BuzzerBeater Forums

OK..I was being lazy. I did use the word about. But I was way off( sorry)I went back and added scrimages to my excel sheet. My player popped on March 16 in a game he only played 9 minutes. Since then, not including PL games, he had played a total of 1118 minutes between his awful pop and his inept pop. I have two other players at about the 1000 minutes mark so when they pop I will let you know( both awful experience) Also, my 1st assessment ( 750 minutes) was wrong, but I do believe it takes only a season and a half to get an experience pop which is between 1100-1200 minutes for a starter on ones team. The 1600 minutes seems way too long between pops, but you never know, it was a pop to mediorce which I have no expericene with. I do plan on keeping my player for a while, so I will see if the inept to mediorce pop takes longer. Peace

I don't think the "important minutes" theory is correct. I think the computer programming for that would be far too advanced and complicated to make it worthwhile.

Interestingly enough my mini experiment documenting one of my players minutes played between mediocre and average experience was completed tonight. Here are my results:

Wow, that was for a pop to average. Nice...

im sure i read a bb post on that bb answers questions day where a bb clearly states that depending on the situation in a game exp gained may be different.

example: pg1 plays 36 mins (including the last 12 mins) in a game where his team is winning easily 102-40
pg2 plays 36 mins (including the last 12 mins) in a game where his team scraps through 102-100

id say that pg2 is going to come out of the game with more exp then pg1. im fairly sure thats how it works here an while i dont have any actual evidence (except a memory of reading a bb post on it) i think it makes sense for it to work like this.

id also expect if a game went into overtime that players would get more exp then games that didnt and not just because they played more mins .

im sure i read a bb post on that bb answers questions day where a bb clearly states that depending on the situation in a game exp gained may be different.

i know which post you mean, but this was about why 18 year old starts with respectable Experience and 31 old have atrocious starting values there - so it wasn't really on topic about XP raises in the game.

And yes they change the system^^

I have a theory about experience that I am going to be kind enough to share with you without charge. It's pretty elaborate, based on lots of speculation, and thus could be wildly wrong. With that caveat, here goes:

I think of a given player's performance as being a result of (a) his skills and (b) the intangibles. Within (b) I place Game Shape, Stamina, and Experience. The importance of Game Shape in defining a player's performance is obvious to any one who has been through a season or two of this game. I have recently (over the last couple of seasons) discovered the benefits of Stamina, which I understand as the ability to sustain peak performance in a game. In both of these cases, all skills are enhanced (from what I can tell) -- to put it more broadly, players "play better" (that is, no one skill works better, but I think they all do).

BuzzerBeater is a relatively young game -- we are only in season 12 -- and for that reason I think Experience is the least understood, least appreciated, and least exploited of the "intangibles". To make a cheap joke, we have no experience with Experience. My guess is the effect of Experience is similar to that of Game Shape and Stamina -- all skills are maximized with the most experienced. I expect that as our understanding of the game matures, more coaches will come to value a player with high Experience -- indeed, because it can not be "trained", it may prove to be more valuable than Stamina or Game Shape.

Implications? As with so much of this game, balance is important. Right now, coaches fall all over the 18-year old with great potential, but place no premium on the solid, experienced pro (judging from the Transfer List). I once thought 26-year olds were not worth the effort, but now I am guessing that a 26-year old with a decent skill set but much experience may be much more useful to my team than a comparably skilled 19-year old who demands a great deal of time and attention (training).

That said, an Experienced player is still limited by his skill set. I don't think a squad full of 27-year old inexpensive, but experienced, would be a wise way of building a winner. And LeBron at 20 is much better than Corey Maggette at 30, but Steve Nash young is not as good as Steve Nash experienced.

i know which post you mean, but this was about why 18 year old starts with respectable Experience and 31 old have atrocious starting values there - so it wasn't really on topic about XP raises in the game.

And yes they change the system^^

this is not the post i was talking about.
the post i was talking about was directly about exp gained via mins and what effects the amount of exp

I am skeptical. Can you find some proof?