BuzzerBeater Forums

Could it be that a player could gain more experience quality minutes if he hits a shot with under a minute to play in a tie game, verse a guy who hits a shot in the 2nd quarter with his team leading by 12?

I am thinking. Is the Divisions the players play affect their experience? I mean will a Naismith player gain more experience if he plays 1400 mins in Naismith than a player that plays 1400 mins in Canada III.2?

I am thinking. Is the Divisions the players play affect their experience? I mean will a Naismith player gain more experience if he plays 1400 mins in Naismith than a player that plays 1400 mins in Canada III.2?

in this point i am pretty sure, and the answer is no.

NEXT QUESTION: Does Home court advantage play less of a role against a visiting experienced player ratrhter than a visiting non-experienced player.

AS in real life, experienced players have been in every arena many times so I would assume they would start to feel comfortable infront of the enemy crowd.

Could it be that a player could gain more experience quality minutes if he hits a shot with under a minute to play in a tie game, verse a guy who hits a shot in the 2nd quarter with his team leading by 12?

I've seen a statement supporting this somewhere. It would make sense as well. A player making clutch shots and *** BuzzerBeater*** shots gains more experience from making that shot. The player comes away with confidence and the ability to make such a shot again in the future. A player consistently missing these kinds of shots does not grow as quickly in experience.

I have doubts about it working this way simply because this would require far more complexity than its worth.

I also have doubt because it takes 1 second to take a clutch shot. So how would they calculate the "more valuable" time? I just don't think this is true, and as yet no one has been able to find any validation.

Disclaimer....this is only speculation....
I bet that the game value goes something like this...
.5 scrimmages
1.0 for normal league games
1.25...rival games and early cup games
1.5 for playoff games, sweet 16 cup games,
1.75...Finals, Cup finals, NT games

Like I said, I am just thinking here..
What does everyone else think?

Maybe it is, because NT players are pretty much focused on theirs main skills. From what I know are experiences about making decisions. Therefore if is that player trained from his young age on scoring and defending mostly, I can assume that he can decide nothing but to defend, take a ball and score.
This will be different on different positions, so PG will not get so much experience by passing ball, because it is what he have to do usually every game, not only on some key situations.

I suppose that xp is hugely influenced by difficulty of the game, also by type of the game. But another factor could be skills which gives player opportunity to make a decision. This my player:

Driving: prominent Passing: pitiful
Inside Shot: prominent Inside Def.: respectable
Rebounding: inept Shot Blocking: mediocre

had last season pitiful experience, now has awful level. Because his driving is prominent from the last season and this one is training IS, league is kind of poor (I have 14 wins and Im in the game for a two seasons), everytime he decide to drive, IS is only skill which can be a problem for him.

So there is small percentage probability that best way to get experienced player is on the team where he have any chance to do a key role, to play even games and to have skills which helps decide - on a high level first.

Ok so my theory is as follows:
All the other skills in the game, directly effect the players resultant skills in the actual game. Training Jump shot, makes the player's jump shot better. Rebounding, makes a player rebound better.
So if the RESULT of a skill popping is because the player was trained in that skill, then i believe that you should analyse the RESULT of higher experienced player in a game, and that will be what players have to 'train' in order to get more experience. Of course, its all in game training.

So going along with that theory, it has been observed that some of the benefits of an experienced player are:
Better 4th quarter play
Better 'crunch/clutch decision making'
etc

So in order for a player to GAIN experience, the player must, ironically, experience those things.

eg: Player 1 vs player 2. Both of similar age, experience, everything... on same team in same game, a close tough game.
Player 1 plays all of 4th quarter, total minutes in game 30, takes shots in 4th quarter, goes to line a few times in the last few minutes when the scores are tied, doesnt turn the ball over, etc etc.
Player 2 plays 30 minutes also, but only plays 4 mins in the last quarter, and basically doesn't touch the ball in those 4 minutes.
One would think that player 1 would get a better sub-pop experience value after that game, vs player 2.

I believe that, in line with all the other skills in the game, which get trained, and then definitively result in that player improving in that skill, that you should look at the benefits of an experienced player, and reverse engineer that, to make the assumption that players must EXPERIENCE those situations, in order to gain a higher experience rating, per game.

The theory keeps in line with all other skills and how they pop during a season, and the resultant benefit. Its just a bit of reverse engineering i believe. Minutes + in game situations + time of in game situations + success of in game situations (plus other things like, opposition quality, whether its a play-off game or normal league game)

I dont think there is any weight behind the argument that it would be too hard to code this into the game..... look at what they have coded already! My goodness! Each game is 48 minutes of 10-20 players each with differing skill levels, playing various offence vs defence ratings, all combined together! Coding the experience benefit would be a piece of cake compared to the game engine design.
Only problem with my argument is that i have no way to really quantify it. Doesn't mean its wrong though does it!