Jump to content

Use Quickness For Pass Incompletions


jstout

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...
  • 6 months later...
  • 5 years later...
On 8/6/2012 at 12:12 PM, TDO said:

 

Is it possible to change the set commands of the no fumble in the endzone hack so one could use the coverage hack and the no fumble endzone hack together? Would someone with more knowledge about doing that be willing to post the new set commands?

I second this question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2018 at 12:09 AM, SBlueman said:

I second this question. 

 

It is.  You just have to change the hex after the jmp (4c) commands to go somewhere else in the rom.  Find somewhere in the rom that is a big bunch of xff because there's no data there.  It has to be in the same bank though (e.g. x20000 to x2ffff).

 

For example, the first one is "4C BA BF EA".  This says to jump (4c) to location x2bfca.  I forget how the pointers work exactly, but there is a pattern to it.  I think bf refers to 2bf??, bceause we're in in the 20000-2ffff bank.  ba = ca for some reason.  "ea" is the code for "no-op", which i think just tells the processor to do nothing.

 

(Edit:  Forgot perhaps the most important part.  It's probably easier to move the no fumbles after td hack because it takes up less space than this one.)

 

I don't know what the no fumble after td command was originally, but I went with this:

 

28698:
4C60BFEAEAEA

 

2BF70:
A5732920D00BA5712910C910F0034C8E864CE886

 

That moves it to just before this hack, but you'll have to make sure an existing hack you use isn't in that spot.  As you can see after the 4c, we have 60bf, which is why the rest of it starts at 2bf70.

Edited by adscl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

This is likely old and useless info now but just for anyone who might come in and read....TecmoBowlSwede I can say with a good degree of certainty that the conflict with this hack iis coming from the Defense: 4-3 or 3-4 formations hack. When i plug in the Quickness affects Diving timing hack to that ROM, it behaves exactly the same way - it freezes shortly after the returner gets the ball on the opening kickoff. That specific ROM does not, however, conflict with the return speed hacks, as they were the first things I tried to isolate. I can't say why but it appears that anything to do with altering quickness conflicts with this ROM. With all these hacks going on, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if someone were to make a pinned post in the Hacks section enunciating known hack conflicts.

Edited by Ian Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SBlueman yeah I read where he debunked the QCK=Pursuit hack, which was disheartening. I want it to equal SOMEthing besides coverage. Be awesome if it was a rating for how fast a defender reacted to the play that was happening. Like at the beginning of each play, store the byte that is the defender reaction if that offensive play was called, and then let quickness = the amount of time that lapses before he stops doing what the Def play call told him to do and starts behaving as if the defense had called the offense's play. That would be the optimal use of the QCK attribute, IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that likely can't work. My bad. Just got done playing around with the playbook editor, and it seems there arent many instances in which players have a true command telling them what to do for the play. Most of the routines outside of pass rush and mirror ball carrier are just percentages of what they might do on a play. So, it would only be feasible for run plays where, after a certain time, you could tell the defender to definitively "Mirror Ball Carrier" but for instances of blown pass coverages, you can only give commands to a defender to cover x 56% of the time, y 30% etc.

On 10/5/2019 at 3:32 PM, Ian Jones said:

Be awesome if it was a rating for how fast a defender reacted to the play that was happening. Like at the beginning of each play, store the byte that is the defender reaction if that offensive play was called, and then let quickness = the amount of time that lapses before he stops doing what the Def play call told him to do and starts behaving as if the defense had called the offense's play. That would be the optimal use of the QCK attribute, IMO

 

Another disheartening thing I've found is that Qck=Coverage hack is not working properly either. At least not on my ROM. Whenever a ball is intercepted, instead of the defender that caught the ball taking possession, possession of the ball is going directly to the RDE. I can't say definitively that it's an inherent flaw in the hack though, because I have a couple other hacks going on that ROM, most notably the OL/DL Pass Rush hack that it may be conflicting with...and there's no post about which hacks are known to conflict with one another. But i can definitively say that if I take QCK=COV out, the problem ceases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

It seems to conflict with the Find Open Receiver & Overthrow Bug Fix hacks too. I got this conflict from TSB Tool:

 

WARNING!
 'SET' Commands modify same locations 'SET(0x2C000, 0x20319E203D9E4CAF9D)' and 'SET(0x2BFFD,0x86432A300B6A298F208DDDA0874C839E4CB19E)'
WARNING!
 'SET' Commands modify same locations 'SET(0x2C000, 0x20319E203D9E4CAF9D)' and 'SET(0x2BFF0,0xA01CB1AE4A4A290F18C90BB00849FF690F20CBDA60A90220CBDA60)'
WARNING!
 'SET' Commands modify same locations 'SET(0x2BFEA,0xA6DDA5E820EDBFA4E8C95090034CA99D4CEE9D)' and 'SET(0x2BFF0,0xA01CB1AE4A4A290F18C90BB00849FF690F20CBDA60A90220CBDA60)'
WARNING!
 'SET' Commands modify same locations 'SET(0x2BFFD,0x86432A300B6A298F208DDDA0874C839E4CB19E)' and 'SET(0x2BFF0,0xA01CB1AE4A4A290F18C90BB00849FF690F20CBDA60A90220CBDA60)'
WARNING!
 'SET' Commands modify same locations 'SET(0x1DA20,0xA000984868A8C4DC9008F006A53B25DCA860C8B13E29F04A85DDD0034CE99AB13E29F04A4A4A4A85DE0A0A1865DE85DEB13E290F0AAA9848A008B1AE300DBDEBDE8540BDECDE85414C659ABD01DF8540BD02DF8541A214A008B1AE300DBD01DF8542BD02DF85434C849ABDEBDE8542BDECDE8543A015B140D142901CD00788B140D1429013A014B14038F1428544C8B140F14285454CB89AA014B14238F1408544C8B142F1408545A545D021A544C5DDB01BA017B140D142900AB14038F142C5DE4CDB9AB14238F140C5DE9007CACA30064C679A4C149A68A860)' and 'SET(0x1DA2C, 0xA08060EAEAEA)'
WARNING!
 'SET' Commands modify same locations 'SET(0x288BE,0xA010A29AA90E2054C4EAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEA)' and 'SET(0x288C7, 0xC080D005A9034CCB884CC788

 

Edited by SBlueman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conflicts with diving time based on HP set command:

 

WARNING!
 'SET' Commands modify same locations 'SET(0x2BFF0,0xA01CB1AE4A4A290F18C90BB00849FF690F20CBDA60A90220CBDA60)' and 'SET(0x2BFEA,0xA6DDA5E820EDBFA4E8C95090034CA99D4CEE9D)'
WARNING!
 'SET' Commands modify same locations 'SET(0x2BFF0,0xA01CB1AE4A4A290F18C90BB00849FF690F20CBDA60A90220CBDA60)' and 'SET(0x2BFFD,0x86432A300B6A298F208DDDA0874C839E4CB19E)'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
On 9/5/2011 at 2:25 PM, buck said:

 

ok, here's what I did - keep in mind I had already rated the team OG style for INT only:

 

got a list of TEAM PASS DEFENSES (from football outsiders) from 2010, ranked 1-32.

 

after the teams were sorted, I put them in groups of 8

 

1 thru 8 - COVERAGE equals 1 NOTCH BOOST over INT

9 thru 16 - COVERAGE equals EQUALS INT

17 thru 24 - COVERAGE a 1 NOTCH DECREMENT over INT

25 thru 32 - COVERAGE a 2 NOTCH DECREMENT over INT

 

this rule is applied to everyone on the defense.

 

if there needs to be exceptions to certain players, I will make them on an individual basis.

 

---------

So, in summary, I'm using this 'coverage' variable based off of initial INT rating (plus 1, even, minus 1, minus 2). Applied globally to a team defense, based on where the team pass defense ranks overall. So, it's pretty close to original INT and I don't feel too bad or good about it, yet. Must test.

 

Trying to figure out how to re-rate players with this mod. So using @buck's method, this is what it would look like for the original game:

 

tsb-pass-ratings-1990.png.e840fd1e0cbe0dfd09073b4c5a71ca87.png

 

What I am not clear on is do you edit the quickness value for just DBs or all players on defense? And if it's all players, what do you do with DL's and LB's who have high ratings? Example, Bruce Smith would get a bump from 81 to 88. That just doesn't seem right. Are there caps that should be in place for DL & LB spots? Or is there a standard scale that people use for this hack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SBlueman said:

 

Trying to figure out how to re-rate players with this mod. So using @buck's method, this is what it would look like for the original game:

 

tsb-pass-ratings-1990.png.e840fd1e0cbe0dfd09073b4c5a71ca87.png

 

What I am not clear on is do you edit the quickness value for just DBs or all players on defense? And if it's all players, what do you do with DL's and LB's who have high ratings? Example, Bruce Smith would get a bump from 81 to 88. That just doesn't seem right. Are there caps that should be in place for DL & LB spots? Or is there a standard scale that people use for this hack?


 

Not a fan of automatically tiering the teams like that. For example in 91 the eagles were so far away from the rest of the league yet they’d get the same boost as the 8th best team. That makes no sense. Now obviously a big part of their pass defense was their pass rush and not necessarily the coverage. 

 

You have to start from scratch with players quickness ratings not bump their existing stuff up or down.

 

average db = 50 quickness

average lb = 25 quickness

average dl = 13 quickness.

Maybe higher for CBs and less for safties. Higher for ilb and less for olb.

 

Not a lot of coverage stats to go on for old school rosters but all-pro, passes defensed, draft position, defensive position might help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the reply, that helps out a bit for what I am working on. What would you suggest the min/max value per position? Are you going as low as 6 for only some positions or all? And would you cap DL and LB values lower? Bruce Smith and LT bring that 81 but that IMO is way too high for a DL or LB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In man vs com… DL and OLB are almost never covering anybody because their player scripts are just to pass rush.

 

I guess you could go as low as 6 ya. Max would be 81-88 (example revis island)

 

max for a lb would be less maybe 50-63 (example derrick brooks) 

 

dt should be capped pretty low

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...