Kinda does, actually. But again, this can be fixed if you use the English language competently to clarify your point to what you meant to say, instead of what you said. You are trying to say that cards of a certain cost are not viable UNLESS there is a way to cheat those costs, because if there is then they can totally be viable. Or in other words
this.
You changed your mind?
You did it? Or is it more accurate to someone else did it?
So are we dropping the argument that âHigh Cost = Controlâ?
neither happenned actually.
you just didnt read my post completely.
you can nitpick and try to find edge cases that disprove stuff, but again, we are not in elementary school trying to one-up one another.
if you are looking for the exception to prove your point, you kinda prove MY point instead, since âin order to be an exception, there needs to be a rule firstâ.
wont put any more effort in my 3rd language afaik.
if someone wants to nitpick on languge instead of points, i chalk it up as a success of the argument being that strong that someone resorts to that instead.
To clarify, you didnât weight the average, you simply added up turns and divided by the number of lists?
Want to understand what number you are using. Also, average may be a bad indicator here for a number of reasons, but I appreciate the work and think it is a good place to disucss.
I would say you donât understand your own position correctly.
I have played Clown Druid. I therefore understand something that is still missing from the data that may change your mind again.
Clown Druid is more likely to win the longer the game plays out. Average is 7.5 because itâs losing the faster games since it has very limited defense.
Clown Druid is a late game deck in the sense that it seeks to survive to it, where it is most likely winning.
Because the ability of a deck to extend the game to the late game, and the ability to close out the game in that late game are 2 separate things.
Heavens no! I took the number of games recorded for each list off of HSReplay, had a separate column for (# of games) Ă (game length in turns), then took the sum of that column and divided it by the sum of the (# of games) column.
(Just for teh lulz, the way you said averages to 7.28.)
Edit: pretty much the same with median btw.
n(6.0)=530
n(6.5)=12,360
n(7.0)=7,820
n(7.5)=8,430
n(8.0)=4,410
n(8.5)=1,580
talladega_nights.png
Hell, son, I was high when I said that. That makes no sense at all. âThe exception proves the ruleâ?!? How are you supposed to disprove any rule then?
(It still wonât let me embed images.)
a)i didnt say that the exeption proves the rule. i said that if thereâs an excemption, there is a rule, there is a major difference between the two.
b)itâs a common saying where i am from.
c)the very definition of the word âexceptionâ relies upon the existence of a âruleâ that this is the exception of.
or else, what are you excempting of? nothing?
d)i mean, i do wait to hear how you can define exception without defining a rule firstâŚ
It is common where I am, too. But that doesnât make it intelligent.
I am hoping that I wonât have to explain the joke I was making, comparing the expression to âif youâre not first, youâre last,â to someone who earlier broke down the meaning of the /s tag in excruciating detail.
I will argue that speed is speed, and that correlating archetypes by their speed is incorrect.
With all due respect to the Hearthstone wiki, I reject the basis they are using to define Control.
Additionally you have to understand that there are decks that will generally win hardest in the late game, and as result if they are balanced within a meta will subsequently find it harder to reach said late game. And therefore should have a lower average turn count than a more defensive deck which doesnât win as hard.
To then argue that such decks are midrange is ridiculous because theyâre losing unless they reach a stage in the late game. We generally call those decks that lose hard to aggression and win hard to reactivity Combo.
Face face face is the place.