Hearthpwn

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!

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

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 :)

Quote from HyperNova >>

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.

 Great input, thanks!

I find with my decks I don't generally have "filler" cards - but every card is situational.  It's not like I'm running a Dire Mole cuz it's shit - it's one of the strongest opening plays.  But a Dire Mole IS shit as a T9 topdeck when you're looking for King Krush!

Because decks are refined so precisely with the sheer volume of play and statistical analysis available, I don't think there's a scenario where there's one specific card that's a great burn in every situation.  So fleshing that out, statistically over a large sample size you should get an even % of good burns, as you do bad burns - thus cancelling out the burn mechanic altogether.

Of course situationally it can be a great mechanic, but it's a double-edged sword.  I would contend that pro-Tracking people have confirmation bias themselves as well :)

Quote from scorpyon >>

 It's a "Cycle 1 card for 1 mana, and burn 2 random cards out of your deck for no apparent reason".
So no... I won't be trying to change your mind. 
It's a terrible card and I laugh whenever my opponent plays it - even more so when they take more than a few seconds to choose what card they want because you know at that moment they just got given the choice from helll!
Hah! 

 Let's be friends :D

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!

I think I need a new perspective on this card.  I completely understand it's value in a deck running Spellstones, but other than that it's only served to disappoint me.  More often than not I'm having to choose between 2-3 cards I really don't want to have to make a choice between.  I know the argument of "think of the two you discard as cards that were gonna sit on the bottom of the deck undrawn", but in the case of DR Hunter specifically, that's potentially two minions you not only won't get a single copy of, but can no longer discover with Stitched Tracker.

I feel that decks should be flexible enough that you don't need to use Tracking for curve.  I can understand the synergistic intentions of it as mentioned above - but now that DR Hunter is effectively losing Hunter's Mark and making Candleshot redundant, I've decided I'd rather run some more DR cards to reduce my chances of having to play a non-activated Terrorscale, or have a Play Dead sit in my hand early.

Some weird ass comments in here.  Like complaining how shit the deal is because there isn't a completely useless inanimate card back included that doesn't affect the strength of your collection one bit..... O_o

Anyway, I got 3 legendaries, one golden - he's now Leeroy.  Myra Rotspring is now playing with her pet shark Gral for a bit of fun.

4440 dust worth of cards from 30 packs - very happy with that!

I'm interested to discuss the different opinions of the community regarding the target gold amount a F2P player should aim for coming to the rotation (and subsequent expacs).  Obviously "the more the better" is the answer, but not a very valid comment for this discussion.

As a F2P player, it's all about efficiencies.  You need to balance your savings with your current investment so that you can maintain your competitiveness in the current meta, while generating enough resources to continue that through each expansion.  As your collection of Classic cards fills out the set, it will become easier to stay up with the meta - but often it's a balancing act through buying more packs and saving.

I'd like this thread to assist any new(ish) players who are wondering how to manage their gold.  I know these things have been discussed before, but a comprehensive review of things to consider all collated in one place would benefit others I feel (and I wouldn't be surprised if that thread already exists).

So, fire off your thoughts!  Primarily, what # of gold *you* believe a F2P should aim for come the rotation.  Also feel free to discuss things such as pity timer management, maximising value4gold with Arena, the "sweet spot" of how many packs one should open per expac before they hit diminishing returns - things like that.

I'm adding a component to my tracking spreadsheet that will help players optimise their gold management, so this thread is basically for research purposes :)

Quote from I_Feel_Ur_Pain >>

Neither 

 WWUD?

Quote from hguerra132 >>

You don't need Prince Liam in odd Paladin :)

 You're right - I've discovered that he probably only brings a bit of unpredictable fun to the deck without actually helping it.  Though for some ridiculous reason I went 3-6 @ rank 13 with Odd Pally yesterday even though I've got a 61% WR over 100 games with it.

It’s fair to gripe about a deck with a 62% win rate but pretending you’re a superior player because you play “hard” decks is just self satisfaction. All decks require some planning and foresight, successfully playing Aggro requires a lot of bluffing and preparation. It takes at least as much skill as a control deck slapping down brawl or mass hysteria over and over or an OTK deck milling a mechathun...

Quote from LessThan3 >>

iandakar, I'm interested to know whether the sideboard was static as is the proposed tournament format, or whether players were able to bring in cards at any point during a game?  I've never seen a side board before so I'm not sure about how it's generally managed outside the new tournament structure.

Here's hoping that they've got all their ducks in a row and it'll all make sense come rotation! 

 I'm referring to the Specialist Showdown that occured last december.  It was set up more like MTG.  You get one deck.  Then you pick 10 cards that make up your 'sideboard'.  At any point after the first game in the match, you can swap any of the cards in your deck with cards from your sideboard.  It was also interesting because the players were pre-told what class to bring (idea was that they were known for playing that class very well and, thus, were to represent that class as the 'expert').  Thus all of the classes were represented by default.

I'm guessing the main example of why they thought 10 cards were 'too many' was due to how Paladin was handled. StrifeCro wielded that class and brought Even Paladin, but was able to use his 10 cards to convert it into an OTK paladin deck.  Makes it hard to tech against your opponent when they could be an aggressive board focused deck or a slower combo deck with two ways to instakill.  

I am pretty sure they put the number at 5 because they did not want the 3 decks to be entirely different archetypes.

In existing formats, it has annoyed me how important it is to choose the lineup. Prediciting what your opponents will bring often comes down to luck. With the new format, there should be more focus on playing the game and less on hard counters.

Somebody should run a moch tournament in this format so we can see how it works. Blizzard must have tested this a lot internally!

Quote from Claeshj >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

The problem here is a failure to acknowledge how small a percentage of the playerbase has ever played in tournaments.

The devs felt like they needed a new format because they had been using the format for years, but they fail to take into account that this year, tens of thousands of folks who have never played Conquest would have started playing for the first time.  The 1% of 1% who frequently play on the tournament circuit may be a little tired of the format, but it would have read as fresh and new for most of us.

Under phantom pressure to create a new format, I think it is likely that they have come out with a worse alternative.

Opening the tournament scene to others did not require an adjustment of format.

 I think you may not give them enough credit for their process of delivery. This has no doubt taken months to plan and implement, and thinking Blizzard doesn’t realize it will target a bigger player base than the “1% of the 1%” is not quite feasible.

I can’t speak to their considerations for changing the format either, but there are lots of possibilities. For example, many people (Firebat included) say it is a simpler format than it was before. Simpler means more easily accessible to the common player that the format now opens up to. 

 I can't tell, but I think there may have been a failure of communication regarding the 1% of 1%.  What I meant there is that you have this small group of pro players who are tired of Conquest format, and they were probably loud and influential in creating the idea that a new format was needed.

The vast majority of players, however, have only played the ladder format, and to them, Conquest would be fresh and new.

I just think opening the tournament scene to new players = good, but new format may be step down from Conquest.

Quote from Arcsun >>

One thing I'd be interested to see is how the statistics compare to sideboarding in MTG. 

What's the significance of changing up to 5 cards in a 30-card deck, and how will that skew the strategies that competitors take? 

As for how well thought out it was, I'll reserve judgment until I actually see the gameplay in action. In any case I think its good that they're trying new things, even if it's been very slow progress to get here! 

 We don't have much info at all as far as this concept.  Pro players focus more on decks as a whole.  Teching up your deck when it's then locked down for the entire tournament has never really worked out well since you end up vulnerable to any deck your tech isn't tuned for.

There was a tournament not long ago where 10 cards out of a 30 card deck were sideboarded.  The overall consensus is that 10 is far too many cards as it allowed for decks to completely change their archetype.  The goal is to have 1 deck that can flex to compete against different opponents, not have 2-3 different decks all under the same class.

I'm also cautious, but the last time I was cautious was over rotations and that worked out.  So long as Blizzard is willing to change or gut the thing as needed then I'm ok with them experimenting.  Just don't put in a system that ends up not working then locking us down into it for the next 2 years.

Though although I'm personally not enraged by it I DO support those who are ANGRY over how this announcement is for a mode that isn't going to be experienced by the majority of the playerbase when said playerbase is suffering from a lack of new content.  I'm not sure much could've been done instead as I bet the announcement was to give the pro players SOME sort of time to prepare and any new content for the rest probably isn't ready for release yet.  But if I have $0 in my checking account, and a credit card but I **NEED** to buy food to live, the fact that I need to eat doesn't stop the consequences of having to repay a very ugly credit card loan afterwards.

That I can see why they may have announced things this way doesn't change the fact that it's going to really bother a whole lot of folks.  Blizzard will just have to withstand a few pitchfork stabs and really REALLY hope that they have something planned up soon to fix things.

I'm reticent to comment on the new format, given that a lot of folks are being quite prickly about the announcement. But here it goes . . .

Altogether, it seems like an improvement for the competitive scene - counter-play has been sorely lacking from the game, given that most "answers" the devs provide us in order to tech against Aggro, Combo, etc, are simply unplayably bad. But many of those answers are only bad on ladder, since they are dead draws when you queue against a deck that isn't targeted by those tech choices. Something as innocuous as a late-game Value deck has been missing for the past couple of years, simply because those kinds of decks get nuked by Combo. If you have the option of running an anti-Combo Value deck as one of your auxiliaries . . . it will be interesting to see how the tournament scene develops over the course of the year.

Quote from jainaishot >>

-Blizzard: Here is a turd, enjoy!

-Community: BRIIIING THE PITCHFOOOORKS

-Blizz's defenders: Come on guys, we haven't tasted it yet.

On serious note, i wonder why they did not implemented this in their old formats.It may have required a client update or UI change but the idea of sideboarding in hs is awesome.Yet they had to gut the tournaments to acheive it...go figure...

 Try anything once eh? ;) 

Maybe that's why they axed tournament mode. Maybe they tried to implement this format but f'ed up the code or couldn't be arsed or whatever. /s

-Blizzard: Here is a turd, enjoy!

-Community: BRIIIING THE PITCHFOOOORKS

-Blizz's defenders: Come on guys, we haven't tasted it yet.

On serious note, i wonder why they did not implemented this in their old formats.It may have required a client update or UI change but the idea of sideboarding in hs is awesome.Yet they had to gut the tournaments to acheive it...go figure...

Quote from LessThan3 >>

Quote from Claeshj >>

Fun to see all these casual players condemning a format they can’t properly comprehend. 

We have seen community tournaments with sideboards of 10, which all the pros participating unanimously agreed was too many.

Personally I’m very excited to see how this will play out, and it will actually get me back into watching tournament play.

This will not be the final form, thinking that is ignorant. If you’ve ever held a job anywhere that develops a product, you should also know this. It takes iterations to perfect, but I’m very excited about this first rendition. 

 Your input would be well received if it didn't come off so elitest.  Your assumptions are poor, and well all assumptions are stupid at the best of times. 

Well yee master of the cards.....I hereby invite you to actually contribute and give a short little explanation for the casual condemners!  Enlighten them so they too can can understand the excitement of what is to come!  :)

  Not really sure how it came off elitist, was not the intent. It should came off as anything but elitist, because I’m a filthy casual like the rest of them :)

For that very reason, I didn’t judge the format or the concepts thereof, because none of us can truly comprehend it till we try it. 

As I said I’m excited to see how it plays out, I won’t be arrogant enough to try to tell you how it will work out.

The problem here is a failure to acknowledge how small a percentage of the playerbase has ever played in tournaments.

The devs felt like they needed a new format because they had been using the format for years, but they fail to take into account that this year, tens of thousands of folks who have never played Conquest would have started playing for the first time.  The 1% of 1% who frequently play on the tournament circuit may be a little tired of the format, but it would have read as fresh and new for most of us.

Under phantom pressure to create a new format, I think it is likely that they have come out with a worse alternative.

Opening the tournament scene to others did not require an adjustment of format.