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
Thats' the point. Tracking isn't a "OMG AUTOIN" card. It highly depends on what sort of deck you are running. the reason why it's used so often nowadays is because most hunter decks have a big need for more Tempo so having the Right Card at the Right Time is so critical for it.
The trick is that most Hunter decks don't push for Control. Beast Hunter is a Tempo deck. Deathrattle is Midrange. They don't rely on Value. They rely on having the right tools at the right time and being ready to rumble.
I can put it in an extreme way. If you give your deck a card that says "Choose then next 10 cards from your deck and have them right away. Discard your remaining cards." would you do it? Odd warrior wouldn't as they aren't going to win games with any combination of 10 cards. Odd Rogue would autoinclude that, proven that an worse version of that card IS included in that deck.
Most hunters would WORSHIP a card like that: always 2 secrets and the spellstone in hand? Always DK at turn 6? Screw the rest of the deck! Tracking is just a smaller version of this mentality.
Sidenote: the whole "the next two cards are the top of the deck" is honestly a non-issue. It's similar to how knowing what the rest of your deck would've been after a loss is not really useful. That DK and your spellstone showed up at the same time doesn't do a thing about the next game. It FEELS different, and emotions are valid, but don't mistake it for logic. When it's time to use Tracking, you don't know what the next 3 cards are, so any planning you do beyond basic probability tests is buying into a Fallacy.
Just calculate the probability of a card combination that you cannot recover from happening, compare to the probability of it not happening. I state that because both getting the card you want and not getting ANY key cards are both beneficial (as the latter means you are 3 cards closer to getting said card).
But my counter to that (while I do understand the theory of it) is that knowing that the exact three cards Tracking presents you with are the next three cards to be drawn, you can do a statistical analysis comparing the outcomes of Tracking vs no Tracking. If the cards are picked randomly each time this is impossible, and actually ADDS value to Tracking because if would provide access to cards you may NEVER draw in that game.
Of course tempo is a major factor that will influence the game, but knowing the exact draw of the next three turns vs complete randomisation is massive in analysing the value of the card.
I can go through all the DR Hunter matches I've played now and run theoretical outcomes on this and predict rather accurately whether playing Tracking in each specific scenario was beneficial or not. I'd hazard to guess I could even create a breakdown of the value of the card vs what stage of the game it's played, and maybe even archetypal opponent. That's completely impossible with randomisation.
I guess we've reached a point where it doesn't make sense to go on.
It's like you said, "convince me that there's no connection between vaccines and autism." Everyone came in and showed you why. But then your response has been variants of, "But that's not what I believe."
Not all opinions are valid. Sometimes some opinions are correct while others are wrong. Others may share a mistaken opinion, but that doesn't stop it from being mistaken.
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.
Thats' the point. Tracking isn't a "OMG AUTOIN" card. It highly depends on what sort of deck you are running. the reason why it's used so often nowadays is because most hunter decks have a big need for more Tempo so having the Right Card at the Right Time is so critical for it.
The trick is that most Hunter decks don't push for Control. Beast Hunter is a Tempo deck. Deathrattle is Midrange. They don't rely on Value. They rely on having the right tools at the right time and being ready to rumble.
I can put it in an extreme way. If you give your deck a card that says "Choose then next 10 cards from your deck and have them right away. Discard your remaining cards." would you do it? Odd warrior wouldn't as they aren't going to win games with any combination of 10 cards. Odd Rogue would autoinclude that, proven that an worse version of that card IS included in that deck.
Most hunters would WORSHIP a card like that: always 2 secrets and the spellstone in hand? Always DK at turn 6? Screw the rest of the deck! Tracking is just a smaller version of this mentality.
Sidenote: the whole "the next two cards are the top of the deck" is honestly a non-issue. It's similar to how knowing what the rest of your deck would've been after a loss is not really useful. That DK and your spellstone showed up at the same time doesn't do a thing about the next game. It FEELS different, and emotions are valid, but don't mistake it for logic. When it's time to use Tracking, you don't know what the next 3 cards are, so any planning you do beyond basic probability tests is buying into a Fallacy.
Just calculate the probability of a card combination that you cannot recover from happening, compare to the probability of it not happening. I state that because both getting the card you want and not getting ANY key cards are both beneficial (as the latter means you are 3 cards closer to getting said card).
I think we're in agreeance on most discussion points with Tracking - I mentioned that I'm completely in favour of the card with Spellstones/spells and that it's definitely in my Spell Hunter.
I'm surprised you're saying Deathrattle Hunter is midrange though! I perhaps don't understand the range of a midrange deck. They're calling the Hunter deck with Springpaw, Razormaw, Hyena etc "Midrange Hunter". While Deathrattle Hunter does have some strong early tempo if you get the activators and eggs, I feel like the real power of the deck doesn't kick in til T6 at the EARLIEST if you can activate a cubed Grizzly that had been coined out T4 for example. It's no Odd Warrior, but I'd have thought it closer to control than midrange. My bad!
I LOLed at your "extreme way" - I just crated that worse version two days ago ;)
I guess we've reached a point where it doesn't make sense to go on.
It's like you said, "convince me that there's no connection between vaccines and ******." Everyone came in and showed you why. But then your response has been variants of, "But that's not what I believe."
Not all opinions are valid. Sometimes some opinions are correct while others are wrong. Others may share a mistaken opinion, but that doesn't stop it from being mistaken.
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.
It's interesting that you completely miss the entire purpose of this discussion. You've made some good points, and I appreciate that. But obviously you're close minded and your value in here has run out.
One thing you misconstrue about opinions, they're subjective. An opinion is not a fact.
Thanks for your input, it's been extremely helpful :)
But my counter to that (while I do understand the theory of it) is that knowing that the exact three cards Tracking presents you with are the next three cards to be drawn, you can do a statistical analysis comparing the outcomes of Tracking vs no Tracking. If the cards are picked randomly each time this is impossible, and actually ADDS value to Tracking because if would provide access to cards you may NEVER draw in that game.
Of course tempo is a major factor that will influence the game, but knowing the exact draw of the next three turns vs complete randomisation is massive in analysing the value of the card.
I can go through all the DR Hunter matches I've played now and run theoretical outcomes on this and predict rather accurately whether playing Tracking in each specific scenario was beneficial or not. I'd hazard to guess I could even create a breakdown of the value of the card vs what stage of the game it's played, and maybe even archetypal opponent. That's completely impossible with randomisation.
I guess in the end, the question is a matter of timing. Did you gain from getting the card 3 turns early instead of waiting.
It makes the concept of casting Tracking turn 1 to get the DK a bad option since there's no point in getting a card you would've gotten in time anyway.
OTOH, if it's a card that you are going to use within the next 2 turns, it IS a benefit as, otherwise, you wouldn't have had it that turn. Tracking turn 1 to get a secret to play turn 2, or a spellstone to grow off of a turn 2 secret is incredible. Tracking turn 5 to get the DK for turn 6 is similarly impressive.
So in analyzing, look into the times when a card came 1-4 turns too late, or the game ended but a certain card would've turned it around the turn before that you didn't get. In those games, Tracking would've been useful either by finding you the card or pushing you ahead to get the card later.
Everyone came in and showed you why. But then your response has been variants of, "But that's not what I believe."
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.
Perfect example of my case in point. EVERYONE came in here and showed me why Tracking is great? Maybe you should re-read the thread!
I'd love to see the statistics of Tracking vs non-played Tracking across a sub-set of 100+ games - where did you find that? Oh wait, you're talking about drawn WR & played WR aren't you? Massive statistical analysis right there.
Don't get all superiority-complex on me because I'm thinking deeper about the card than you are. I may well come to the conclusion that it's a beneficial card in any situation in my Deathrattle Hunter deck, I may come to the conclusion that it's poor early, but a strong late game card, I may decide that it's value is only in a spell-oriented Hunter deck. Unlike yourself I am not close minded enough to change my opinion.
So in analyzing, look into the times when a card came 1-4 turns too late, or the game ended but a certain card would've turned it around the turn before that you didn't get. In those games, Tracking would've been useful either by finding you the card or pushing you ahead to get the card later.
Definitely a great focus for the analysis. I suspect it will be rather time consuming though, but at least I love numbers and statistics. There's an equal chance I'll get it done in time, or I'll get distracted and completely forget about it. Either way, the discussion has been great and enabled me to consider a lot of factors that I would've never thought of.
In the short term my opinion is that it's an auto-include for Spellstone/spell decks, and a mid-late game card for Deathrattle Hunter, and possibly left out altogether.
Thanks for your input iandakar, it's been fantastic!
Look at the statistics of the card. As long as the pros are using Tracking , it is likely worth the inclusion. The feeling that you always have to decide between good cards is probably confirmation bias. In most games it is more important to get a certain card NOW and not lose the present game than having the discarded cards still in the deck and maybe fish them out with stitched tracker.
The only time tracking is actually useless (or even dangerous to use) is in matchups which will go to fatigue (e.g. Odd Warrior). And maybe using it with Zul'jin can also lead to fatigue issues.
That said, I also do not like tracking and I rarely use the card in my Hunter decks for the same reasons you pointed out. However, I know that I am most likely wrong in doing so. But I feel better and that's enough reason for me...
If you've played zul'jin you probably have already won
In the short term my opinion is that it's an auto-include for Spellstone/spell decks, and a mid-late game card for Deathrattle Hunter, and possibly left out altogether.
Funny thing, that's exactly how it's used currently. It's autoinclude in Spellstone/beast decks. Deathrattle it's sometimes included. That depends on the matchup and how dependent the deck is on the recruit/big boy mechanics compared to an early start. Against aggro it's autoinclude as you MUST have those key cards in hand by turn 3-4. Against control, it's a lot messier though many add it in just to have the option and because, as you'll find, the raw probability of it screwing you is less than the probability of it helping or not mattering, and pros don't get tilted over 'instalose' situations as easily.
Note that most hunters play beast/spellstone. Deathrattle isn't nearly as popular. That may explain the love for the card right now.
That and we get a LOT of new players that just mindlessly say "I lose 2 cards and get 1. That's a bad thing. You sheeple are idiots!" You get kind of kneejerky after 5 years of that. I'm not immune: you probably aren't going to get anything but a copypasta if you DARE talk about 'rigged matchmaking' or ways we need to nerf the coin since it's so 'obviously OP!'.
I'd love to know what you needed to edit - get a little steamy in there did it? :D
I changed "GL" to "good luck"
That's one acronym I do know. You may be correct, I may well be wrong in my current thinking. That's entirely why I started the thread. I'd be a lunatic to bother starting a "x card is a piece of shit and you should hate it too" thread. :)
In the short term my opinion is that it's an auto-include for Spellstone/spell decks, and a mid-late game card for Deathrattle Hunter, and possibly left out altogether.
Funny thing, that's exactly how it's used currently. It's autoinclude in Spellstone/beast decks. Deathrattle it's sometimes included. That depends on the matchup and how dependent the deck is on the recruit/big boy mechanics compared to an early start. Against aggro it's autoinclude as you MUST have those key cards in hand by turn 3-4. Against control, it's a lot messier though many add it in just to have the option and because, as you'll find, the raw probability of it screwing you is less than the probability of it helping or not mattering, and pros don't get tilted over 'instalose' situations as easily.
Note that most hunters play beast/spellstone. Deathrattle isn't nearly as popular. That may explain the love for the card right now.
That and we get a LOT of new players that just mindlessly say "I lose 2 cards and get 1. That's a bad thing. You sheeple are idiots!" You get kind of kneejerky after 5 years of that. I'm not immune: you probably aren't going to get anything but a copypasta if you DARE talk about 'rigged matchmaking' or ways we need to nerf the coin since it's so 'obviously OP!'.
This could quite easily all come down to me just having no idea how to play the card. I've definitely learnt a lot about when to utilise it, so the thread has been extremely helpful. I think every DR Hunter decklist on the HSreplay meta includes it, and given the fact that you can't chose your opponent's archetype, you can't really make changes to your decklist in anticipation of any specific archetype. I've wondered why people use that argument. To me it's no different to cards you haven't drawn in your deck. You've no idea what your opp is going to be, so why factor it in to decision making?
Drawing 1 card is worth 1 mana on average, then each additional card drawn is 2 mana (Arcane Intellect draws 2, Nourish used to draw 3 at 5, but it has a flexibility upside, so it got nerfed, Sprint draws 4). So Tracking's mana cost is at least fair.
It also has the upside that you get to choose from 3 cards, which makes it even better, no one is arguing about that.
The controversial part is that you discard the other 2 cards from the 3 you choose from. Most people see this as a big downside, but you have to look at all the possible scenarios. It's obviously bad if it's a matchup that can go to fatigue, you either don't play it or just try to go face and win fast. It can also be pretty bad if you discard your big cards like the hero cards.
But you also need to look at the other side of the coin. Most games don't go to fatigue. In a lot of games you wouldn't have even drawn the cards you discard. Tracking is not a card you are supposed to play on turn 1 (at least usually). You dig for key cards that let you win the game vs a certain matchup (that's why you play tracking when you know what deck you are playing against). A lot of the cards in your deck are useless in certain matchups, it's not like every card in your deck is Rexxar, Zul'jin and Rhok'delar. On average discarding 2 cards you deem the worst out of 3 random cards in your deck can be quite good, it lets you get the cards you truly need quicker. More often than not it wil let you draw stuff like Zul'jin, Rexxar and Rhok'delar faster instead of discarding them (something a lot of people complain about). You need to realize that if we could make decks with less than 30 cards in them, they would be very powerful. It's not like more cards in your deck is always better. This is the reason why Prince Malchezaar is bad (5 random legendaries that dilute your draws) and Patches is good (it's like making a 29 cards deck and getting a free 1/1 unless you draw him, but on average it's worth the risk). Look at tavern brawls like the one where you only get 10 cards in your deck or the ones where you only put 2/3 cards and they fill your deck with copies of them. The decks you can make in them are super op. When building a 30 cards deck, it's usually 10+ core cards (the cards you really want) and then you just fill it with tech cards and weaker cards just to hit that 30/30.
The smaller deck size > greater strength thing is something I never even considered before. Patches for example, before my time but could never figure out it's worth. Saying that it essentially gives you a 29 card deck and free 1/1, I'm still scratching my head a little as to how that can be a noticeable advantage, but I'm at least starting to see the benefit.
I understand the value of the multi-card draw - but I can't justify the 1 mana to draw 1 card mechanic as a standalone entity. You're spending one mana to draw the card you would've drawn if you didn't have the 1 mana draw 1 card in the deck! :)
Anyway, I'm understanding Tracking a lot more now, the discussion has been great!
I'm with you. I recognise that it's good and that the pros use it and so on, but I just hate discarding the unpicked cards. I know it's not rational, but I just don't include it in my decks, because I know that if I do it sits in my hand as a dead card because I don't play it.
I get it and feel the same way. However, with Dire Frenzy , Hunter can shuffle some cards back in the deck. Hunter decks are usually really fast, so burning 2 card to find your tools is worth it overall. Are you a control player like me? Maybe thats why you feel that way about Tracking? Burning 2 cards in a Control Deck is deadly cuz games go to fatigue most times.
Hunter seems to finish games really fast, and dont suffer, they actually benefit, from thinning their deck. In some ways, its really powerful cuz u can pick the card your looking for!! imagine that power in a Jaina deck, or Gul'dan etc....finding those cards would almost gaurantee the win! Same thing with Hunter! only faster. lol
I'm with you. I recognise that it's good and that the pros use it and so on, but I just hate discarding the unpicked cards. I know it's not rational, but I just don't include it in my decks, because I know that if I do it sits in my hand as a dead card because I don't play it.
I get it and feel the same way. However, with Dire Frenzy , Hunter can shuffle some cards back in the deck. Hunter decks are usually really fast, so burning 2 card to find your tools is worth it overall. Are you a control player like me? Maybe thats why you feel that way about Tracking? Burning 2 cards in a Control Deck is deadly cuz games go to fatigue most times.
Hunter seems to finish games really fast, and dont suffer, they actually benefit, from thinning their deck. In some ways, its really powerful cuz u can pick the card your looking for!! imagine that power in a Jaina deck, or Gul'dan etc....finding those cards would almost gaurantee the win! Same thing with Hunter! only faster. lol
Well when games are going to fatigue ANY card draw is bad. Vs fatigue, Tracking could've given you all three cards and you still wouldn't play it as the goal isn't Tempo but Value
...UNLESS you know your deck can't win a fatigue battle. If that's the case then you better grab all of the Tracking cards you can because if you can't win in Value you might as well go full ham in Tempo.
And note that the only times when Hunter goes for Value is when they have their DK, and then you don't need cards to generate value thanks to the hero power. so you might as well go Tempo and push the DK if you need a Value game.
(the fact that you can completely sacrifice Value and still win a value match because of one particular card is why a lot of folks don't like the DK anymore)
Imho, Tracking is a great card, but its use is peculiar. People use it as a draw, but I think that its original conception is helping to find what u need in order to have lethal, to trade, to clear threats on board. That's why I really don't like using it on T1. The other side of the coin is the 2 cards discard but if u use Tracking to draw, it is not worth, if u use it in the way I think devs thought it, I think it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thats' the point. Tracking isn't a "OMG AUTOIN" card. It highly depends on what sort of deck you are running. the reason why it's used so often nowadays is because most hunter decks have a big need for more Tempo so having the Right Card at the Right Time is so critical for it.
The trick is that most Hunter decks don't push for Control. Beast Hunter is a Tempo deck. Deathrattle is Midrange. They don't rely on Value. They rely on having the right tools at the right time and being ready to rumble.
I can put it in an extreme way. If you give your deck a card that says "Choose then next 10 cards from your deck and have them right away. Discard your remaining cards." would you do it? Odd warrior wouldn't as they aren't going to win games with any combination of 10 cards. Odd Rogue would autoinclude that, proven that an worse version of that card IS included in that deck.
Most hunters would WORSHIP a card like that: always 2 secrets and the spellstone in hand? Always DK at turn 6? Screw the rest of the deck! Tracking is just a smaller version of this mentality.
Sidenote: the whole "the next two cards are the top of the deck" is honestly a non-issue. It's similar to how knowing what the rest of your deck would've been after a loss is not really useful. That DK and your spellstone showed up at the same time doesn't do a thing about the next game. It FEELS different, and emotions are valid, but don't mistake it for logic. When it's time to use Tracking, you don't know what the next 3 cards are, so any planning you do beyond basic probability tests is buying into a Fallacy.
Just calculate the probability of a card combination that you cannot recover from happening, compare to the probability of it not happening. I state that because both getting the card you want and not getting ANY key cards are both beneficial (as the latter means you are 3 cards closer to getting said card).
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
But my counter to that (while I do understand the theory of it) is that knowing that the exact three cards Tracking presents you with are the next three cards to be drawn, you can do a statistical analysis comparing the outcomes of Tracking vs no Tracking. If the cards are picked randomly each time this is impossible, and actually ADDS value to Tracking because if would provide access to cards you may NEVER draw in that game.
Of course tempo is a major factor that will influence the game, but knowing the exact draw of the next three turns vs complete randomisation is massive in analysing the value of the card.
I can go through all the DR Hunter matches I've played now and run theoretical outcomes on this and predict rather accurately whether playing Tracking in each specific scenario was beneficial or not. I'd hazard to guess I could even create a breakdown of the value of the card vs what stage of the game it's played, and maybe even archetypal opponent. That's completely impossible with randomisation.
I guess we've reached a point where it doesn't make sense to go on.
It's like you said, "convince me that there's no connection between vaccines and autism." Everyone came in and showed you why. But then your response has been variants of, "But that's not what I believe."
Not all opinions are valid. Sometimes some opinions are correct while others are wrong. Others may share a mistaken opinion, but that doesn't stop it from being mistaken.
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.
I think we're in agreeance on most discussion points with Tracking - I mentioned that I'm completely in favour of the card with Spellstones/spells and that it's definitely in my Spell Hunter.
I'm surprised you're saying Deathrattle Hunter is midrange though! I perhaps don't understand the range of a midrange deck. They're calling the Hunter deck with Springpaw, Razormaw, Hyena etc "Midrange Hunter". While Deathrattle Hunter does have some strong early tempo if you get the activators and eggs, I feel like the real power of the deck doesn't kick in til T6 at the EARLIEST if you can activate a cubed Grizzly that had been coined out T4 for example. It's no Odd Warrior, but I'd have thought it closer to control than midrange. My bad!
I LOLed at your "extreme way" - I just crated that worse version two days ago ;)
It's interesting that you completely miss the entire purpose of this discussion. You've made some good points, and I appreciate that. But obviously you're close minded and your value in here has run out.
One thing you misconstrue about opinions, they're subjective. An opinion is not a fact.
Thanks for your input, it's been extremely helpful :)
I guess in the end, the question is a matter of timing. Did you gain from getting the card 3 turns early instead of waiting.
It makes the concept of casting Tracking turn 1 to get the DK a bad option since there's no point in getting a card you would've gotten in time anyway.
OTOH, if it's a card that you are going to use within the next 2 turns, it IS a benefit as, otherwise, you wouldn't have had it that turn. Tracking turn 1 to get a secret to play turn 2, or a spellstone to grow off of a turn 2 secret is incredible. Tracking turn 5 to get the DK for turn 6 is similarly impressive.
So in analyzing, look into the times when a card came 1-4 turns too late, or the game ended but a certain card would've turned it around the turn before that you didn't get. In those games, Tracking would've been useful either by finding you the card or pushing you ahead to get the card later.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Perfect example of my case in point. EVERYONE came in here and showed me why Tracking is great? Maybe you should re-read the thread!
I'd love to see the statistics of Tracking vs non-played Tracking across a sub-set of 100+ games - where did you find that? Oh wait, you're talking about drawn WR & played WR aren't you? Massive statistical analysis right there.
Don't get all superiority-complex on me because I'm thinking deeper about the card than you are. I may well come to the conclusion that it's a beneficial card in any situation in my Deathrattle Hunter deck, I may come to the conclusion that it's poor early, but a strong late game card, I may decide that it's value is only in a spell-oriented Hunter deck. Unlike yourself I am not close minded enough to change my opinion.
You're not thinking deeper. You're just wrong. Good luck.
Definitely a great focus for the analysis. I suspect it will be rather time consuming though, but at least I love numbers and statistics. There's an equal chance I'll get it done in time, or I'll get distracted and completely forget about it. Either way, the discussion has been great and enabled me to consider a lot of factors that I would've never thought of.
In the short term my opinion is that it's an auto-include for Spellstone/spell decks, and a mid-late game card for Deathrattle Hunter, and possibly left out altogether.
Thanks for your input iandakar, it's been fantastic!
I'd love to know what you needed to edit - get a little steamy in there did it? :D
If you've played zul'jin you probably have already won
Fun > Meta
Funny thing, that's exactly how it's used currently. It's autoinclude in Spellstone/beast decks. Deathrattle it's sometimes included. That depends on the matchup and how dependent the deck is on the recruit/big boy mechanics compared to an early start. Against aggro it's autoinclude as you MUST have those key cards in hand by turn 3-4. Against control, it's a lot messier though many add it in just to have the option and because, as you'll find, the raw probability of it screwing you is less than the probability of it helping or not mattering, and pros don't get tilted over 'instalose' situations as easily.
Note that most hunters play beast/spellstone. Deathrattle isn't nearly as popular. That may explain the love for the card right now.
That and we get a LOT of new players that just mindlessly say "I lose 2 cards and get 1. That's a bad thing. You sheeple are idiots!" You get kind of kneejerky after 5 years of that. I'm not immune: you probably aren't going to get anything but a copypasta if you DARE talk about 'rigged matchmaking' or ways we need to nerf the coin since it's so 'obviously OP!'.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I changed "GL" to "good luck"
That's one acronym I do know. You may be correct, I may well be wrong in my current thinking. That's entirely why I started the thread. I'd be a lunatic to bother starting a "x card is a piece of shit and you should hate it too" thread. :)
This could quite easily all come down to me just having no idea how to play the card. I've definitely learnt a lot about when to utilise it, so the thread has been extremely helpful. I think every DR Hunter decklist on the HSreplay meta includes it, and given the fact that you can't chose your opponent's archetype, you can't really make changes to your decklist in anticipation of any specific archetype. I've wondered why people use that argument. To me it's no different to cards you haven't drawn in your deck. You've no idea what your opp is going to be, so why factor it in to decision making?
Drawing 1 card is worth 1 mana on average, then each additional card drawn is 2 mana (Arcane Intellect draws 2, Nourish used to draw 3 at 5, but it has a flexibility upside, so it got nerfed, Sprint draws 4). So Tracking's mana cost is at least fair.
It also has the upside that you get to choose from 3 cards, which makes it even better, no one is arguing about that.
The controversial part is that you discard the other 2 cards from the 3 you choose from. Most people see this as a big downside, but you have to look at all the possible scenarios. It's obviously bad if it's a matchup that can go to fatigue, you either don't play it or just try to go face and win fast. It can also be pretty bad if you discard your big cards like the hero cards.
But you also need to look at the other side of the coin. Most games don't go to fatigue. In a lot of games you wouldn't have even drawn the cards you discard. Tracking is not a card you are supposed to play on turn 1 (at least usually). You dig for key cards that let you win the game vs a certain matchup (that's why you play tracking when you know what deck you are playing against). A lot of the cards in your deck are useless in certain matchups, it's not like every card in your deck is Rexxar, Zul'jin and Rhok'delar. On average discarding 2 cards you deem the worst out of 3 random cards in your deck can be quite good, it lets you get the cards you truly need quicker. More often than not it wil let you draw stuff like Zul'jin, Rexxar and Rhok'delar faster instead of discarding them (something a lot of people complain about). You need to realize that if we could make decks with less than 30 cards in them, they would be very powerful. It's not like more cards in your deck is always better. This is the reason why Prince Malchezaar is bad (5 random legendaries that dilute your draws) and Patches is good (it's like making a 29 cards deck and getting a free 1/1 unless you draw him, but on average it's worth the risk). Look at tavern brawls like the one where you only get 10 cards in your deck or the ones where you only put 2/3 cards and they fill your deck with copies of them. The decks you can make in them are super op. When building a 30 cards deck, it's usually 10+ core cards (the cards you really want) and then you just fill it with tech cards and weaker cards just to hit that 30/30.
The smaller deck size > greater strength thing is something I never even considered before. Patches for example, before my time but could never figure out it's worth. Saying that it essentially gives you a 29 card deck and free 1/1, I'm still scratching my head a little as to how that can be a noticeable advantage, but I'm at least starting to see the benefit.
I understand the value of the multi-card draw - but I can't justify the 1 mana to draw 1 card mechanic as a standalone entity. You're spending one mana to draw the card you would've drawn if you didn't have the 1 mana draw 1 card in the deck! :)
Anyway, I'm understanding Tracking a lot more now, the discussion has been great!
I get it and feel the same way. However, with Dire Frenzy , Hunter can shuffle some cards back in the deck. Hunter decks are usually really fast, so burning 2 card to find your tools is worth it overall. Are you a control player like me? Maybe thats why you feel that way about Tracking? Burning 2 cards in a Control Deck is deadly cuz games go to fatigue most times.
Hunter seems to finish games really fast, and dont suffer, they actually benefit, from thinning their deck. In some ways, its really powerful cuz u can pick the card your looking for!! imagine that power in a Jaina deck, or Gul'dan etc....finding those cards would almost gaurantee the win! Same thing with Hunter! only faster. lol
Well when games are going to fatigue ANY card draw is bad. Vs fatigue, Tracking could've given you all three cards and you still wouldn't play it as the goal isn't Tempo but Value
...UNLESS you know your deck can't win a fatigue battle. If that's the case then you better grab all of the Tracking cards you can because if you can't win in Value you might as well go full ham in Tempo.
And note that the only times when Hunter goes for Value is when they have their DK, and then you don't need cards to generate value thanks to the hero power. so you might as well go Tempo and push the DK if you need a Value game.
(the fact that you can completely sacrifice Value and still win a value match because of one particular card is why a lot of folks don't like the DK anymore)
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Imho, Tracking is a great card, but its use is peculiar. People use it as a draw, but I think that its original conception is helping to find what u need in order to have lethal, to trade, to clear threats on board. That's why I really don't like using it on T1. The other side of the coin is the 2 cards discard but if u use Tracking to draw, it is not worth, if u use it in the way I think devs thought it, I think it is.