Modifying Tecmo Super Bowl Plays

[Gaffney]

Just a couple of other things.

One is do we know where the information for the plays is yet in terms of how to edit the routes run (not making Pro T Flare D run from Onesetback, but say making the top guy in Pro T Flare D run a curl pattern). This is not all that important since I think we should have plenty of play options using old routes with different formations, but that would be the next step.

Also does anyone have the ability to make a graphical editor for this? I'm thinking a click and drag thing where you pick a tile and drag it onto the place in the play you want - one where you select a formation and it automatically gives you default tiles for the players so you have somewhere to start from. The changing of the plays is not that tough using a hex editor, but I forsee it being an incredible pain messing around with preset options for tiles trying to get all the pieces to line up in ways they weren't originally intended (although Rod did seem to do a good job of it with that Pro T sweep L).

And of course thanks again Rod for figuring this stuff out, this is pretty amazing - and in some ways I agree, we should begin figuring out what plays work which ones are messed up and which ones are indefensible so we don't have too much crazy stuff going on out there.

[Knobbe]

I talked with Konforce and he'd be willing to make a play editor if the route info was figured out but probably wouldn't for just changing the formations. He did say that he also might update TSBM 2000 so that you can move any run play to any slot and any pass play to any slot.

The next step is finding the route changes though. This is would be harder as it's a guessing game about how they coded those things.

Just a couple of other things.

One is do we know where the information for the plays is yet in terms of how to edit the routes run (not making Pro T Flare D run from Onesetback, but say making the top guy in Pro T Flare D run a curl pattern). This is not all that important since I think we should have plenty of play options using old routes with different formations, but that would be the next step.

[bidkell]

you guys are all way to smart for me but i can come and open beers and do dishes while you brains do the work

[bruddog]

Yeah trying to dissect all that code would take a lot of work.

[Gaffney]

Not to make anyone's life harder but I thought of something else I forgot to mention in my last post. We still could try and figure out how they set up the formations so we could make I-Form, Near, Far, 5 WR sets, etc....

Could the corruption thing work for that - just testing to see when guys appear in different places on the screen. Excluding motion, I would bet for each position they simply put in X, Y coordinates with respect to the line of scrimmage so it may not be that hard.

It still seems kind of crazy that we can do all of this to the plays but we still can't figure out how to change Houston from 4 Wide to 3 Wide for the offensive lineup - it's gotta be just one byte for each team most likely, right?

[Knobbe]

Basically what you would be looking for when you're trying to corrupt play data is hopefully for the players to be running around all over the place or lined up wackily or else for the players to not show up or the game to freeze up completely when it goes to the play screen.

That would be hella cool to switch teams to 4-3 D......

[MiniDitka]

We could still make pass plays that are drastically different just by changing formations, like taking a run and shoot formation and puting it in a T formation makes some pretty big changes, and vice versa. And SOme of those really weird plays where the TE'S and FB's are in weird spots, like the 3 wing the Eagles use and K gun, become completely different plays when put in different formations....it would be well worth our time to make an editor specifically for this....

And I've tried to design a real run and shoot offense, ones with alternate patterns, or two or three different variations of the same play. The play worked in the game, but unfortunately, My ideas for putting in a Run and Shoot/St Louis Rams type offense with multiple routes for each receiver won't work from a graphical point of view, because putting those tiles together are a BITCH. There needs to be an easier way. Perhaps if we show our programmer friend the wide number of plays that are possible, things such as a play that's play action yet runs a full quarterback run when the defense picks a certain play for something like that, will change his mind.

And BTW, don't try doing a play action from a 4 WR set....the defense bum rushes you every time.

[yo136]

I finally got to reading miniditka's first post on changing plays based on what play is picked. This a rather disturbing development from a certain standpoint because it can totally negate the concept of a picked play. If the person picks your play, you can automatically run a call safe play like Pro T Flare D.

Though the greatest part about this is that you can use this hack to have 8 pass plays. I think based on what miniditka found, I propose some sort of ethical stand to preserve the concept of a picked play. That is, you can edit those 8 bytes, but only to add more than 4 running or passing plays to your playbook, no other. I strongly believe we would errode the balance of the game if we let people subsititute call-safe plays for when your play is picked and offenses would dominate beyond belief.

If people want to do this when playing the computer, we should give them every resource, but I think this should be strongly discouraged when putting it into standardized, retro, or league roms.

[yo136]

Hey Gaffney, remember this pic:

It looks like this can now be a reality. (except the RB's name will still appear for passing plays in running play spots.

[Knobbe]

You don't have to worry too much about Tecmo morality on this one.

First of all, it doesn't work to put run plays in pass slots and passes in run slots. In the first scenario you have what is a reverse option play. The running back gets the ball and he can pass it, but only back to the QB and only if he doesn't cross the line of scrimage. On passing plays in the run slot, the play turns into a QB keeper or QB draw as all he can do is run the ball.

As for the defense calling your play, it's based on what slot you call. Thus, if you have a playbook where every play is the identical the defense doesn't blitz every time. If you have a play that is made up of several different plays the defense will blitz if they pick the same slot.

Next, with the one play that is made up of several different plays, it's not like you can actually audible. You are actually at the mercy of the D on this one. I guess I could see it if there were certain plays that were killer against run D or killer against pass D but in all honesty it would take the advantage of knowing what play you were running away from the offense.

In summary, there is no real audible option and for now you are limited to 4 runs and 4 passes.

I finally got to reading miniditka's first post on changing plays based on what play is picked. This a rather disturbing development from a certain standpoint because it can totally negate the concept of a picked play. If the person picks your play, you can automatically run a call safe play like Pro T Flare D.

Though the greatest part about this is that you can use this hack to have 8 pass plays. I think based on what miniditka found, I propose some sort of ethical stand to preserve the concept of a picked play. That is, you can edit those 8 bytes, but only to add more than 4 running or passing plays to your playbook, no other. I strongly believe we would errode the balance of the game if we let people subsititute call-safe plays for when your play is picked and offenses would dominate beyond belief.

If people want to do this when playing the computer, we should give them every resource, but I think this should be strongly discouraged when putting it into standardized, retro, or league roms.

[Gaffney]

I think what yo was saying is that you could have, say, a play-action pass set up so it always runs that play unless that play is called by the defense, in which case it would run a play from the same formation with Pro T Flare D routes. So if the pass play were not called by the D you would have your play-action, but if it were called your QB would instead drop back (rather than being smothered at the handoff by the rushing D) and be able to dump it to the TE crossing over the middle.

On the plus side this would make play-action passes less risky, but on the minus side is taking away a big part of what makes playing Tecmo defense what it is.

[Knobbe]

OK, I'm following you now. Yeah, that'd pretty much be advantageous only for passes where you have no chance of throwing the ball on a blitz like any Roll out, play action, or Pro T Screen.

That leads me to a different question: What is the difference between the two separate but obviously very close plays that are used right now? There obviously must be some difference or else why go to the trouble of even coding the game that way?

I think what yo was saying is that you could have, say, a play-action pass set up so it always runs that play unless that play is called by the defense, in which case it would run a play from the same formation with Pro T Flare D routes. So if the pass play were not called by the D you would have your play-action, but if it were called your QB would instead drop back (rather than being smothered at the handoff by the rushing D) and be able to dump it to the TE crossing over the middle.

On the plus side this would make play-action passes less risky, but on the minus side is taking away a big part of what makes playing Tecmo defense what it is.

[yo136]

No Rod is right. I just tried it out and my theory didn't work.

[Gaffney]

My best guess for your question, Rod, is that they wanted to have some variation in the plays, so that the outcomes of runs would be more varied. Different blocking patterns would lead to different players being taken out of the play and hence different ways the back would need to run. It makes it a little more interesting than having the same hole to run through and same guys to avoid each time. And it is mostly run plays which have these multiple options, right?

It would be really interesting if we could find the same info for the defensive side - how it decides how they react to the play. I almost feel like finding that out would take a lot of the magic out of Tecmo, though, so forget I asked about it.

By the way, Yo, in what way did your experiment not work? Does it not let you have two completely different options in one play?

[Nameless Loser]

Stand tall and shake the Tecmo heavens guys. But don't tell the Tecmo Gods I said that.

[Knobbe]

I've made a rom for every play formation available. So, on every rom there is just one formation for every play. I haven't taken the time to redraw play diagrams or re-name plays as what I want to accomplish here is figuring out which plays are worth keeping.

Thus, if anyone is interested in doing some testing what I'd like to see is a synopsis of the play, whether or not it has any flaws in it that make it not feasable, and a suggestion for a new play name. For example, if you can run the RB out of bounds before the pitch in a modified fake pitch sweep, then the play would be considered flawed. Bonus points if you want to take the tiles available for download from one of my previous posts and draw up the new play. Since each of them has a name, please keep a little map of the order of which you arranged them in to make things easier on me.

For example, on the picture that I made in an earlier post, the first line is made up of 6 tiles. The first tile is all green, the second has a pink curve, the third has an arrow pointing right, the 4th has a white player dot and the last two are repeated green tiles. Thus, the code is 01 A0 A1 93 01 01. If you look at the tiles I have named that way, you'll notice they match up.

Anyway, here is the link to the ROMS

[bidkell]

in the off set I book on run 3 the back goes the wrong way he should go up but goes down on run 4 the shotgun draw the qb is tackled by the nose takle before he can make the pitch otherwise works great did i mention this kicks ass and i was the browns i guess you need to know what run 3 and 4 i meant could we start a new thread for listing stuff did i mention this kicks ass and yes dog no puncuation was hurt in the creating of this post

[Knobbe]

Dear Bill,

Just because this is the internet, doesn't mean you can just let punctuation slide. If I ever meet you I'm going to punch you in the stomach for never using punctuation.

Thoughtfully Yours,

Rod

in the off set I book on run 3 the back goes the wrong way he should go up but goes down on run 4 the shotgun draw the qb is tackled by the nose takle before he can make the pitch otherwise works great did i mention this kicks ass and i was the browns i guess you need to know what run 3 and 4 i meant could we start a new thread for listing stuff did i mention this kicks ass and yes dog no puncuation was hurt in the creating of this post

[Gaffney]

Perhaps we shouldn't run any regular plays from shotgun and any shotgun plays from the regular formation - the QB movement just tends to mess everything up and nothing comes out looking smooth in the end.

Are we slashing plays that looks stupid, but work fine, like the RB running backward through the QB for the handoff? What about ones where you hand-off from 5 yards away, but there is no pitch? Those should probably go...

[bruddog]

I think most shotgun pass plays can be run in a different formation but defintely not not the other way around.

[soxin2k3]

I've been lurking on this board since it was created but since because for some reason knobbe.org does not work on my computer at college, I never joined. Anyway, I head up a league at school with about 15 other guys using my laptop hooked up to the tv. Some of us are pretty computer code literate and I'm willing to spend obscene and unreasonable amounts of time on Tecmo. If betwen us, we can do anythng at all to help the process of play editing, please let me know, since it's been our dream since last september. I was gonna go through all the different plays in diff formations and jot down any errors/successes etc, but it appears some people are already on that. Anyway, thanks a lot to Rod and others for the time you've put into this, you're gonna make a lot of people in VA happy. (By the way, i just flew back into the boston a little while ago, so no i am not a college student on his computer at 2 am on a saturday night for no reason )

[Kronic Virus]

I'm a High-School student who spends his free nights on the CPU.

I wish I had more free nights, damn it ...

[Knobbe]

LOL. Lots of times I'm a former college student on the computer for no reason at 2 A.M. Good to have you on board.

If you want to give something a try, check out this post -> http://www.tecmobowl.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=820

[Gaffney]

In terms of running shotgun patterns out of regular formations I have a couple of concerns.

1) you can throw the ball immediately. The computer did this on me to one of his wide receivers, it almost seemed like a direct snap to the WR it happened so fast. It could be indefensible at times, I'm not sure

2) you don't fade back automatically which first of all would be unexpected to people playing the rom the first couple of times and would detract from the games overall quality. Also I'm not sure how the CPU handles the elimination of the auto-drop, but it could cause some issues, too.

Just some things to be aware of while we're testing this stuff

[TecmoEJ]

these crazy plays are fun to mess around with. i was thinking there definitely aren't enough tiles that show the routes the players are actually running on the play selection screen... defenses are helpless against this kind of attack.

would it be possible to add tiles to the rom to remedy this?

online tecmo will be reborn when someone finds the hex that dictates what routes are run. then custom plays can be formed which will add a whole new dimension to tecmo. amazing stuff

has anyone made a webpage that maps out what has been found out already out of curiousity? i'm guessing no. that would be one massive project but would get everyone on the same page for anyone who sticks there nose in. i think i'll give this scrambler a try. prob takes hours of searching