Body Checking Sucks in This Game

[PurePlayinSerb]

how come multiple times in eashl games, do i get screwed for hitting a guy with my 90 strength and 92 body checking? i hit them and i get knocked outta position and they get keep the puck and get clear shots on net? im a 6'5" defensive defensman by the way

[savoie2006]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

What I've noticed is that hitting seems more effective head on with speed. It's not like previous years where it triggered the animation that knocked players flat automatically. You also have to consider what your opponents attributes might be.

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

The game NEEDS more advanced collision detection. I hate to say it, because they've done it for a few years now, but they also really need to improve the physics engine.

[Hiro1]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

Some guys body check me for all kind of angles. I've never got the hang of it so Ive settled for playing on the wing and using R3.

[Review]

What I've noticed is that hitting seems more effective head on with speed. It's not like previous years where it triggered the animation that knocked players flat automatically. You also have to consider what your opponents attributes might be.

Hit the nail on the head with the speed comment. Moreover, your attributes, your opponents attributes, and weight of the player all play a factor in the outcome of a collision in nhl 12.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk.

[Fiddy]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

IMO putting attributes in checking is a waste..

i hammer people with my 6'2 205 sniper or playmaker builds with default checking (65). i leave out the points on purpose. i also dont put points in strength either..

when i add the points to the checking i cant hit worth a crap.

the game makes zero sense attribute wise.

been saying this for past two years, they need to do away with letting us put the points where we want. just give us pre determined player builds for each player type. instead of earning plus 5's, those would be done away with, let us earn the plus 3's and 1's. that way players are on more of a level playing field like when the game comes out each year. bc to me, thats when the game plays the best. those first 2 weeks are the most fun, IMO.

give us options on pre determined builds though.. like an offensive/balanced/defensive option for each player type.

[CaptainSuperman]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

For me it's not the big hits that are messed up, but the small ones which knock me off the puck. Like when I'm in the zone and I do a D to D pass, and their forward comes up and barely hits one of my bigger D men and down the ice he goes on a breakaway.

[hydroshubong]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

IMO putting attributes in checking is a waste..

i hammer people with my 6'2 205 sniper or playmaker builds with default checking (65). i leave out the points on purpose. i also dont put points in strength either..

when i add the points to the checking i cant hit worth a crap.

the game makes zero sense attribute wise.

been saying this for past two years, they need to do away with letting us put the points where we want. just give us pre determined player builds for each player type. instead of earning plus 5's, those would be done away with, let us earn the plus 3's and 1's. that way players are on more of a level playing field like when the game comes out each year. bc to me, thats when the game plays the best. those first 2 weeks are the most fun, IMO.

give us options on pre determined builds though.. like an offensive/balanced/defensive option for each player type.

I agree for the predetermined builds and there's clearly a problem with the attributes in this game!

[tofubrain2]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

I've said this once, I'll say it again. You can put lipstick on a pig but at the end of the day it will always be a pig. It's EA's archaic hockey engine with a physics engine that is horrible.

[savoie2006]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

I've said this once, I'll say it again. You can put lipstick on a pig but at the end of the day it will always be a pig. It's EA's archaic hockey engine with a physics engine that is horrible.

but a more attractive pig

[hydroshubong]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

but a more attractive pig

[plaidchuck]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

IMO aggression seems to be more important, gives you bigger hits and a penalty against other players who haven't put any points into it.

[clarkkent70]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

I read from the developer that aggression has a big impact on bodychecking results. Also it increases whatever it's called intimidation factor which can make future hits easier or bigger, and also screw up passes and receipt of pass.

[PurePlayinSerb]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

it's getting worse, they nerfed hitting so much in this game its not even fun to play defense anymore

[CaptainSuperman]

Re: Body Checking Sucks in This Game

Strange. I have two PSN usernames with their own sets of sliders that I use, one for realism, and one for "bumper cars" hockey. Though both sets use the same hitting power and assistance sliders because I know they are backwards, and I don't wnt hitting to get all out of wack for the arcade style play. But I get two way different results.

And like what clarkkent said above, aggression probably has something to do with this. But I'm wondering how? I'm using Cycloniac's sliders, so aggression for both human and CPU is at 4 (or 5?). And on the arcade version, Human aggression is 6 and CPU is 0.

Now with Cycloniac's sliders, big hits at full speed result is practically nothing. It's rather the small bumps that actually feel like your checking (don't mistake that term for hitting). Though sometimes these small bumps turn into the player getting hit looking like he's standing in an earthquake. And with the arcade version, it's reversed. Small hits don't do much, but big hits are big hits.

So for the sake of hits (but at the expense of forechecking possibly), try aggression at 3?