I might say that, for AI5, time to win is more important than turns to win.
Time to win is directly related to turns to win. Since people tend to...doze off, eat, get distracted by the TV, or think too much during a duel, Turns to Win is a much better way of giving estimates of speed for a deck. Under normal circumstances you can safely say that the faster the deck can win, the less time it will take you to win a duel.
Thats both true and not. When two decks have the same ttw, the win time becomes very important. Win time is the stat that a grinder will look at most closely. i.e. what deck gets me to upgraded cards the quickest.
Speaking of upped cards, keeping a tally of upped cards won is an absolute must to the success of this study. With any luck we can determine the average games to upped card, which will be huge in the viability of grinding AI5.
That adds another issue entirely. We've never done spins for AI3 TTWing; doing so for this would make Electrum per minute much more complicated to obtain.
I might say that, for AI5, time to win is more important than turns to win.
Time to win is directly related to turns to win. Since people tend to...doze off, eat, get distracted by the TV, or think too much during a duel, Turns to Win is a much better way of giving estimates of speed for a deck. Under normal circumstances you can safely say that the faster the deck can win, the less time it will take you to win a duel.
That might be true for "easy decks", but compare playing 1 turn with 'mutation 
with 23 creatures doing all sorts of tricks and stuff' vs. merely using Eternity lock to stall AI.
Uh yes, but I don't think that a mutation
is going to ever be the most efficient AI5 grinder there is. When it comes to rushing, or winning quickly, simpler is better.
I'm well aware that time spent on a game is the most important, but I didn't say it wasn't effective, I said it would lead to inconsistencies because compared to simply winning games, there is much more room for error when actually timing yourself for optimal speed.
And I believe we already had a discussion about doing real time versus in game time during the first TTW Study already, so I don't understand exactly why there's such a problem with doing it the same way now just because the possibility of winning upped cards comes into play. I'm fine with doing a study in terms of time, just don't refer to it as a "TTW" study in that case.
So for this study we must include spins also? Won't that throw off the electrum gained per game/ total? I guess we need to start making a tally for the +5 in spins for AI5 when it comes 'round.
No, just note somewhere how many upped cards you winalong the course of 100 games. The fact that you can win upped cards from AI5 while potentially using a deck good for AI3/T50 can completely change the way people play if we find it lucrative and possible. People will not be bound to play the fg and can use the deck they make for AI3 to play AI5 as well.
All this assumes we find a rush that is actually good versus AI5 which may or may not happen.
Actually no, there's a much simpler way to calculate electrum gained without screwing up the estimate in the process. All you would need to do is use: Score gained + [~5 * # of EMs] to get your electrum earned. While it's more time consuming than the method we have now, it works.
~ = The difference between score and electrum when an EM game is won. While I believe this number is 5 no matter what AI is played, I can't be too sure.
