So, I started playing on a computer - Laptop. Mind you I know nothing of the Warcraft or other stories. Never played any of them but I liked the concept of Hearthstone. And I found out about Deck Tracker and installed it.
Now, being that I only used it to track stats on my decks, I did find it helpful in the building of my decks.
I then killed that laptop and started playing on a tablet and a Chromebook. Both of which are not able to load the Deck Tracker.
Now, I am back to playing on all 3 lol. My tablet sometimes - my Chromebook when sitting around watching TV and my new Win 11 computer and I have put the Deck Tracker on there again.
Again, The only purpose to me is to test out my builds success and or failures and continue tweaking them. OFC this only catches the stats when played on the PC but it is still helpful to me.
So do people still use it? If you do - for what specific aspect of it and if you don’t why not (other than not avail on your device)?
Just curious, not to spark a debate on the “fairness” or anything
Deck tracker is great if you are playing competitively or am very serious about HS.
It shows you how well you are playing and how to make adjustments from the data. (matchup, etc)
But I no longer use it as I am chill and not as committed to HS as before.
I’m usually playing on my phone so I don’t use it often but I have to admit it’s handy when I’m on PC just to remind me what I have left in my deck in case I got distracted and forgot. Other than that, it seems like it’s more useful to the people who created it for tracking stats on their end
That’s very valid - that’s how I feel about it too. I can see where those who take it seriously would seriously use it. Me, I am like you I don’t play “competitively” I play for fun
Its a fine line between fair and ok. If blizz wanted them gone they’d be gone and flagged as cheatware so for all intentions of purposes we can say its a good idea to have one!
I don’t like them as they’re so cluttery but I definitely have it installed and from time to time check win rates and stats as the info gathered in there is a huge boon.
It does almost remind one of training wheels on a bicycle though because it really is a skill to count your own cards and manage them but again all is fair i never really hated it. In other games like runescape for example i had a huge problem with things like runelite and osbuddy but they became the norms (a client which easifys everything 300x more valuable that counting cards in a card game) but these deck trackers i see as a learning opportunity for newer players.
That being said watching legend players like deep deep legend under 100 is jarring to see that they use it. Many don’t. Kolento and the top dogs do not use it. But modern streamers and youtube netdeckers in the high bracket use them to extreme avail.
Again it’s fine, just jarring. Like a grown adult using training wheels
Don’t do it. The mulligan and kept stats are contaminated, because they don’t take into account the other cards in the mulligan but only ALL the games played by that archetype.
Altair replied in the past I’m wrong. The Firestone main Dev confirmed it to me (and I also know how D0nkey uses his formulas (the same way)).
I’m not sure, some things make a lot of sense, some don’t, but more things make sense than not
Like, here’s the thing: it didn’t help me win any ranks which I didn’t win without it, but it also doesn’t hurt. We didn’t really agree too much about sludgelock mulligan, but we did about Weapon Rogue mulligan.
I don’t know what the difference is, unless they’re getting more and more precise with time.
Now, here’s another thing: I’m a top 200 player when I have the time to play, so it might not help you if you’re that high, but if you’re lower ranked, it will help you, just like it will help you when you’re learning a new deck
It’ll at least speed up your picking up a new deck, and then later on you can mulligan according to your intuition. This is actually why I’m paying for it - to speed up learning new decks, as without it, I’d have to experiment with all sorts of mulligan combinations and compare that with the winrates, and STILL not be sure if I’m doing mulligan wrong, or something else.
Thank you for your analysis. It helps to hear from someone who is high ranked.
Being as that I only pay casually, and don’t pay attention to any of the other stats - I just want win/loss without a pen and paper (which I have done when not playing on my computer).
I guess it kinda depends more on what type of player you are as to whether or not it’s useful to you - as well as what you are using it “for”.
I think the higher ranked players use it more - not because it’s “cheating” believe me I remember EVERYONE screaming how it shouldn’t be allowed and blah, blah, blah; more because it is those players who are competitive players and the stats that it provides to them are extremely useful.
The internal card stats are BAD for most decks, because the sample size per card is very small and that’s the sample size that matters in that case. Hence even if you want a general idea about the deck you need only decks with tens of thousands of samples and higher because those are the only ones that have hundreds of samples for the individual cards on the archetype.
It’s very sketchy because it compounds with the entire thing not taking into account the other cards of the mulligan or even the specific opponent archetype, which is why someone who knows a deck inside-out is not using those stats at all (and I mean literally not at all to the point of disabling it completely (because it’s more misleading and irritating than helpful)).
It works great with sample of 200 games, Competitive (top 2000).
This is true, but it’s not neccessarily bad. It’s actually helpful. If there’s only 1 good rogue deck running around, you know you’re getting the best mulligan advice possible. If there are more, then what you’re getting is averaged winrate per kept card in mulligan, which is good if you don’t know for sure what version your opponent will be running (and you most likely will not, even I don’t in higher ranks).
Sure, you can’t just blindly follow it - although, sometimes I do, I and I don’t feel I’m getting punished for it. It just makes more sense to use your own mulligan knowledge if it conflicts with their data if your matchup winrate is higher than expected. But in other cases, it would be stupid not to think about why their mulligan data make sense.
For example, I knew sludgelock mulligan on average better than the tracker, ON AVERAGE. But there are matchups for which mulligan wasn’t quite so straightforward, and in those matchups, tracker was much helpful.
Those were DH and mirror (keep the Popgar, don’t keep crescendo), and Warrior (keep Popgar and card draw).
You contradict yourself, because you’re more interested to rush to say I’m wrong before having a reason. How can you say in the previous replies that if you know a deck inside-out then it’s problematic and then say that it’s useful.
That information is BAD for people who know their deck inside out. And I mean it’s BAD even if they have hundreds of thousands of samples per card because it does not analyze the rest of the mulligan or opponent archetype.
I like to use a tracker. It gives lots of useful information.
Things as simple as helping you see what cards your opponent has already played, including tracking which were discovered. This can help you see if maybe you are playing against a Reno deck or if they have used both copies of a board clear already.
It doesn’t have to. The analysis of those “emerge”. How?
You track each card, when kept in mulligan, in each matchup, according to the winrates, so the card which is number 1 with highest positive % gain when kept is likely to be the best pick which leads to the highest winrate when kept, rather than thrown away.
You don’t need to analyze synergies. They are automatically analyzed when WE decide to keep all cards that synergize, and then the winrate statistic decides if it’s worth keeping or not.
That tool doesn’t have to do ANYTHING more than it already does. The only issue is, the highest rank it tracks is top 2k, so if you’re a top 200-500 player, you’re not gonna profit too much out of it.
You misunderstand the basic logic of the main condition of what you’re trying to disprove. It’s on condition the pilot knows the deck inside out. If they have perfect understanding of their deck then they have perfect understanding of what to play to begin with which is better than the contaminated stats from a collection that takes into account the wrong opponent archetypes and ignores completely the rest of the mulligan.
tl;dr: the pilot who knows a deck inside out, is better than bad stats.
The stats aren’t bad. They’re great. They’re just limited by sample size, meaning, you can’t track just top 500 because there’s not enough games tracked to show viable data.
That doesn’t make the data bad. 99,99% of the playerbase can profit out of those data, only top 500 cannot.
