it says that this slider is
> broken
> > and does nothing. That is incorrect.
>
> Um...you realize you're disagreeing with a developer,
> right? I mean, there's a chance he's mistaken (which
> I'm sure he'll readily admit as he has done before)
> but I think most of us are going to take his word for
> it as he is LOOKING AT THE CODE and you are simply
> basing your belief on your own experiences, where a
> number of other factors unrelated to the Aggression
> slider could have influenced your perspective as
> we've seen the AI's logic does change throughout the
> game.
>
> Think about it. It could be the defensemen you're
> playing against out there, the score of the game,
> your offensemen, or purely coincidental that your
> attack was foiled more when the Aggression slider was
> up. I doubt you tested this enough to definitively
> say, with certainty, that the aggression slider is
> not broken. If you feel so inclined, here's what you
> need to do:
>
> Replicate the same play with the exact same players
> at the exact same time in the game with the exact
> same score at least 50 (pref 100) times. Do it 25
> times with the Aggression slider at max, and 25 times
> with the aggression slider at 0. If your theory is
> true, we should see a significant statistical
> difference in the amount of times you get through and
> the amount of times you get checked/poked; all of
> this is assuming all the other sliders and factors
> remain constant.
>
> Or we could take the developer's word for it, who
> happens to be looking at the infrastructure of the
> game itself.

I'm well aware that I'm disagreeing with a developer ... which is why I wouldn't have posted that unless I really felt strongly for it. I've played a good amount of Dynasty and BAP and the aggression slider seems to have the biggest effect on the game of anything. If it's high you'll see them go after the puck carrier a ton more. In BAP you get absolutely swarmed in the offensive zone when you get the puck when it's set to a high level. They will stay back and play more passive when it is set low. I've tested this numerous times within the same game, so I know it's not just the defense I'm playing or something.

But go play some BAP and try it out for yourself with aggression on the max and min setting and tell me that it has no effect. Furthermore, why would the aggression slider be programmed to do absolutely nothing? That makes a hell of a lot less sense than potentially getting bad information from somebody else. He got the slider and attribute info from other people at EA, and we know EA can do some pretty stupid things (no offense Jason, I think you're a smart guy).

IAMIBE