Create Your Own Defenses

[xplozv]

My thoughts are that I see this as being way harder than easier in the long run. And that you're taking actual choice away from players. "What if I don't want to run Dime?"

Adversely, I do agree, however, that this is more like original TSB.

That's thing that got me desiring to edit tsb was that there was no choices. I also was like, even if in real life a team or player knows what you're going to do, that can't stop you all the time. So I started trying to make more simulation styled defenses. I like playing both ways from time to time depending which mode I am playing in. And I just mention that it would be easier in the sense for those who want different defensive looks, and still want to be the original style. I plan on making roms later for both styles. However, I am still all for furthering where tsb is headed right now. I'm still amazed at what can be done with this game, especially finding ways to work around com's logic.

[GameplayLoop]

To me, the point is primarily cosmetic. As far as I can tell, for MAN v MAN, it's a small field, the original 3-4 defense can do about everything you need with the right coding. So, to make it 'look cool' (always good) you add-in the variety defense.

'Doing everything you need' is not how invention is made. If so, we would all still have ice boxes to keep meat cold before we watched The Honeymooners on our new television box that sent us black and white images and shoddy sound through a wiring system with potential to burn our houses down. Why get a new TV? It does eveything you need. But if you could create variety, and variety begets choice, and choice fosters creativity, than now we have a cooler community with a more varied set of creations inspiring all new ideas a year or two from now that weren't thought of last year, and etc. I don't think we're debating the merits of what style of playing TSB is 'more fun,' because who gives a shit, right? I think what we're talking about is the difference between a want to perfect the known style of the previously shared TSB experience--one of high-octane, I pick-your-play-motherfucker, button-smashing fever--and one that is different and new. And you're either someone who likes new experiences, or you're not.

I think if I'm someone who is worried that somehow TSB is going to 'change,' I should relax. TSB is TSB.

You're right - the offensive formation would dictate the defensive formation...this can be used to the offenses advantage (use a playbook of certain formations) for different matchups. Because, there will be small differences in the line-up of your star defensive player - like your LB is further back or your FS is closer to LOS.

Honestly, I think the greatest merit to this concept (other than how it really does fulfill a deeper original TSB themed experience) is how it would affect the proposed "Audibles" concept. Under this play-style, the working 'Audibles' idea could really work. Yes, I'm sure it's an idea that is strange to some, but you could really make it functional, albeit still automatic, if your ROM was designed with this play-calling architecture.

..."way-harder than easier" than what?

Well, the way I see it, this idea opens up each reaction to the formation it juxtaposes with the need to be different than the others. So, instead of a blanket DIME with maybe some options in it for varying offensive formation types, you now have 8 separate options that have to be unique. Sure, I guess each of the eight DIME reactions could have one or two player differences between them--but that sounds pretty weak to me for the loss of losing out on actual choice as a player. And to alter them too much is to have to really define how each reaction instance is unique to the varying offensive plays.

It sounds a lot like pandora's box to me.

[buck]

Maynard_G_Krebs wrote:

'Doing everything you need' is not how invention is made. If so, we would all still have ice boxes to keep meat cold before we watched The Honeymooners on our new television box that sent us black and white images and shoddy sound through a wiring system with potential to burn our houses down. Why get a new TV? It does eveything you need. But if you could create variety, and variety begets choice, and choice fosters creativity, than now we have a cooler community with a more varied set of creations inspiring all new ideas a year or two from now that weren't thought of last year, and etc. I don't think we're debating the merits of what style of playing TSB is 'more fun,' because who gives a shit, right? I think what we're talking about is the difference between a want to perfect the known style of the previously shared TSB experience--one of high-octane, I pick-your-play-motherfucker, button-smashing fever--and one that is different and new. And you're either someone who likes new experiences, or you're not.

Um...what? I never said (or tried to imply) to "STOP" evolving TSB or that "picked-play TSB" is better than "Madden TSB"...(Why would you assume such bullshit?) I just wanted to say that there are "some people" who thoroughly enjoy being able to pick an opponents play and/or avoid getting his play picked. And therefore, to maintain that unique characteristic of TSB while "evolving" along with the cool things you, bruddog, and xplosive are doing on the defensive front sounds like a decent idea, huh?

Maynard_G_Krebs wrote:

Honestly, I think the greatest merit to this concept (other than how it really does fulfill a deeper original TSB themed experience) is how it would affect the proposed "Audibles" concept. Under this play-style, the working 'Audibles' idea could really work. Yes, I'm sure it's an idea that is strange to some, but you could really make it functional, albeit still automatic, if your ROM was designed with this play-calling architecture.

ok - not that familiar with the "proposed audibles concept" yet...but I like the sound of it.

Maynard_G_Krebs wrote:

Well, the way I see it, this idea opens up each reaction to the formation it juxtaposes with the needs to be different than the other. So, instead of a blanket DIME with maybe some options in it for varying offensive formation types, you now have 8 separate options that have to be unique. Sure, I guess each of the eight DIME reactions could have one or two player differences between them--but that sounds pretty weak to me for the loss of losing out on actual choice as a player. And to alter them too much is to have to really define how each reaction instance is unique to the varying offensive plays.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. It's just an idea that I was hoping to discuss/modify. Essentially, a way to maintain 'play-calling' and still keep it 'hidden' until snap (see a couple of posts up).

[GameplayLoop]

I think it's a great idea, dude. I think it's perfect for how I could see you, and others who are more purist in their TSB interest, evolve TSB more to their liking. Well done. The closest comparison I can make to this is what Jstout did with his 4-3 / 3-4 ROM, but spreading out the amount of reaction types across the grid, and really specifying them ala some of other new ROMs. In my opinion, it's the way to go if you're looking to really make a closer TSB experience to the original but with new flavor.

[GameplayLoop]

Hey, Buck, if your last message above looks a little messed up, it's because I hit the edit button by accident on your post instead of the quote!

[jstout]

That can be done. I am about to do this and see what It'll be like. You're right, it is making the game more like a simulation. And it seems that w/o picked plays, if you're playing Man vs Com, it doesn't matter what defense you've created, the Com never picks the best one. The logic is simply just designed for guessing the play that you're using, and not choosing the best play to defend what you're using. It has not mattered which slot I've put defenses in for man vs com, as long as the com is not super juiced in some way, it not even close competition, or i have to put some type of blitz in for every play I make.

In the CIFL rom, I created some defensive logic similar to TSBUltra. Roughly, each team has a rating of how good their overall, run, and pass defense is. The Computer checks a random number and if their overall is better is goes to "JAILBREAK" mode else "NORMAL" mode. "JAILBREAK" mode, the computer checks its Run/Pass defense value (run vs run or pass vs pass) vs a random and if better is given the offensive play call. If not, then heads back to a "NORMAL" mode. In "NORMAL" mode, the computer checks whether it called a run or pass where 50% of the time will keep the play call and 50% of the time will change the call to the run/pass play the offense has called most during the game.

I'm sure something like that could be tweaked even without the blitzes to give the different computer teams some more skill.

[GameplayLoop]

In "NORMAL" mode, the computer checks whether it called a run or pass where 50% of the time will keep the play call and 50% of the time will change the call to the run/pass play the offense has called most during the game.

I'm all for a derivative of this logic point you just wrote about being applied to my ROM edit, personally. You actually just made my day with this statement, Jstout. I had no idea such things existed.

[hurricane55]

Just got caught up reading this thread....One thing to remember is that the defense should feel like the teams defense as well. Playing a 3-4 d is differnet than a 4-3. Keeping that logic while still trying to have more "control" of the defense is just as important. Also agree with Buck on calling the right paly to "blow it up". just my opinions....also agree with not taking to much control from the player for sim sake. It's a tough line, but I will Walk the Line, and Walk Hard:)

[bruddog]

The player still has a LOT do with the outcome of a play.

[GameplayLoop]

I've been thinking about Buck's idea more--the one where the Defensive Formation is automatically chosen based of the Offense, but the derivative of the Defensive Formation specifics is predicated off the Defense's play choice. It totally has a ton of merit. My opinion is that it's definitely closer to a TSB-style of play.

But the reason why I'm writing this post is to add that I really do think that the 'Audibles' would be 'best' used in this example of play calling. In fact, were I to organize a game in the nature of Buck's Idea, I would use the Audible concept as the Boost Blitz. In this fashion you could, most definitely, have a positive and negative Audible. The negative for the Offense being the positive for the Defense and visa versa. Both sides could have their own version of a team benefit given by a new version of the Boost Blitz as found in the original TSB, but could be altered to be more coverage being a sure-thing DIME backfield Defense, or it could be a modified all-out Blitz on a Goal Line formation.

The Offensive version could be utilized best when the Offense picks a play, and the Defense picks the worst option of the choices. To do this, though, I feel you'd have to limit your Men-In-Motion concept so that when a player does see a team divide up into new positions, you know shit is about to hit the fan.

Anyhoo, there are a lot of ideas I crafted in my mind about how to utilize this idea. I could easily debate the merits of using this style of play for a MAN ROM. Although, I do find preference in still having a set play for a coaching ROM, since 'control' is what the TSB Coach lacks more than anything else.

[hurricane55]

that sounds more like what defense audibles i want...there would be 2 defense alignements on audibles a nickel typ and a goalline type....1 real blitz, and a nother that is more of a bluff of that blita...don't know itf that's possible...on offense, ther is very little motion in the formations we are using because we are using the 4-5 dead seconds to animate the huddle breaks...it is purely aesthetic, but gives the game "feel". the Defense would do the same, except it would randomize final spots like CB up or Back, OLB inside outside DE etc....The audible could be a good i'm blitzing, no i'm not mini game before the snap. Tha's all for now...back to designing plays...wahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[buck]

OK, I need a little more help to get started here...

Let's say all I want to do is change the "Pre-Snap Lineup" of a defender.

I can find the pointers for each defender in PlayMaker 0.2 - How do I go find the actual ROM location for that pointer so I can change the "lineup"?

[buck]

Are they "direct" pointers?

OK, I need a little more help to get started here...

Let's say all I want to do is change the "Pre-Snap Lineup" of a defender.

I can find the pointers for each defender in PlayMaker 0.2 - How do I go find the actual ROM location for that pointer so I can change the "lineup"?

[xplozv]

Let's say your pointer is "E5A9"

Swap the 2 bytes to get "A9E5"

Now just add x10(in hex) to get offset "A9F5"

And that would be your location.

[buck]

Thanks!

Let's say your pointer is "E5A9"

Swap the 2 bytes to get "A9E5"

Now just add x10(in hex) to get offset "A9F5"

And that would be your location.

[buck]

well, I'm using BAD_ALs playmaker - and when I hover the mouse over a defender - at the top is the "pointer".

In playmaker, let's say I see [b617] - now what? I've tried adding and subtracting x10, tweaking the lineup, but I don't see any change...so I must be at the wrong spot.

[xplozv]

I forgot to mention that when you see a pointer in playmaker, the bytes have already been swapped. Now you only have to add x10 in hex to it. But if you get a pointer out of the def play section at x6010, then you have to swap the bytes and add x10.

[buck]

yeah, that's what I figured. The only thing is, the adjustments I'm making aren't doing anything...

I'm trying to tweak LILB [b617].

So I go to 0xb627 and see: "D00018EC... etc"

Nothing I change does anything (yeah, I'm picking the right defense and everything). I've even set the EC to EA, he's still standing up...?

I forgot to mention that when you see a pointer in playmaker, the bytes have already been swapped. Now you only have to add x10 in hex to it. But if you get a pointer out of the def play section at x6010, then you have to swap the bytes and add x10.

[xplozv]

Do you still have playmaker open after you saved your changes in your hex editor? Every once in a while it won't let the hex editor changes save if that is the case. I just changed EC to EA on the original and it works.

[buck]

yes, but all the variations (except the bum rush) have LILB doing b617.

[buck]

I am changing it 'on the fly' with the emu open and tweaking the rom file (live testing) - I've always done it this way.

[buck]

wow...I was being a complete idiot. I figured out what was going wrong. Thanks for the help, xplozv.

[Tecmonster]

Here's a graphical representation of xplozv's D0 field placement narrative (attached).

[buck]

Here's a graphical representation of xplozv's D0 field placement narrative (attached).

 

Man, if that graphic is correct, that is a really badass contribution.  Thanks.

[GameplayLoop]

Here's a graphical representation of xplozv's D0 field placement narrative (attached).

 

We need more infographics!! Seriously. Make more. We need more. I'll link this in the resource message board soon.