Matt55

Members
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Matt55 last won the day on September 2

Matt55 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Matt55

  • Rank
    Sophomore

Previous Fields

  • Preferred System
    Genesis
  • Favorite Way To Score
    Coffey to Lemieux

Profile Information

  1. Coach Mac's Historic Roms

    The 5 years in 1 original six ROM is very cool!
  2. NHL 2018 by Slapshot67 & Skip

    Thank you!
  3. The 80s one I posted above was from his original decades ROMs. Unfortunately, I do not have the 70s or 60s one. However, he had posted an "NHL 70 somethin' " later that I DO have. With Coach's permission, I will repost it here. OK, Coach Mac?
  4. Making offline solo play challenging

    I took the challenge, Coach, and it was fun! The juiced teams check like crazy, so you have to move the puck quickly - good! I felt like I accomplished something when I scored instead of feeling bad for the cpu
  5. The BS factor of 94

    My other favorite all-time game is Tecmo, and I would say that the Tecmo gods (as my childhood friends also still call the absurd X factor) make all the difference in keeping that game fun and dramatic. If I am voting, I think that the X factor in NHL is great. Momentum swings must be weathered and give us an opportunity to fight a noble battle. Some great ideas in here - I press some buttons, but who programmed the code of my life, right? I feel extremely blessed. Great discussion - touching on the metaphysical!
  6. brilliance of NHLPA '93 ratings

    Ooops - I did use a comparison word - superior - in my original post. Touche
  7. brilliance of NHLPA '93 ratings

    The 73 vs. 80 vs. 86 point is valid, Coach. They are probably unnoticeable. Also, weaknesses of '93 ratings have been pointed out other places: +/- rating to decide Defensive Awareness creates a bunch of illogical results. Shooting % is a pure stat, but it creates illogical results when it is used exclusively to decide a player's shooting accuracy. Of course, manual goalie is a must for head-to-head combat, so '94 has to get the nod there. I like the new feature of a wider range of ratings available in '94, thanks to SMOZ. Does anyone actually use the low end of the range, though? Does anyone play with line changes and therefore use a wider variety of players? I just like the comment I read some where that the variety gives players and teams more personal character instead of a "stock" feel.
  8. brilliance of NHLPA '93 ratings

    As far as parameters for solitaire go, have you guys ever thought of playing '94 but ONLY allowing yourself one-timers when on the power play? I play solitaire a lot not because I like running up the score but because I don't expect others to understand my priority: making an up-and-down drama that could go either way. I totally get why most like no-holds-barred winning, but I am getting old and am just doing it for the love of the game. It's kind of like loving '93 without comparing it to '94; the value of one is not derived from beating another.
  9. brilliance of NHLPA '93 ratings

    I already knew that most people prefer '94, so I posted this comment under the '93 posts. I intentionally made no pokes against '94 because my point was just to observe and appreciate a part of '93 without taking any shots against the beauty of '94. '93 is not great because I compare it to '94; it is just great.
  10. Maybe you all knew, but I haven't noticed anyone pointing it out ... One of the keys to NHLPA 93's ratings is that it used the full range (using line changes, players go from a 1 to a couple of 95's; even without line changes, starters can vary greatly). It also had "a 0-15" scale, but did you notice that players' ratings were directly affected by the quality of their team? What I mean is that the 21 teams (leaving out expansion and all-star), split perfectly into upper (7-9 team rating), mid (4-6 team rating), and lower (1-3 team ratings) thirds (exactly 7 teams per tier). Then the 0-15 scale was used like this: 1. Top Third uses ratings ending in 6's (26, 46, 66, 86) 2. Middle Third uses ratings ending in 0's (20, 40, 60, 80) 3. Lower Third uses ratings ending in 3's (13, 33, 53, 73) (Throw in the 0, 6, 93, and 100 also.) * An unexplained exception is Philly, a lower third team that uses players ratings ending in 0's. What does this mean? A player who gets an 80 speed on an average team would get an 86 if he were on a good team or a 73 if he were on a bad team. Net result is a wide spread of players AND a wide spread of teams. I think that NHLPA's ratings created a superior variety of playing experiences. I imitate this distribution when I make my own projects. Don't allow yourself the breakaway move and choose a bottom third team, and you have a fun solitaire experience. Playing against a friend who is much better or much worse than you? Choose two teams that balance the scales.
  11. Yes, I have been caught in an endless circle of second-guessing myself and redoing ratings in several projects that I have made for my personal use. Anyway, here is Coach Mac's 80s rom. 80s NHL.bin
  12. Finally a topic where I might be helpful to others - hockey history! I love Coach Mac's 70 somethin' concept and have been hoping for an 80 somethin' Hockey Night rom. His decade roms were once posted under the master list here, but the links are now dead. Based on my memory and some research, here are my best guesses as I look at the rom. I feel 90% sure about these answers. Boston 83 Buffalo 84 Calgary 89 Chicago 83 Detroit 88 Edmonton 84 Hartford 87 LA 81 Minnesota 81 Montreal 86 NJ 88 NYI 82 NYR 86 Philly 87 Pittsburgh 86 Quebec 85 St. Louis 86 Toronto 87 Vancouver 82 Washington 86 Winnipeg 85 I hope this info. helps!
  13. Thank you for the very thorough lesson! I think that I can follow these instructions - very clear even to me.
  14. Coach Mac's Historic Roms

    Coach, Do you use weight bug fix or weight bug fix+check bonus?