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'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!

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!

I disagree, and I'm going to make that argument anyway.. Haven't you heard "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one"? :p
It would be far easier for Experience to just be based on number of minutes and weighted by type of game (Cup, League, Playoff, etc) I see that most people who pulled the actual numbers got the same range of total minutes for experience pops.

I would agee with you and the main stream of the discussion:

-Experience well might be linear.

-There is a differentiation between games: scrimmages<regular<PO games. My personal guess for Cup, Final rounds and would be: regular<cup<PO Regular=<Final Cup games(from semifinal and up). Maybe Finals(League and Cup) are more important. NT games should be more important than a Regular game, but again, Semifinal and Final of european tournaments should be weighted more heavily than the other rounds, same goes for Consolation tournament and World Cup games, and again, first round games and the World's Final. A lot of classification yes, but quite easy to code if experience is linear.

-Another point of interest than can be add to discussion is the relevance of the "quality" of minutes played. I think this is achieved trought the clasification of games in the sense of the previous paragrapgh. Further discussion might include that, maybe, the last quarter of the game gives more experience than, say, the second. This would be consistent with the fact(?) that experience do plays a more important role in the 4th quarter. Maybe the same is true for the last mutes of every quarter but I don't really think the calculation of experience is much more complex than this.



About how experience works:

My personal theory is that since players have a subjective evaluation of every in-game decision they are presented, there should be an objective evaluation of every of those in-game decisions. I guess that there is a "noise variable" between the subjective and objective evaluation and experience is what modulate this.

So, experience is going to be working during to whole game making your players take, in a more consistent way, better decisitions. This won't make your SG a better shooter since their JS-JR-etc skills are the same, but it will make him a better scorer since he's going to be better in deciding when to shot. Again, this noise level are increased in the last minutes of every quarter and in the final quarter. This will make the noise-reduction effect of experience more important in those situationes than in the "regular moments" of the game.

I agree that it would be EASIER for it to be based on a simple solution, i just dont think it is. The simple solution is sometimes the most incorrect.... that reminds me of that maths problem, with a triangle, X on the hypotenuse, asking 'Find X'... and the student has circled X and written 'Here it is'....... anyways i digress.
I agree, it would be easier.

One guy had a range from 1400 mins to 1900 mins with some of his players before they popped. Im sure there is a minimum requirement for minutes, but it doesnt guarantee that your player will pop though. But i wouldnt call those numbers consistent. There very much needs to be a pool of players, of varying ages/experience, playing in different games, to gather enough stats to analyse this.

Maybe there is another variable, which is, the player will gain more experience points if he plays in a variety of positions in a season......
Or what about .... if he plays in a team that changes the type of offence/defence that the team plays each week... does that lead to more experience? maybe this should be going in the suggestions forum? :p

If people could kindly run numbers similar to how I did and post them we could all stop guessing and find some definitive data.

Thanks in Advanced