Thank you so much for your input iandakar! I always like seeing your name pop up.
I wish your statement was a correct one, as it would *definitely* change my mind about this card. However the text of the card is:
"Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Draw one and discard the others" - therefore you're guaranteed to be discarding two cards that you would've drawn. Come to think of it, it's like a premature Doomguard with no charge :D
Blah. And we also confirmed that there is a 'deck' with cards actually placed in order, so you really are just pulling the next 3 cards.
Yeah, that sort of messes up the argument there.
Well then, I will piece it together like this:
In many hunter decks, there isn't a card that would really put you in that situation. The Tempo advantage of being able to pull a card of your choice rather than wait 3 turns for it should outweigh the value loss of the other two cards. Against most opponents you aren't playing the value game, you are trying to kill them before they recover the board.
If you ARE looking for a specific card that MUST win you the game, then the other two cards are worth the cost of knowing it's going to be available. Meanwhile if that card doesn't show up, you are now 3 cards ahead of your deck in obtaining it. Vs Odd Warrior, you NEED that DK asap. 3 random cards over 3 turns isn't worth having the DK show up 4 turns late, and there's no card that you should regret losing in order to have DK either show up earlier or be in your hand now.
So the time when Tracking does hurt is when you are playing such a value game that multiple cards gained slowly are critical for you to have to win. If and ONLY if this is the case is Tracking a bad play. If your deck regularly faces this situation (i.e.some versions of Deathrattle) then Tracking isn't a good card to have. However, I bet a lot of players are valuing Value far more than they should and not valuing Tempo enough.
To put it another way, and hoping I'm more accurate this time: What do you willing to sacrifice 3 turns of waiting in order to have more cards, or to have the card you need RIGHT NOW at the cost of 2 cards? Do you lose games more from not having enough cards or do you lose games more from not having the right card at the right time?
Just to drop a "Matrix" bomb in here at this point (and it may be entirely irrelevant to the argument), but from a coding perspective, there actually is no deck.
Assuming that the program stores card data in a standard C# format (which I believe Hearthstone is written in), then it would like store the data in either an IList<ICard> or ICollection<ICard> format - both of which are actually ordered lists. Not to mention that programmatically, there is actually no such thing as "randomisation" in the hard factual sense. It is all predetermined algorithmically. But that's another rabbit hole.
The point I am (somewhat messily) adhering to is that the top three cards of your deck are actually most likely not going to be the top three. They are likely to be "randomly" selected from a preordered list in the code - but this gives the illusion that your deck actually exists... It's all rather cool - though at the same time, something of a mind-boggle.
I had to do a number of similar functionalities like this while working on a card game in Runescape back in the day. :-)
That's some pretty trippy shit! So essentially there is no way to hypothesise potential alternative outcomes because the reality is every single time something is rerun, a different draw will happen. So effectively you could, from a programmatic sense, state that iandakar IS correct and that Tracking draws three cards from random places within the deck.
And to me, that COMPLETELY changes the value of the card....... O_o
Thank you so much for your input iandakar! I always like seeing your name pop up.
I wish your statement was a correct one, as it would *definitely* change my mind about this card. However the text of the card is:
"Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Draw one and discard the others" - therefore you're guaranteed to be discarding two cards that you would've drawn. Come to think of it, it's like a premature Doomguard with no charge :D
Blah. And we also confirmed that there is a 'deck' with cards actually placed in order, so you really are just pulling the next 3 cards.
Yeah, that sort of messes up the argument there.
Hang on, there IS a deck that it draws sequentially from programmatically? Have I misinterpreted what scorpyn posted regarding "most likely not going to be the top three"?
Just to drop a "Matrix" bomb in here at this point (and it may be entirely irrelevant to the argument), but from a coding perspective, there actually is no deck.
Assuming that the program stores card data in a standard C# format (which I believe Hearthstone is written in), then it would like store the data in either an IList<ICard> or ICollection<ICard> format - both of which are actually ordered lists. Not to mention that programmatically, there is actually no such thing as "randomisation" in the hard factual sense. It is all predetermined algorithmically. But that's another rabbit hole.
The point I am (somewhat messily) adhering to is that the top three cards of your deck are actually most likely not going to be the top three. They are likely to be "randomly" selected from a preordered list in the code - but this gives the illusion that your deck actually exists... It's all rather cool - though at the same time, something of a mind-boggle.
I had to do a number of similar functionalities like this while working on a card game in Runescape back in the day. :-)
That's some pretty trippy shit! So essentially there is no way to hypothesise potential alternative outcomes because the reality is every single time something is rerun, a different draw will happen. So effectively you could, from a programmatic sense, state that iandakar IS correct and that Tracking draws three cards from random places within the deck.
And to me, that COMPLETELY changes the value of the card....... O_o
EXCEPT that Blizzard flat out said that the deck truly exists and that 'the top card' is, in fact, the top card. We have further confirmation in the Monster Hunt. You have the ability to reroll a turn, making all random effects rerandomize. The card draw always remains static, effectively saying that it's NOT random. Effectively, if we were to have Tracking run, then turn back time, then play Tracking again, we would get the same three cards. If we didn't play tracking that second time, the three cards would show up in the next three turns.
The only way to declare that there's no actual deck is to deem Blizzard as lying to us and purposely mislabeling cards and mechanics to perpetuate that lie for....reasons. Without evidence (and not just 'what if' or theoryplay), that would fall right into conspiracy theory.
If you have emotional issues with the card, feel free to use my idea. Even though it's more wrong than I thought my purpose was more to make it emotionally easier to use the card. But if you want something more accurate, my most recent post is probably more valid. Effectively, you are trading value for Tempo. Since most hunter decks rely on Tempo, and few have several CRITICAL cards they'd just lose without in a given game, it's actually a valid trade. Having that Secret at turn 2 tends to be worth more than getting it at turn 4 along with 2 other cards you couldn't use.
To put it another way, and hoping I'm more accurate this time: What do you willing to sacrifice 3 turns of waiting in order to have more cards, or to have the card you need RIGHT NOW at the cost of 2 cards? Do you lose games more from not having enough cards or do you lose games more from not having the right card at the right time?
For me that's what the whole debate of Tracking breaks down to. Forget everything else about the card, it's THIS. And I'm not 100% confident about the answer without analysing data.
I will admit, I'm primarily thinking about Deathrattle Hunter as the upcoming nerf is going to take Hunter's Mark and effectively Candleshot out of the deck (unless you use Candleshot for the ping I guess) and as I was brainstorming replacement cards I had a think about Tracking. I think the more a deck moves toward the control aspect, the less value Tracking has. But maybe I do weight value more than tempo. This is what I'm trying to learn! :D
Whether a deck exists with pre-ordered cards or the next card is pick randomly each time you draw / use Tracking is a non debate, it doesn't change the value of Tracking at all.
When Crowder popularized the "change my mind" content, he did it by focusing on topics that people care about.
Why would I care about changing your mind on Tracking?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
If you have emotional issues with the card, feel free to use my idea. Even though it's more wrong than I thought my purpose was more to make it emotionally easier to use the card. But if you want something more accurate, my most recent post is probably more valid. Effectively, you are trading value for Tempo. Since most hunter decks rely on Tempo, and few have several CRITICAL cards they'd just lose without in a given game, it's actually a valid trade. Having that Secret at turn 2 tends to be worth more than getting it at turn 4 along with 2 other cards you couldn't use.
Thanks for the confirmation on the deck structure. My issue is I *can't* work with the emotional aspect - it's gotta be concrete. So the fact that I now know that I can go through my replays and do contrast/compare of Tracking vs no Tracking to hopefully identify a trend is really great, and will be what is the deciding factor for me.
Secrets = Spellstone = Tracking good inclusion IMO. That's the only synergistic "combo-esque" cards Hunter plays - and that doesn't apply to Deathrattle Hunter. So with everything I've said, I wouldn't take Tracking out of my Spell Hunter deck.
Whether a deck exists with pre-ordered cards or the next card is pick randomly each time you draw / use Tracking is a non debate, it doesn't change the value of Tracking at all.
LOLz - it's the ENTIRE debate and it changes the value of Tracking massively!
It's more about the matchups that what you deck is. If you play against a Control Warrior or another fatigue deck then it's probably a good idea to skip using Tracking, even if it's to fetch Rexxar, unless you're losing the board early. Anyway that's what I've seen pros do in the past.
For DR Hunter Tracking still has value even if sometimes you will lose Katharina or Krush, because if you don't have an early game like eggs and deathrattle activators you're screwed most likely.
Because this is a card game, and because draw is random, the top 3 cards and the last 3 cards are the same. They are all random. Any judgment on the value of those cards before they are drawn is just hindsight.
Understanding this is crucial to understanding why tracking is good. This is nothing new to card games, this debate has played itself out countless times in other CCGs.
Again, caveats for fatigue situations and combo situations.
Well this is my first rodeo so I know nothing of this debate playing itself out countless times......
Anyway, I understand the concept of the unknown, but how can you say that the top 3 cards that Tracking is taking from the deck are random to what you would draw in your next three turns? If the draw mechanic is actually programmed like that, then that's just bullshit. That would be a completely broken mechanic of the game because it simply could not be replicated with physically printed cards. I'd be amazed if that were the case. That can't be the case because the "top 3 cards" text would be completely redundant.
Just to drop a "Matrix" bomb in here at this point (and it may be entirely irrelevant to the argument), but from a coding perspective, there actually is no deck.
Assuming that the program stores card data in a standard C# format (which I believe Hearthstone is written in), then it would like store the data in either an IList<ICard> or ICollection<ICard> format - both of which are actually ordered lists. Not to mention that programmatically, there is actually no such thing as "randomisation" in the hard factual sense. It is all predetermined algorithmically. But that's another rabbit hole.
The point I am (somewhat messily) adhering to is that the top three cards of your deck are actually most likely not going to be the top three. They are likely to be "randomly" selected from a preordered list in the code - but this gives the illusion that your deck actually exists... It's all rather cool - though at the same time, something of a mind-boggle.
I had to do a number of similar functionalities like this while working on a card game in Runescape back in the day. :-)
Hey man.
Coming from a programming background myself, I’m curious why you think this is the case? I would imagine instantiating the card objects before adding them to an ordered list would be the way to go?
It's more about the matchups that what you deck is. If you play against a Control Warrior or another fatigue deck then it's probably a good idea to skip using Tracking, even if it's to fetch Rexxar, unless you're losing the board early. Anyway that's what I've seen pros do in the past.
For DR Hunter Tracking still has value even if sometimes you will lose Katharina or Krush, because if you don't have an early game like eggs and deathrattle activators you're screwed most likely.
Good points thanks! And yeah I guess you can always not play Tracking - but then it effectively becomes "burn 1 card, delay tempo by 1 turn" by offsetting your draw. Though that's probably a minority scenario.
Coming from a programming background myself, I’m curious why you think this is the case? I would imagine instantiating the card objects before adding them to an ordered list would be the way to go?
I'm very interested in more detail here too, and my "programming background" extends as far as teaching myself javascript so I can develop a customised HS statistical tracking and analysis spreadsheet LOL
Whether a deck exists with pre-ordered cards or the next card is pick randomly each time you draw / use Tracking is a non debate, it doesn't change the value of Tracking at all.
LOLz - it's the ENTIRE debate and it changes the value of Tracking massively!
LOLz well that's why you don't understand the value of the card.
Whether a deck exists with pre-ordered cards or the next card is pick randomly each time you draw / use Tracking is a non debate, it doesn't change the value of Tracking at all.
LOLz - it's the ENTIRE debate and it changes the value of Tracking massively!
LOLz well that's why you don't understand the value of the card.
Hurrah, another one of "those". You're the third in here today. You had some good points, but yeah.....don't let the door....
Just to drop a "Matrix" bomb in here at this point (and it may be entirely irrelevant to the argument), but from a coding perspective, there actually is no deck.
Assuming that the program stores card data in a standard C# format (which I believe Hearthstone is written in), then it would like store the data in either an IList<ICard> or ICollection<ICard> format - both of which are actually ordered lists. Not to mention that programmatically, there is actually no such thing as "randomisation" in the hard factual sense. It is all predetermined algorithmically. But that's another rabbit hole.
The point I am (somewhat messily) adhering to is that the top three cards of your deck are actually most likely not going to be the top three. They are likely to be "randomly" selected from a preordered list in the code - but this gives the illusion that your deck actually exists... It's all rather cool - though at the same time, something of a mind-boggle.
I had to do a number of similar functionalities like this while working on a card game in Runescape back in the day. :-)
That's some pretty trippy shit! So essentially there is no way to hypothesise potential alternative outcomes because the reality is every single time something is rerun, a different draw will happen. So effectively you could, from a programmatic sense, state that iandakar IS correct and that Tracking draws three cards from random places within the deck.
And to me, that COMPLETELY changes the value of the card....... O_o
EXCEPT that Blizzard flat out said that the deck truly exists and that 'the top card' is, in fact, the top card. We have further confirmation in the Monster Hunt. You have the ability to reroll a turn, making all random effects rerandomize. The card draw always remains static, effectively saying that it's NOT random. Effectively, if we were to have Tracking run, then turn back time, then play Tracking again, we would get the same three cards. If we didn't play tracking that second time, the three cards would show up in the next three turns.
The only way to declare that there's no actual deck is to deem Blizzard as lying to us and purposely mislabeling cards and mechanics to perpetuate that lie for....reasons. Without evidence (and not just 'what if' or theoryplay), that would fall right into conspiracy theory.
If you have emotional issues with the card, feel free to use my idea. Even though it's more wrong than I thought my purpose was more to make it emotionally easier to use the card. But if you want something more accurate, my most recent post is probably more valid. Effectively, you are trading value for Tempo. Since most hunter decks rely on Tempo, and few have several CRITICAL cards they'd just lose without in a given game, it's actually a valid trade. Having that Secret at turn 2 tends to be worth more than getting it at turn 4 along with 2 other cards you couldn't use.
Fair enough. Sounds like I was wrong there. . My theory was based on an assumption that the code used standard practices for C# list handling. If Blizzard have said they do it in a particular way then all good.
The point about randomisation is still true of course ;-)
But it sounds like the deck part may have been wrong
Hurrah, another one of "those". You're the third in here today. You had some good points, but yeah.....don't let the door....
While he could have said it more nicely, he's right. The entire discussion over whether a deck exists with pre-ordered cards or the next card is pick randomly each time you draw / use Tracking doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that the value of each of the cards still remaining in your deck is identical.
Blah. And we also confirmed that there is a 'deck' with cards actually placed in order, so you really are just pulling the next 3 cards.
Yeah, that sort of messes up the argument there.
Well then, I will piece it together like this:
In many hunter decks, there isn't a card that would really put you in that situation. The Tempo advantage of being able to pull a card of your choice rather than wait 3 turns for it should outweigh the value loss of the other two cards. Against most opponents you aren't playing the value game, you are trying to kill them before they recover the board.
If you ARE looking for a specific card that MUST win you the game, then the other two cards are worth the cost of knowing it's going to be available. Meanwhile if that card doesn't show up, you are now 3 cards ahead of your deck in obtaining it. Vs Odd Warrior, you NEED that DK asap. 3 random cards over 3 turns isn't worth having the DK show up 4 turns late, and there's no card that you should regret losing in order to have DK either show up earlier or be in your hand now.
So the time when Tracking does hurt is when you are playing such a value game that multiple cards gained slowly are critical for you to have to win. If and ONLY if this is the case is Tracking a bad play. If your deck regularly faces this situation (i.e.some versions of Deathrattle) then Tracking isn't a good card to have. However, I bet a lot of players are valuing Value far more than they should and not valuing Tempo enough.
To put it another way, and hoping I'm more accurate this time: What do you willing to sacrifice 3 turns of waiting in order to have more cards, or to have the card you need RIGHT NOW at the cost of 2 cards? Do you lose games more from not having enough cards or do you lose games more from not having the right card at the right time?
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
That's some pretty trippy shit! So essentially there is no way to hypothesise potential alternative outcomes because the reality is every single time something is rerun, a different draw will happen. So effectively you could, from a programmatic sense, state that iandakar IS correct and that Tracking draws three cards from random places within the deck.
And to me, that COMPLETELY changes the value of the card....... O_o
Hang on, there IS a deck that it draws sequentially from programmatically? Have I misinterpreted what scorpyn posted regarding "most likely not going to be the top three"?
EXCEPT that Blizzard flat out said that the deck truly exists and that 'the top card' is, in fact, the top card. We have further confirmation in the Monster Hunt. You have the ability to reroll a turn, making all random effects rerandomize. The card draw always remains static, effectively saying that it's NOT random. Effectively, if we were to have Tracking run, then turn back time, then play Tracking again, we would get the same three cards. If we didn't play tracking that second time, the three cards would show up in the next three turns.
The only way to declare that there's no actual deck is to deem Blizzard as lying to us and purposely mislabeling cards and mechanics to perpetuate that lie for....reasons. Without evidence (and not just 'what if' or theoryplay), that would fall right into conspiracy theory.
If you have emotional issues with the card, feel free to use my idea. Even though it's more wrong than I thought my purpose was more to make it emotionally easier to use the card. But if you want something more accurate, my most recent post is probably more valid. Effectively, you are trading value for Tempo. Since most hunter decks rely on Tempo, and few have several CRITICAL cards they'd just lose without in a given game, it's actually a valid trade. Having that Secret at turn 2 tends to be worth more than getting it at turn 4 along with 2 other cards you couldn't use.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
For me that's what the whole debate of Tracking breaks down to. Forget everything else about the card, it's THIS. And I'm not 100% confident about the answer without analysing data.
I will admit, I'm primarily thinking about Deathrattle Hunter as the upcoming nerf is going to take Hunter's Mark and effectively Candleshot out of the deck (unless you use Candleshot for the ping I guess) and as I was brainstorming replacement cards I had a think about Tracking. I think the more a deck moves toward the control aspect, the less value Tracking has. But maybe I do weight value more than tempo. This is what I'm trying to learn! :D
Whether a deck exists with pre-ordered cards or the next card is pick randomly each time you draw / use Tracking is a non debate, it doesn't change the value of Tracking at all.
When Crowder popularized the "change my mind" content, he did it by focusing on topics that people care about.
Why would I care about changing your mind on Tracking?
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Thanks for the confirmation on the deck structure. My issue is I *can't* work with the emotional aspect - it's gotta be concrete. So the fact that I now know that I can go through my replays and do contrast/compare of Tracking vs no Tracking to hopefully identify a trend is really great, and will be what is the deciding factor for me.
Secrets = Spellstone = Tracking good inclusion IMO. That's the only synergistic "combo-esque" cards Hunter plays - and that doesn't apply to Deathrattle Hunter. So with everything I've said, I wouldn't take Tracking out of my Spell Hunter deck.
LOLz - it's the ENTIRE debate and it changes the value of Tracking massively!
Why would you care about posting in the first place? Piss off and troll somewhere else.
It's more about the matchups that what you deck is. If you play against a Control Warrior or another fatigue deck then it's probably a good idea to skip using Tracking, even if it's to fetch Rexxar, unless you're losing the board early. Anyway that's what I've seen pros do in the past.
For DR Hunter Tracking still has value even if sometimes you will lose Katharina or Krush, because if you don't have an early game like eggs and deathrattle activators you're screwed most likely.
Hey man.
Coming from a programming background myself, I’m curious why you think this is the case? I would imagine instantiating the card objects before adding them to an ordered list would be the way to go?
They were these same arguments about why burning cards from a deck doesn't matter for the most part.
Good points thanks! And yeah I guess you can always not play Tracking - but then it effectively becomes "burn 1 card, delay tempo by 1 turn" by offsetting your draw. Though that's probably a minority scenario.
I'm very interested in more detail here too, and my "programming background" extends as far as teaching myself javascript so I can develop a customised HS statistical tracking and analysis spreadsheet LOL
LOLz well that's why you don't understand the value of the card.
Hurrah, another one of "those". You're the third in here today. You had some good points, but yeah.....don't let the door....
Fair enough. Sounds like I was wrong there. . My theory was based on an assumption that the code used standard practices for C# list handling. If Blizzard have said they do it in a particular way then all good.
The point about randomisation is still true of course ;-)
But it sounds like the deck part may have been wrong
While he could have said it more nicely, he's right. The entire discussion over whether a deck exists with pre-ordered cards or the next card is pick randomly each time you draw / use Tracking doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that the value of each of the cards still remaining in your deck is identical.
So the top 3 or a random 3 are all the same.
You apparently cared enough to come on here and make a complaint about something you claim not to care about.
You are literally the sort of people you see being interviewed on that show. Good job.