Except that is always the tired and overused excuse. People who can't understand why burning your win condition cards out of your deck is a bad thing, will never understand why Tracking is bad. They can't see the wood for the trees. They only consider the short term effects of it. It's quite simple short-sighted gameplay. These people would make terrible chess players for example. Finding a card that solves your immediate problem at the expense of losing you the game in the long run is never a sign of good strategy. But there's only so many times you can tell people this until they have to learn it for themselves.
Careful not to fall into the same trap of "people who can't understand...." :)
But you bring up an EXCELLENT point that I hadn't thought of. Tracking is essentially an aggro mechanic that is geared entirely to "win (not specifically the game, but this turn) at whatever expense". Synergistically it's counterintuitive to a control archetype. There should be enough options in a control deck to play around what you have in your hand. The deck shouldn't be one-dimensional. Of course there are a lot of nuances involved depending on the board state, but I'm not sure they give enough weight to counter the above.
On a side note, what dictionary is this bloody forum referencing? It's trying to tell me situationally, synergistically, and counterintuitive aren't words! O_o
Thanks for such an exuberant response to the topic! FYI Xynot "Change My Mind" is a term used to start a discussion I do believe - don't go making assumptions about my perceived lack of experience ;)
Some very good and valid points made. I feel as though I can counter most of them though. This isn't an anti-Tracking thread btw, the purpose is to discuss the pros and cons of the card so I can be better informed about it's value in a deck - it's education :D
So.....I'll start with the "1 mana draw".
Sure, draw is great - but if you didn't have Tracking, you'd have just drawn the card that you're now spending 1 mana to have a 1 in 3 chance of drawing. I have trouble comprehending the value of a card that just draws one card. It literally costs you to do what would've happened naturally if the card wasn't in the deck.
"A class without much draw" Refer above.
"Thins out the deck"
True, it does. But that's a double-edged sword. Yes, confirmation bias exists, but 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.
"Get a certain card NOW" Can't counter that point - a very good one, and I think the ONLY valid reason to run Tracking. Is the direct and implied cost worth it though? Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not.
"Lucky top deck lost me the game"
Just wanted to respond to this specific scenario - KC is usually drawn and hoarded for the final kill. Sometimes you draw it (or 2nd one) at the point of lethal, but often it's set up over a few turns. Tracking picks up the next three cards to be drawn from the deck, so at worst you're getting that KC in two turns time. Now of course a lot can happen in two turns, but there are also scenarios where two KCs come up in one Tracking and conversely cost you the game.
"Things you really want"
Definitely agree with the value of Tracking for Spellstone/spell synergies - but rest of the time I feel it's value is more in a defensive Hail Mary. A lot of the time I see it as "well, got 1 mana left this turn, let's see what I can get" as well.
Not knocking ANY of the responses, they're all great - thank you everyone! I just like (need) to play Devil's Advocate so I can truly understand the value or something. If I don't do that, I can't grasp the concept. Not just with Hearthstone!
"1 mana draw . . ."
while that is true that you are spending one card to draw one card and that feels useless, but think about it like this. your deck is only 30 cards, no more or less, so when you add tracking, you are basically making your deck 3 cards smaller, and that is amazing for draw consistency. if your deck was above 30, then I could understand a argument like this, but even so, it is 1 card that shrinks your deck by 3 cards.
"thins out deck. . ."
you play tracking in the later game, when most of your aggro deck is useless. and you need to fish for kill commands, leeroys, highmanes, rexxar, and tracking gets you closer to them. waiting an extra 3 turns to grab a kill command and get lethal can lose you the game.
I hope I answered your counter arguments well, though I only answered 2 I think I covered enough ground.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
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
Is there a queue to make inappropriate remarks in this thread or something?
ME 1XBENX1 ME GOOD YOU DUMB
Come dude...... O_o
And yet this was your comment...ironic?
You made up for it with your follow up response. Though I'll contest that simply saying "you're playing Tracking wrong" doesn't really strengthen the argument to play it.
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
Cards in deck and cards in hand are entirely different resources, and one matters much more than the other.
Except for (a) fatigue scenarios or (b) specific combo situations, cards in deck are basically worthless. There hasn't been a good hunter deck yet where (b) matters.
EDIT: To elaborate on why cards in deck are basically worthless -
Since you don't have access to them, they don't have value. It only has value once it's in your hand, because now you can do something with it. Since this is a card game, you don't know what it's value is until you draw it. It's a Schrodinger's Cat type of situation. So all cards in your deck have the exact same value while they remain in your deck.
So when you burn 2 cards off of Tracking, you are burning 2 cards that have little value. This is where the argument "think of it like it's the last 2 cards in your deck" comes from. The cards may as well be the last 2, because all cards in deck are the same.
I hope I answered your counter arguments well, though I only answered 2 I think I covered enough ground.
Thank you, you did make good points. Mainly I'm gathering that I'm playing Tracking too early. As a late-game card I can definitely see the odds tipping in favour of the benefits than the negative outcomes.
For example, playing it in the first three or so turns you can be presented with an option of any mana card - some you can play now, some that could be very powerful in 5+ turns and you have no idea what the board state will be then. But playing it late game you know EXACTLY what's useless to you, and have a much better idea of what can help you now and in the next few turns.
So as a late(r) game card I can understand how powerful it can be. Thanks!!!
I agree with op, potentially losing 2 cards you need later in the game on turn 1 for what could be a complete waste anyway if your opponent has good early game seems like a bad trade to me
And lets face it, the opponent always has good early game these days lol
EDIT: To elaborate on why cards in deck are basically worthless -
Since you don't have access to them, they don't have value. It only has value once it's in your hand, because now you can do something with it. Since this is a card game, you don't know what it's value is until you draw it. It's a Schrodinger's Cat type of situation. So all cards in your deck have the exact same value while they remain in your deck.
So when you burn 2 cards off of Tracking, you are burning 2 cards that have little value. This is where the argument "think of it like it's the last 2 cards in your deck" comes from. The cards may as well be the last 2, because all cards in deck are the same.
I would absolutely agree, except for the fact that Tracking takes your top 3 cards. So while they're worthless when in your deck, ALL three cards Tracking presents you with WILL have value in the next 1-2-3 turns. For me it's more a matter of situational value. Is there ONE of the three cards you will have in the next 3 turns that will make a bigger impact NOW? Of course that's all heresay.
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. I'm not even sure there would be a way to track and statistically compare that. You could look at replays and analyse whether "any of the next three cards would've changed the outcome of the game" - but I suspect that would be time consuming. Though probably a rewarding exercise tbh.
I agree with op, potentially losing 2 cards you need later in the game on turn 1 for what could be a complete waste anyway if your opponent has good early game seems like a bad trade to me
And lets face it, the opponent always has good early game these days lol
I'm learning from this thread that Tracking is a really bad early game card, but potentially GREAT late game - as I posted earlier.
On a side note I have a Wild Warlock deck based on discard mechanics - it's a lot of fun :D
I would absolutely agree, except for the fact that Tracking takes your top 3 cards. So while they're worthless when in your deck, ALL three cards Tracking presents you with WILL have value in the next 1-2-3 turns. For me it's more a matter of situational value. Is there ONE of the three cards you will have in the next 3 turns that will make a bigger impact NOW? Of course that's all heresay.
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 "
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.
Except that is always the tired and overused excuse.
Nah, it's the truth.
People who can't understand why burning your win condition cards out of your deck is a bad thing, will never understand why Tracking is bad.
If you're burning your win condition, you're playing tracking wrong. If a card off tracking will win you the game, then that is the card you should pick.
They can't see the wood for the trees. They only consider the short term effects of it. It's quite simple short-sighted gameplay. These people would make terrible chess players for example.
Chess is a completely different game, and your comparison makes no sense. Regardless, if you are not considering the long term when you are making your selection off Tracking, again, you are playing it wrong.
Finding a card that solves your immediate problem at the expense of losing you the game in the long run is never a sign of good strategy.
It's actually a great strategy in a game that is primarily dictated by tempo. You shouldn't lose the game because you played tracking. Again, if you are finding yourself in that position, it is because you are playing Tracking wrong.
But there's only so many times you can tell people this until they have to learn it for themselves.
Anecdotally, I removed Tracking from my own hunter decks and with it, my WR increased dramatically (which is how I maintained the R5 shelf last month by sitting at R1 thanks to Hunter). I always tend to prefer decks that I have full control over and limit any (if not all) RnG from screwing me over.
Which is probably because you were playing Tracking incorrectly.
Tracking is a prime example of this sort of thing. You are desperately hoping to High Roll with it every time and when it screws you over, some people kid themselves into thinking it was "just bad luck" when in reality it was a bad card choice.
Tracking is actually one of the least high-roll type cards. It is always doing the same thing - letting you see 3 your next three cards.
Responses in bold.
We've both made arguments from our respective view points. We disagree on the issue. I don't think it will change either of our minds. I also don't think it implies either of us has little or no understanding of the card or mechanics. We simply disagree on whether it is a good thing or not. I don't really see that changing.
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.
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. :-)
Ok since I got some bites, I didn’t intend it as an attack.
You need to have 30 cards in a deck. When making a deck you want to put in the most powerful cards you can. The smaller the deck the more powerful it can be because you don’t have to put in filler cards. This is where tracking come in. You can fill will a card that only helps you get to the most powerful cards in your deck. Don’t see it as dropping 2 good cards think of it as picking the one card that’s most likely to help you win the game while clearing out less useful cards to give you an even better chance of drawing the best stuff. Think of it in terms of odds.
You are right. But the response will always be "what if I burn a card I don't want to burn?" Because that's always the response. People who can't understand that burning the cards doesn't matter will never understand why Tracking is good.
Except that is always the tired and overused excuse. People who can't understand why burning your win condition cards out of your deck is a bad thing, will never understand why Tracking is bad. They can't see the wood for the trees. They only consider the short term effects of it. It's quite simple short-sighted gameplay. These people would make terrible chess players for example. Finding a card that solves your immediate problem at the expense of losing you the game in the long run is never a sign of good strategy. But there's only so many times you can tell people this until they have to learn it for themselves.
Anecdotally, I removed Tracking from my own hunter decks and with it, my WR increased dramatically (which is how I maintained the R5 shelf last month by sitting at R1 thanks to Hunter). I always tend to prefer decks that I have full control over and limit any (if not all) RnG from screwing me over. Tracking is a prime example of this sort of thing. You are desperately hoping to High Roll with it every time and when it screws you over, some people kid themselves into thinking it was "just bad luck" when in reality it was a bad card choice.
Solving your immediate problem might win you the game short term. Since you like the chess methaphores, it's like a piece sacrifice to get a checkmate done.
Solving your immediate problem might win you the game short term. Since you like the chess methaphores, it's like a piece sacrifice to get a checkmate done.
Although in the context I was providing, it would be like sacrificing your King to save your Queen. :-)
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.
On this forum, you can probably find permutations of the argument about Gnomeferatu (which interestingly has become worthwhile because the metagame is so combo oriented).
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.
On this forum, you can probably find permutations of the argument about Gnomeferatu (which interestingly has become worthwhile because the metagame is so combo oriented).
I don't know the Gnomeferatu discussion. What is the debate on that card?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Careful not to fall into the same trap of "people who can't understand...." :)
But you bring up an EXCELLENT point that I hadn't thought of. Tracking is essentially an aggro mechanic that is geared entirely to "win (not specifically the game, but this turn) at whatever expense". Synergistically it's counterintuitive to a control archetype. There should be enough options in a control deck to play around what you have in your hand. The deck shouldn't be one-dimensional. Of course there are a lot of nuances involved depending on the board state, but I'm not sure they give enough weight to counter the above.
On a side note, what dictionary is this bloody forum referencing? It's trying to tell me situationally, synergistically, and counterintuitive aren't words! O_o
"1 mana draw . . ."
while that is true that you are spending one card to draw one card and that feels useless, but think about it like this. your deck is only 30 cards, no more or less, so when you add tracking, you are basically making your deck 3 cards smaller, and that is amazing for draw consistency. if your deck was above 30, then I could understand a argument like this, but even so, it is 1 card that shrinks your deck by 3 cards.
"thins out deck. . ."
you play tracking in the later game, when most of your aggro deck is useless. and you need to fish for kill commands, leeroys, highmanes, rexxar, and tracking gets you closer to them. waiting an extra 3 turns to grab a kill command and get lethal can lose you the game.
I hope I answered your counter arguments well, though I only answered 2 I think I covered enough ground.
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
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
https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Tracking
You made up for it with your follow up response. Though I'll contest that simply saying "you're playing Tracking wrong" doesn't really strengthen the argument to play it.
Cards in deck and cards in hand are entirely different resources, and one matters much more than the other.
Except for (a) fatigue scenarios or (b) specific combo situations, cards in deck are basically worthless. There hasn't been a good hunter deck yet where (b) matters.
EDIT: To elaborate on why cards in deck are basically worthless -
Since you don't have access to them, they don't have value. It only has value once it's in your hand, because now you can do something with it. Since this is a card game, you don't know what it's value is until you draw it. It's a Schrodinger's Cat type of situation. So all cards in your deck have the exact same value while they remain in your deck.
So when you burn 2 cards off of Tracking, you are burning 2 cards that have little value. This is where the argument "think of it like it's the last 2 cards in your deck" comes from. The cards may as well be the last 2, because all cards in deck are the same.
Thank you, you did make good points. Mainly I'm gathering that I'm playing Tracking too early. As a late-game card I can definitely see the odds tipping in favour of the benefits than the negative outcomes.
For example, playing it in the first three or so turns you can be presented with an option of any mana card - some you can play now, some that could be very powerful in 5+ turns and you have no idea what the board state will be then. But playing it late game you know EXACTLY what's useless to you, and have a much better idea of what can help you now and in the next few turns.
So as a late(r) game card I can understand how powerful it can be. Thanks!!!
Discard mechanics? #Shouldbewarlock #Makediscolockgreatagain
XD XD. Couldn't resist.
I agree with op, potentially losing 2 cards you need later in the game on turn 1 for what could be a complete waste anyway if your opponent has good early game seems like a bad trade to me
And lets face it, the opponent always has good early game these days lol
I would absolutely agree, except for the fact that Tracking takes your top 3 cards. So while they're worthless when in your deck, ALL three cards Tracking presents you with WILL have value in the next 1-2-3 turns. For me it's more a matter of situational value. Is there ONE of the three cards you will have in the next 3 turns that will make a bigger impact NOW? Of course that's all heresay.
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. I'm not even sure there would be a way to track and statistically compare that. You could look at replays and analyse whether "any of the next three cards would've changed the outcome of the game" - but I suspect that would be time consuming. Though probably a rewarding exercise tbh.
I'm learning from this thread that Tracking is a really bad early game card, but potentially GREAT late game - as I posted earlier.
On a side note I have a Wild Warlock deck based on discard mechanics - it's a lot of fun :D
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.
We've both made arguments from our respective view points.
We disagree on the issue.
I don't think it will change either of our minds.
I also don't think it implies either of us has little or no understanding of the card or mechanics. We simply disagree on whether it is a good thing or not.
I don't really see that changing.
Care to agree to disagree?
You're right. That was me reacting slightly more with emotion than was necessary. I apologise.
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.
I think you've both made very good points for the pros and cons of the card. The trick is to have an open mind about it!
Side note - why does this forum make it damn near impossible to only quote select text without totally screwing the formatting O_o
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. :-)
Solving your immediate problem might win you the game short term. Since you like the chess methaphores, it's like a piece sacrifice to get a checkmate done.
Although in the context I was providing, it would be like sacrificing your King to save your Queen. :-)
On this forum, you can probably find permutations of the argument about Gnomeferatu (which interestingly has become worthwhile because the metagame is so combo oriented).
I don't know the Gnomeferatu discussion. What is the debate on that card?