If you aren't buying the arguments, just look at the statistics. They all say it's good. That won't help you understand why it's good, but it should help show you that it is, indeed, good.
In the early 20th Century, statistically the vast majority of Germans thought Nazism was a good thing. Your argument is on the same lines. You don't seem to understand the subjectivity of mob-born popularity versus objective usefulness.
Essentially, just because it's used in a lot of decks has literally no bearing on the value of a card. People didn't use Prince Keleseth for a long time because "obviously it is a terrible card; look at the statistics - nobody plays that card, so if you think it's good that means you must not understand why it is bad"....
I think you can see the problem with this line of thinking here...
for one thing, Nazism and hearthstone are so different, there is no way you can compare them.
Strawman argument. I wasn't comparing Nazism and Hearthstone. I was comparing the thought that "something is good because a lot of people think it is" with the indisputable fact that this is what happened in Nazi Germany at the beginning of the century. (People thought Nazism was a good thing, and assumed that because so many other people agreed, then it must be true.)
and about keleseth, that card is now seen as good, and people like it, and how long did it take people to realize it was good? like a few months? and tracking has been around for like what? since the beginning? so we have had plenty of time to evaluate the card, and how good it is.
Tracking was not considered that good originally. It was only when a couple of influential people started claiming it was, months later, that people started thinking "Oh, if XXXX pro player says it's good, then it MUST be good, because #reasons..."
do you really think that every single pro player out there is mistaken? and you are the ONLY person who can see it? are you really that stubborn?
That's a silly argument. Using the Argument from Authority is a slippery slope. I suppose you think Einstein was a stubborn idiot? And Darwin? And Gallileo? The list goes on. Same principle applies here. Also. don't be so naive that just because a player calls themself a "pro" means they are in any way more qualified to make an opinion call about card quality. It means less than nothing. Simply do a search on Youtube for "Hearthsone Streamers were wrong about Rastakhan's Rumble cards" That brings back to the Keleseth point. One person had to originally decide it was actually a good card. Does that make him just stubborn? If being stubborn means being able to prove that you were right all along in the face of so many people being wrong, then sure: call me stubborn.
just because statistics are not always 100% correct does not mean that you are right, and tracking is bad.
That works both ways. So ditto back at ya. But the most important point there is that you just freely admitted that statistics are not always right. Since the apparently strongest argument FOR Tracking is that the statistics prove it so and we can't trust the statistics because they are not always right (as you have just said), then that actually concludes the argument there, I suppose.
but no, you assume that everyone else who plays hearthstone is mistaken, and only you, and a handful of others are right.
And yet judging by this thread alone, there are enough people who apparently agree with me that we could say the same thing about you. Swings and roundabouts, my friend.... Swings and roundabouts....
you do realize that I answered all your arguments and the only response was "well I could say all that back to you" but you didn't, I said it to you, and now you have to provide an answer.
and let me tell you sir, you are no Einstein. Einstein had facts, and figures. you are just shooting back. you are not providing any arguments to support your claim that tracking is a good card, but are instead trying to counter any argument saying it is.
Your argument is basically "I know you are, but what am I?" ?? I countered all your points (only one of which being the fact that your argument wasn't even an argument, because it could be taken either way) and that is your reply? Then let me finish the discussion with the following:
1. You couldn't dispute the fact you were using a strawman argument in relation to the Nazi analogy. 2. You tried to use the Argument from Authority (which I easily disproved by directing you to an example of where your "authority" figures have often been proven to be wrong anyway). Both in regards to Hearthstone and key figures in history. 3. I proved that Keleseth is a prime example of a card's value being completely disenfranchised from popularity of opinion. 4. You know nothing about me, so your point about me "being no Einstein" is completely false and irrelevant. For all you know, I could well be. It's none of your business. But your arrogance is somewhat laughable nonetheless. 5. Your biggest complaint is that I am countering all your arguments? Well, I think that's a good mic drop moment right there.
I saw a guy look to see what card might be a good choice against warrior. So nothing to do with statistics determining whether a particular card is good or not. Just statistics showing what card is useful in a particular cherry-picked scenario.
This is really funny comming from a guy who compares himself to Einstein. Did you know that everything is relative, scorpyon? Because you can never, never say a card is good or bad without a proper context. Statistics showing that a card is useful in a particular scenario are perfectly fine. Tracking has been a good card in many metas (and still is), but suddenly (like any other card) can turn into garbage if the context changes unfavorable against it.
Haha! Nice misquote there, Sherman. I never compared myself to Einstein, as I am pretty sure you can actually read even though you're pretending you cant. But in case I've been mistaken, let me reiterate. I used Einstein as an example of someone who had ideas and theories that went directly against popular opinion. I thought that was fairly obvious to most people, but it seems it needed some further explanation. I don't know why you've gotten a bee in your bonnet towards my posts all of a sudden, (all this because that guy told you off for being a jerk on the other thread? Seems a bit petty), but it's certainly getting a little weird now.
I have given plenty of reasonable evidence towards why I think Tracking is a bad card. I've been courteous (where possible) and civil in my replies to anyone who disagrees. I don't mind if people disagree. It's only subjective opinion at the end of the day. But don't insult my intelligence by pretending that anyone who disagrees with a popular opinion is instantly wrong or doesn't understand because you can't stomach the idea that they might actually be right. That's lazy debating and I have always thought better of you.
just hit the ignore button. That's what I've done.
Good man! That's often the best solution if you don't wish to take part in the discussion any more. I've often resorted to ignoring trolls who seek only to insult my posts rather than actually engage in useful conversation.
Yeah, that is why he said "here is a brief example", dude.
Sherman, what actual value to bring to a discussion? You're just the dude that stands there looking like a dick saying, "yeah man, what he said....unf unf unf"
Just....fuck off
WTF? How did such a post offend you that much? Calm down, I wasn't trying to be rude... :/
Like seriously, I'm not joking here. Maybe I shouldn't have said "dude" at the end, I don't know... :(
Fair enough then mate, I apologise. That's the issue with text-based communication. Clearly you wrote it in a completely different context to how I read it.
Looked all too obviously like, "Duh, are you stupid or something?". I just read into something that wasn't there. My bad!!
If you aren't buying the arguments, just look at the statistics. They all say it's good. That won't help you understand why it's good, but it should help show you that it is, indeed, good.
In the early 20th Century, statistically the vast majority of Germans thought Nazism was a good thing. Your argument is on the same lines. You don't seem to understand the subjectivity of mob-born popularity versus objective usefulness.
Essentially, just because it's used in a lot of decks has literally no bearing on the value of a card. People didn't use Prince Keleseth for a long time because "obviously it is a terrible card; look at the statistics - nobody plays that card, so if you think it's good that means you must not understand why it is bad"....
I think you can see the problem with this line of thinking here...
for one thing, Nazism and hearthstone are so different, there is no way you can compare them.
Strawman argument. I wasn't comparing Nazism and Hearthstone. I was comparing the thought that "something is good because a lot of people think it is" with the indisputable fact that this is what happened in Nazi Germany at the beginning of the century. (People thought Nazism was a good thing, and assumed that because so many other people agreed, then it must be true.)
and about keleseth, that card is now seen as good, and people like it, and how long did it take people to realize it was good? like a few months? and tracking has been around for like what? since the beginning? so we have had plenty of time to evaluate the card, and how good it is.
Tracking was not considered that good originally. It was only when a couple of influential people started claiming it was, months later, that people started thinking "Oh, if XXXX pro player says it's good, then it MUST be good, because #reasons..."
do you really think that every single pro player out there is mistaken? and you are the ONLY person who can see it? are you really that stubborn?
That's a silly argument. Using the Argument from Authority is a slippery slope. I suppose you think Einstein was a stubborn idiot? And Darwin? And Gallileo? The list goes on. Same principle applies here. Also. don't be so naive that just because a player calls themself a "pro" means they are in any way more qualified to make an opinion call about card quality. It means less than nothing. Simply do a search on Youtube for "Hearthsone Streamers were wrong about Rastakhan's Rumble cards" That brings back to the Keleseth point. One person had to originally decide it was actually a good card. Does that make him just stubborn? If being stubborn means being able to prove that you were right all along in the face of so many people being wrong, then sure: call me stubborn.
just because statistics are not always 100% correct does not mean that you are right, and tracking is bad.
That works both ways. So ditto back at ya. But the most important point there is that you just freely admitted that statistics are not always right. Since the apparently strongest argument FOR Tracking is that the statistics prove it so and we can't trust the statistics because they are not always right (as you have just said), then that actually concludes the argument there, I suppose.
but no, you assume that everyone else who plays hearthstone is mistaken, and only you, and a handful of others are right.
And yet judging by this thread alone, there are enough people who apparently agree with me that we could say the same thing about you. Swings and roundabouts, my friend.... Swings and roundabouts....
you do realize that I answered all your arguments and the only response was "well I could say all that back to you" but you didn't, I said it to you, and now you have to provide an answer.
and let me tell you sir, you are no Einstein. Einstein had facts, and figures. you are just shooting back. you are not providing any arguments to support your claim that tracking is a good card, but are instead trying to counter any argument saying it is.
Your argument is basically "I know you are, but what am I?" ?? I countered all your points (only one of which being the fact that your argument wasn't even an argument, because it could be taken either way) and that is your reply? Then let me finish the discussion with the following:
1. You couldn't dispute the fact you were using a strawman argument in relation to the Nazi analogy. 2. You tried to use the Argument from Authority (which I easily disproved by directing you to an example of where your "authority" figures have often been proven to be wrong anyway). Both in regards to Hearthstone and key figures in history. 3. I proved that Keleseth is a prime example of a card's value being completely disenfranchised from popularity of opinion. 4. You know nothing about me, so your point about me "being no Einstein" is completely false and irrelevant. For all you know, I could well be. It's none of your business. But your arrogance is somewhat laughable nonetheless. 5. Your biggest complaint is that I am countering all your arguments? Well, I think that's a good mic drop moment right there.
Thank you.
my point is, you are never actually making any arguments to support your claim. you are just shooting down ours. and we are not even talking about tracking anymore. now we are just arguing about what arguments we are making. and its annoying.
I am leaving this thread and never coming back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
my point is, you are never actually making any arguments to support your claim. you are just shooting down ours. and we are not even talking about tracking anymore. now we are just arguing about what arguments we are making. and its annoying.
I am leaving this thread and never coming back.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I apologise if I offended you. Perhaps if you can make a point that is discussable, it would be easier to have an actual discussion on it. Essentially the problem is that I have provided my points of view and I don't feel they have been countered at all other than by someone saying that "statistics prove it is wrong", but then this is disqualified by the fact that "the statistics are not always right".
Going back to the original point of the thread, which argument do you believe that I did not support exactly? I've given ample reasoning behind every argument I have made for my opinion of the the card Tracking
I believe that - while I don't believe Tracking is in the realms of being a bad card (if I used the term "bad" before, it may be out of language context; as a means to counterpoint the idea that it is particularly "good") - I don't think Tracking is as good as some people would believe. (For all the reasons I and others have previously listed on this thread). I mean, it's certainly not as bad as cards like Magma Rager, etc.
I saw a guy look to see what card might be a good choice against warrior. So nothing to do with statistics determining whether a particular card is good or not. Just statistics showing what card is useful in a particular cherry-picked scenario.
This is really funny comming from a guy who compares himself to Einstein. Did you know that everything is relative, scorpyon? Because you can never, never say a card is good or bad without a proper context. Statistics showing that a card is useful in a particular scenario are perfectly fine. Tracking has been a good card in many metas (and still is), but suddenly (like any other card) can turn into garbage if the context changes unfavorable against it.
Haha! Nice misquote there, Sherman. I never compared myself to Einstein, as I am pretty sure you can actually read even though you're pretending you cant. But in case I've been mistaken, let me reiterate. I used Einstein as an example of someone who had ideas and theories that went directly against popular opinion. I thought that was fairly obvious to most people, but it seems it needed some further explanation. I don't know why you've gotten a bee in your bonnet towards my posts all of a sudden, (all this because that guy told you off for being a jerk on the other thread? Seems a bit petty), but it's certainly getting a little weird now.
I have given plenty of reasonable evidence towards why I think Tracking is a bad card. I've been courteous (where possible) and civil in my replies to anyone who disagrees. I don't mind if people disagree. It's only subjective opinion at the end of the day. But don't insult my intelligence by pretending that anyone who disagrees with a popular opinion is instantly wrong or doesn't understand because you can't stomach the idea that they might actually be right. That's lazy debating and I have always thought better of you.
Ok, ok, this is going nowhere. You have your point of view and we have ours, and I should respect that. Also, when people is honestly nice with me (even just a bit) I can't continue being rude with them, that is my weakness and always will be (hehe, yeah, I know it sounds very silly, but I can not help it :P).
You are free for now, but next time it will not be so easy, scorpyon, hehe. ;)
I saw this little snippet in a post about Tracking from a long time ago on Reddit and it struck me as interesting, along with offering a reason as to why the value of the card has changed. For the best part of the life of Hearthstone, Hunter's game plan has (mostly) remained the same. Go face or tempo. Hard. Rinse and repeat.
To that end, Tracking has often shone in Hunter decks, because there were no other long term viable game plans available to it. And yet, over the course of the last couple of expansions, the Hunter class has begun to evolve and late-game strategies are developing. Decks such as Spell Hunter, or Recruit Hunter are pushing more and more to near fatigue, where those extra cards are becoming more and more important. You can look at how vital Rexxar is to the decks right now - this one of the biggest late-game cards it has.
And this explains the reasoning behind why Tracking was given such a good light for so long and why it has now changed / lessened in it's value overall.
Ok - to make a concession here. In one or two heavily aggro-focused decks, I can agree that Tracking is a really good card. When you need that quick find. But the problem is that the meta evolution is swinging heavily away from aggro decks. Soularium is a similar card to Tracking (in a way). It was insane in Zoolock while Zoolock was king of the meta a while back, but with the shift to late-game decks now becoming more and more heavy (and increased by the recent nerf to Hunter too), I do believe that it's value as a card has been diminished (perhaps more by the external factors of the changing meta than by how often it is or isnt played, statistically).
So I haven't read all the comments of this thread (sheesh, 149 comments) so sorry if my opinion comes off to be a bit of an ECHO chamber haHA
Anyway, the big reason why I love Tracking is just that the benefits most of the time outweigh the downsides. In most hunter decks, specific cards are ran for a specific reason but if a certain criterion isn't met, the card isn't going to work well. Play Dead is a great card but having it in your hand with no deathrattle minions to play it on isn't going to be useful for you. If I were to play Tracking and get play dead to pop up in this circumstance, I made sure that I didn't get a dead draw. In this way, I see Tracking as sort of a toolbox card similar to Shadow Visions. You play the card to try getting a specific type of card and either you get said type of card or you mill enough cards to make drawing that specific type of card to be more likely.
This leads onto the next reason why I think tracking is good. Tracking is also super useful for trying to get a specific card. In Wild Mech Hunter, there are three cards the deck needs incredibly badly in order to function, this being Mechwarper, Galvanizer, and Metaltooth Leaper. Even though Tracking is a 'slow' card in terms of aggro decks, it is able to offset this by making the chances of you getting one of the desired cards to be better.
For this reason, I don't see the "discard the other two cards you don't pick" clause on Tracking to be bad and actually a benefit in most cases. In MTG (and probability in general), there is something known as hypergeometric distribution, which is basically the probability of drawing a specific series of cards in a certain order without replacement. While in MTG this is mainly used for optimizing decklists to run a specific amount of lands, it can also be applied to Hearthstone for the chances of having tracking shoot you in the foot or not. By using hypergeometric distribution you can calculate the chances you hit several cards you want in a specific matchup isn't very high, meaning that playing Tracking most the time will guarantee not only getting one of the cards you want but getting you closer to getting other cards you want.
There is also the whole argument of "oh discarding cards isn't bad if you don't go to fatigue", but in my opinion and given the current state of DK Rexxar, Hunter has a lot more staying power so going to fatigue is always a possibility now. On top of this, Zul'jin works horribly with Tracking to the point where if I do plan on playing Zul'jin, I'll often wait to play Tracking until afterward. These are the only two 'flaws' I see in this card for the most part and I feel like the benefits the card can bring heavily outweigh the occasional dead draws the card would be down the line.
TL:DR: Hunter tends to play a lot of cards that rely on others to be good and Tracking helps get those said cards. Playing Tracking will more likely than get rid of cards you would not want to play in a certain matchup, thus bringing you closer to getting cards you would and the benefits that tracking gives to you outweigh the downsides of faster fatigue and being hot garbage with Zul'jin.
You blasted new people never learned about Godwin's Law? This argument ended several pages ago!
For the best part of the life of Hearthstone, Hunter's game plan has (mostly) remained the same. Go face or tempo. Hard. Rinse and repeat.
To that end, Tracking has often shone in Hunter decks, because there were no other long term viable game plans available to it. And yet, over the course of the last couple of expansions, the Hunter class has begun to evolve and late-game strategies are developing. Decks such as Spell Hunter, or Recruit Hunter are pushing more and more to near fatigue, where those extra cards are becoming more and more important. You can look at how vital Rexxar is to the decks right now - this one of the biggest late-game cards it has.
And this explains the reasoning behind why Tracking was given such a good light for so long and why it has now changed / lessened in it's value overall.
This idea mostly works, except that the current decks have moved back into a Tempo mindset with Recruit hunter fading out in favor of Deathrattle hunter (with less reliance on those key cards in the late game) and then moving on back to a beast mindset. Thus Tracking has come back into vogue, which is why many people are getting so confused as to why it's suddenly being used everywhere.
Also note that in the past Tracking wasn't nearly as used. A simple reason: we all sucked at the game, pros included (which makes sense since the game had JUST came out). It's also why we REALLY hated on Nourish when we should've known that it was a good card that just didn't fit with Combo Druid.
But nitpicking aside, the overall jist is clear: tracking works in Aggro and Tempo mindsets, doesn't work in Combo mindsets, and is a Tech possibility in Control Mindsets. It stops being useful when you have a lot of MUST HAVE TO WINS and don't have to rush to an advantage. It becomes more useful when you have a lot of good cards that are flexible, have one card you are trying to get ASAP, or where delaying the game is Bad for you.
That's the mark of a good card. Not an OP card. Not a broken card. A GOOD and well designed card.
You blasted new people never learned about Godwin's Law? This argument ended several pages ago!
For the best part of the life of Hearthstone, Hunter's game plan has (mostly) remained the same. Go face or tempo. Hard. Rinse and repeat.
To that end, Tracking has often shone in Hunter decks, because there were no other long term viable game plans available to it. And yet, over the course of the last couple of expansions, the Hunter class has begun to evolve and late-game strategies are developing. Decks such as Spell Hunter, or Recruit Hunter are pushing more and more to near fatigue, where those extra cards are becoming more and more important. You can look at how vital Rexxar is to the decks right now - this one of the biggest late-game cards it has.
And this explains the reasoning behind why Tracking was given such a good light for so long and why it has now changed / lessened in it's value overall.
This idea mostly works, except that the current decks have moved back into a Tempo mindset with Recruit hunter fading out in favor of Deathrattle hunter (with less reliance on those key cards in the late game) and then moving on back to a beast mindset. Thus Tracking has come back into vogue, which is why many people are getting so confused as to why it's suddenly being used everywhere.
Also note that in the past Tracking wasn't nearly as used. A simple reason: we all sucked at the game, pros included (which makes sense since the game had JUST came out). It's also why we REALLY hated on Nourish when we should've known that it was a good card that just didn't fit with Combo Druid.
But nitpicking aside, the overall jist is clear: tracking works in Aggro and Tempo mindsets, doesn't work in Combo mindsets, and is a Tech possibility in Control Mindsets. It stops being useful when you have a lot of MUST HAVE TO WINS and don't have to rush to an advantage. It becomes more useful when you have a lot of good cards that are flexible, have one card you are trying to get ASAP, or where delaying the game is Bad for you.
That's the mark of a good card. Not an OP card. Not a broken card. A GOOD and well designed card.
So is it fair to say that what we are theoretically heading towards here is "something" along the lines of:
The usefulness and overall power of Tracking as a card is based more on the prevalent meta (for the class) and dominance of either early or late-game based deck strategies than most other factors and hence (depending on the meta state) it can be viewed equally as a good and bad tech choice depending on those said meta circumstances?
So is it fair to say that what we are theoretically heading towards here is "something" along the lines of:
The usefulness and overall power of Tracking as a card is based more on the prevalent meta (for the class) and dominance of either early or late-game based deck strategies than most other factors and hence (depending on the meta state) it can be viewed equally as a good and bad tech choice depending on those said meta circumstances?
Because I could kind of get behind that, I think.
Actually I would go more of the deck rather than the meta. For example, Beast Hunter will LOVE to use Tracking every time as they live and die by the tempo.
The usefulness and overall power of Tracking as a card is based more on the goals and driving force behind your deck and archetype focused around the dominance of either early or late-game based strategies your deck contains than most other factors and hence (depending on the deck) it can be viewed equally as a good and bad tech choice depending on those said circumstances.
You know, like any actually HEALTHY card that isn't utterly worthless or so OP it's an autoinclude. An honest look at tracking isn't a matter of "Is this good enough." It's about "is this a card I need for my strategy?" Meta calls matter indirectly only because the meta SHOULD determine your deck and strategy, then your strategy and deck determine the use of Tracking.
This is actually the state that most of our cards should be at. You should not want to put most cards into every deck or use it only because you want to be edgey or meme. You're supposed to have a goal then look for cards that fit that goal. If that goal makes Tracking appealing then yes, it's a great card to use. If not then you have no need for Tracking.
it's a draw for 1 mana, it had to have a downside, every card that ever drew a card for 1 mana had to be nerfed, Shiv, Flare and prerelease Purify, because drawng for 1 mana is actually really really powerful, not only that with tracking, you actually get to choose your draw. so yeah, it had to have a downside.
IF Tracking's text was something like "Pick three cards from your deck....." as iandakar elaborated, then Tracking would be a no-brainer. But because it's the top three, the value of the card is essentially "does one card now at the expense of two others provide me with more value than all three cards over the subsequent three turns" - and that is purely situational.
Assuming you meant to say "Pick one of three random cards from your deck", can you elaborate on why you think this to be true?
I'll clue you in that some of the strong responses here probably come from MtG players, since it's been widely accepted, for probably over a decade, that there's no difference between the top or the bottom of the deck, as long as noone has any information about cards in the deck (ie. It matters if you definitively know an important card is at the bottom of the deck in this match, because it should affect your playstyle). This doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why I would care about the cards being burned off the top or randomly.
As far as I can tell from the quoted paragraph, you're worrying about burning cards in a specific instance where it may or may not turn out that cards drawn anyway may have mattered on their own (moreso than the next 2 drawn cards, which is now 2 further into a pile you have no information of). As a sidenote, it's important to remember we would not have been 1 card deeper into these 3 cards in the absence of Tracking, merely with another card that, presumably, does not interact with the next 3 cards in the deck.
At the same time you mentioned earlier that... "You've got an equal chance of thinning out the deck in favour of your situation, and thinning out the deck in a detrimental way. Sure if the deck is weighted more to the early or late game you have a higher probability of thinning out to that part of the curve, but overall statistically there should be no net benefit to thinning the deck as all cards are random." Which leads me back to the notion that over the course of many games, the cards burned have no inherently favorable or detrimental outcomes, no matter where they came from in the deck. However! They share the common traits that (1) you decided which were burned, and (2) that they were, in fact, burned and cannot be drawn in this game. This is a degree of information which these cards will never provide you simply residing in the deck.
Edit: I have no clue how to format quotes on this site. RIP.
Your argument is basically "I know you are, but what am I?" ??
I countered all your points (only one of which being the fact that your argument wasn't even an argument, because it could be taken either way) and that is your reply?
Then let me finish the discussion with the following:
1. You couldn't dispute the fact you were using a strawman argument in relation to the Nazi analogy.
2. You tried to use the Argument from Authority (which I easily disproved by directing you to an example of where your "authority" figures have often been proven to be wrong anyway). Both in regards to Hearthstone and key figures in history.
3. I proved that Keleseth is a prime example of a card's value being completely disenfranchised from popularity of opinion.
4. You know nothing about me, so your point about me "being no Einstein" is completely false and irrelevant. For all you know, I could well be. It's none of your business. But your arrogance is somewhat laughable nonetheless.
5. Your biggest complaint is that I am countering all your arguments? Well, I think that's a good mic drop moment right there.
Thank you.
Haha! Nice misquote there, Sherman.
I never compared myself to Einstein, as I am pretty sure you can actually read even though you're pretending you cant.
But in case I've been mistaken, let me reiterate. I used Einstein as an example of someone who had ideas and theories that went directly against popular opinion. I thought that was fairly obvious to most people, but it seems it needed some further explanation.
I don't know why you've gotten a bee in your bonnet towards my posts all of a sudden, (all this because that guy told you off for being a jerk on the other thread? Seems a bit petty), but it's certainly getting a little weird now.
I have given plenty of reasonable evidence towards why I think Tracking is a bad card.
I've been courteous (where possible) and civil in my replies to anyone who disagrees. I don't mind if people disagree. It's only subjective opinion at the end of the day.
But don't insult my intelligence by pretending that anyone who disagrees with a popular opinion is instantly wrong or doesn't understand because you can't stomach the idea that they might actually be right.
That's lazy debating and I have always thought better of you.
Good man!
That's often the best solution if you don't wish to take part in the discussion any more.
I've often resorted to ignoring trolls who seek only to insult my posts rather than actually engage in useful conversation.
Fair enough then mate, I apologise. That's the issue with text-based communication. Clearly you wrote it in a completely different context to how I read it.
Looked all too obviously like, "Duh, are you stupid or something?". I just read into something that wasn't there. My bad!!
my point is, you are never actually making any arguments to support your claim. you are just shooting down ours. and we are not even talking about tracking anymore. now we are just arguing about what arguments we are making. and its annoying.
I am leaving this thread and never coming back.
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I apologise if I offended you.
Perhaps if you can make a point that is discussable, it would be easier to have an actual discussion on it.
Essentially the problem is that I have provided my points of view and I don't feel they have been countered at all other than by someone saying that "statistics prove it is wrong", but then this is disqualified by the fact that "the statistics are not always right".
Going back to the original point of the thread, which argument do you believe that I did not support exactly? I've given ample reasoning behind every argument I have made for my opinion of the the card Tracking
I believe that - while I don't believe Tracking is in the realms of being a bad card (if I used the term "bad" before, it may be out of language context; as a means to counterpoint the idea that it is particularly "good") - I don't think Tracking is as good as some people would believe. (For all the reasons I and others have previously listed on this thread).
I mean, it's certainly not as bad as cards like Magma Rager, etc.
Either post on topic or just don't post. Certain people have turned this into a tit-for-tat pissing match.
Ok, ok, this is going nowhere. You have your point of view and we have ours, and I should respect that. Also, when people is honestly nice with me (even just a bit) I can't continue being rude with them, that is my weakness and always will be (hehe, yeah, I know it sounds very silly, but I can not help it :P).
You are free for now, but next time it will not be so easy, scorpyon, hehe. ;)
I saw this little snippet in a post about Tracking from a long time ago on Reddit and it struck me as interesting, along with offering a reason as to why the value of the card has changed.
For the best part of the life of Hearthstone, Hunter's game plan has (mostly) remained the same. Go face or tempo. Hard. Rinse and repeat.
To that end, Tracking has often shone in Hunter decks, because there were no other long term viable game plans available to it.
And yet, over the course of the last couple of expansions, the Hunter class has begun to evolve and late-game strategies are developing. Decks such as Spell Hunter, or Recruit Hunter are pushing more and more to near fatigue, where those extra cards are becoming more and more important.
You can look at how vital Rexxar is to the decks right now - this one of the biggest late-game cards it has.
And this explains the reasoning behind why Tracking was given such a good light for so long and why it has now changed / lessened in it's value overall.
Ok - to make a concession here. In one or two heavily aggro-focused decks, I can agree that Tracking is a really good card. When you need that quick find. But the problem is that the meta evolution is swinging heavily away from aggro decks. Soularium is a similar card to Tracking (in a way). It was insane in Zoolock while Zoolock was king of the meta a while back, but with the shift to late-game decks now becoming more and more heavy (and increased by the recent nerf to Hunter too), I do believe that it's value as a card has been diminished (perhaps more by the external factors of the changing meta than by how often it is or isnt played, statistically).
So I haven't read all the comments of this thread (sheesh, 149 comments) so sorry if my opinion comes off to be a bit of an ECHO chamber haHA
Anyway, the big reason why I love Tracking is just that the benefits most of the time outweigh the downsides. In most hunter decks, specific cards are ran for a specific reason but if a certain criterion isn't met, the card isn't going to work well. Play Dead is a great card but having it in your hand with no deathrattle minions to play it on isn't going to be useful for you. If I were to play Tracking and get play dead to pop up in this circumstance, I made sure that I didn't get a dead draw. In this way, I see Tracking as sort of a toolbox card similar to Shadow Visions. You play the card to try getting a specific type of card and either you get said type of card or you mill enough cards to make drawing that specific type of card to be more likely.
This leads onto the next reason why I think tracking is good. Tracking is also super useful for trying to get a specific card. In Wild Mech Hunter, there are three cards the deck needs incredibly badly in order to function, this being Mechwarper, Galvanizer, and Metaltooth Leaper. Even though Tracking is a 'slow' card in terms of aggro decks, it is able to offset this by making the chances of you getting one of the desired cards to be better.
For this reason, I don't see the "discard the other two cards you don't pick" clause on Tracking to be bad and actually a benefit in most cases. In MTG (and probability in general), there is something known as hypergeometric distribution, which is basically the probability of drawing a specific series of cards in a certain order without replacement. While in MTG this is mainly used for optimizing decklists to run a specific amount of lands, it can also be applied to Hearthstone for the chances of having tracking shoot you in the foot or not. By using hypergeometric distribution you can calculate the chances you hit several cards you want in a specific matchup isn't very high, meaning that playing Tracking most the time will guarantee not only getting one of the cards you want but getting you closer to getting other cards you want.
There is also the whole argument of "oh discarding cards isn't bad if you don't go to fatigue", but in my opinion and given the current state of DK Rexxar, Hunter has a lot more staying power so going to fatigue is always a possibility now. On top of this, Zul'jin works horribly with Tracking to the point where if I do plan on playing Zul'jin, I'll often wait to play Tracking until afterward. These are the only two 'flaws' I see in this card for the most part and I feel like the benefits the card can bring heavily outweigh the occasional dead draws the card would be down the line.
TL:DR: Hunter tends to play a lot of cards that rely on others to be good and Tracking helps get those said cards. Playing Tracking will more likely than get rid of cards you would not want to play in a certain matchup, thus bringing you closer to getting cards you would and the benefits that tracking gives to you outweigh the downsides of faster fatigue and being hot garbage with Zul'jin.
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
ITT: learn not HOW but WHEN to play Tracking in order to become a real Hunter pro.
Its basically graceful charity from Yugioh. Broken as FUCK.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
The usefulness and overall power of Tracking as a card is based more on the prevalent meta (for the class) and dominance of either early or late-game based deck strategies than most other factors and hence (depending on the meta state) it can be viewed equally as a good and bad tech choice depending on those said meta circumstances?
Because I could kind of get behind that, I think.
That's the Sherman we know and love. <3
Actually I would go more of the deck rather than the meta. For example, Beast Hunter will LOVE to use Tracking every time as they live and die by the tempo.
The usefulness and overall power of Tracking as a card is based more on the goals and driving force behind your deck and archetype focused around the dominance of either early or late-game based strategies your deck contains than most other factors and hence (depending on the deck) it can be viewed equally as a good and bad tech choice depending on those said circumstances.
You know, like any actually HEALTHY card that isn't utterly worthless or so OP it's an autoinclude. An honest look at tracking isn't a matter of "Is this good enough." It's about "is this a card I need for my strategy?" Meta calls matter indirectly only because the meta SHOULD determine your deck and strategy, then your strategy and deck determine the use of Tracking.
This is actually the state that most of our cards should be at. You should not want to put most cards into every deck or use it only because you want to be edgey or meme. You're supposed to have a goal then look for cards that fit that goal. If that goal makes Tracking appealing then yes, it's a great card to use. If not then you have no need for Tracking.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Reason 1 just look at the winrate
2 dk is op you want him in hand fast
This is why tracking is, at present, very good.
If a single card can change the entire tone of the game then anything that puts it in your hand sooner is very useful.
You can read tracking as "draw Rexxar (or Zul'jin) theth turns earlier". That's game- changing
power word:shield
Pepehands
I'll clue you in that some of the strong responses here probably come from MtG players, since it's been widely accepted, for probably over a decade, that there's no difference between the top or the bottom of the deck, as long as noone has any information about cards in the deck (ie. It matters if you definitively know an important card is at the bottom of the deck in this match, because it should affect your playstyle). This doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why I would care about the cards being burned off the top or randomly.
As far as I can tell from the quoted paragraph, you're worrying about burning cards in a specific instance where it may or may not turn out that cards drawn anyway may have mattered on their own (moreso than the next 2 drawn cards, which is now 2 further into a pile you have no information of). As a sidenote, it's important to remember we would not have been 1 card deeper into these 3 cards in the absence of Tracking, merely with another card that, presumably, does not interact with the next 3 cards in the deck.
At the same time you mentioned earlier that...
"You've got an equal chance of thinning out the deck in favour of your situation, and thinning out the deck in a detrimental way. Sure if the deck is weighted more to the early or late game you have a higher probability of thinning out to that part of the curve, but overall statistically there should be no net benefit to thinning the deck as all cards are random."
Which leads me back to the notion that over the course of many games, the cards burned have no inherently favorable or detrimental outcomes, no matter where they came from in the deck. However! They share the common traits that (1) you decided which were burned, and (2) that they were, in fact, burned and cannot be drawn in this game. This is a degree of information which these cards will never provide you simply residing in the deck.
Edit: I have no clue how to format quotes on this site. RIP.