While I am all for changing big priest, in whatever way possible, I'm afraid that's not Blizzard's intention. Barnes has them in a tough spot because they're afraid it might nerf big priest. Which is exactly what the majority of the community wants.
Blizzard are either extremely inconsistent or absolutely clueless when it comes to the format and this is what worries me most.
Changing the resurrect mechanic into reborn seems like yet another fine solution to me, honestly.
I do wonder though, would Catrina Muerte's effect stack? Would her dying four turns after she's been summoned, summon four 6/1s?
Second, while I said that Big Priest is easy to play, it is less easy to really understand. This is, IMHO, the reason of it all: people think that your opponent has played Exodia while he was playing a 3/4 summon a 1/1 copy of a minion. And people think they would have won if opponent didn't play Barnes too early, while it could have meant only 2 turns more before a shadow essence. Obviously the equation Barnes==victory isn't true, and Big Priest's win rate isn't the % of drawing Barnes before turn 4.
But it does, though? Look at the mulligan winrate of Barnes for both these decks, compared with any other card in that deck.
What I sometimes see is that a part of the community doesn't want to adapt. This is another problem, and the solution here is less less easy to find. I found that back in the days of quest rogue: I often argued in defence of the quest, because I've almost never lost against a quest rogue with a control deck. I didn't know about high legend, but in my tier (10 to 5 at the time) people wasn't able to understand how quest rogue should be played, so they always went all in into a dragonfire potion.
The only way to adapt to big priest is to play aggressive decks that beat it before the bullshit starts. Which is exactly why the current wild meta is hyper aggressive with little to no control decks.
So, to recap: IMHO, strong doesn't mean unfun, RNG doesn't mean unfun, and unfun doesn't always mean nerf. I think that we need at least Star Aligner Druid power level to need a nerf, so a tier 2 deck doesn't qualify. And last but not least, Barnes on turn 4 alone isn't enough to say win or lose. There is a lot more of things to discuss.
PS: still think that a nerf to oblivion to Barnes would do nothing. We would need to kill the entire engine of resurrection, taking away resurrections from Priest's identity. And after we would have a worst metagame then now.
You're still missing the point on what actually makes the deck unfun. It's RNG, but not the RNG that you described. It's the RNG of "does your opponent draw card x before turn 3/4". Something that cannot be influenced in any way. This makes the deck extremely hit or miss, on top of it being braindead-easy to play.
Nerfing Barnes is a bloody start. It's a lot better than Blizzard saying "Yeah we're definitely looking at priest guise!" for the umpteenth time. But yes, just nerfing Barnes at this point probably isn't enough.
While I don't think the card necessarily needs a nerf, I am all for making his hero power consistent. Right now warrior mirrors are heavily impacted by the amount of times they get delivery drone. Which shouldn't be the deciding factor in a mirror match. I love the idea of it having a set rotation rather than being completely random.
I think that Barnes is fair, the only thing that makes people upset is that Big Priest is really easy to play so many people play it.
Wild is a game mode meant to have a high power level, there is no problem in that. Then, the strongest deck in wild are more genn/baku related then Barnes related (Odd Paladin, Odd Rogue, Even Shaman, Even Warlock were all rated better then Big Priest in the last Vicious Syndicate's meta report).
I think that card games should be treated as problem to be solved, instead of a "take the strongest deck and get angry when I lose". The salt thread is a very good thing. Nerfs may or may not be; and there are a lot of powerfull card that I still miss and that I can't play anymore at all. Big priest is too strong in your opinion? Very well. Play a counter. Sooner or later people will play Big Priest no more if no people played deck that can't win against it. If and when Big Priest become the strongest deck in ladder, we can speak again about a nerf. Before of that, I still own too many card that I can't play anymore at all, and this doesn't feel right. Expecially for some very fun deck that happened to use some cards in common with some high tier ones. And remember that everytime a Pope dies, there is another. Nerf Big Priest, and you'll get some slow control deck taking over, so people ask for nerfs, so an aggro deck come and take over, and the wheel continues to go on.......
As a last word, I can admit that we still would need a good neutral tech against big decks. Something like a unnerfed Tinkmaster Overspark, maybe with some serious downside so it doesn't become a mandatory card.
You seem to be another one of these misinformed people who think that just because people are complaining about a deck it must be overpowered.
This is not the case with big priest. People complain about the deck because it is extremely unfun to play against and relies on nothing more than highrolling. The deck either stomps or gets stomped. Nothing in between.
Yes, there are decks that are far stronger and more consistent than big priest. Those decks are also far more enjoyable to play against.
Barnes arguably isn't even overpowered in wild. He's just extremely unfun. Your opponent playing him on turn 3/4 usually means you lose. Your opponent not drawing him on turn 3/4 usually means you win.
Barnes isn't just a problem in big priest though. Albeit a lot less popular, spell hunter can cheat him and Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound out far more consistently on turn 4 than big priest can. Thanks to Tracking and Master's Call. Even in wild most decks just don't have a consistent answer against 14/15 worth of stats on turn 4. Barnes should cease to exist in its current form. But unfortunately, as others have stated, that won't be enough anymore to get rid of big priest.
While I am all for changing big priest, in whatever way possible, I'm afraid that's not Blizzard's intention. Barnes has them in a tough spot because they're afraid it might nerf big priest. Which is exactly what the majority of the community wants.
Blizzard are either extremely inconsistent or absolutely clueless when it comes to the format and this is what worries me most.
Changing the resurrect mechanic into reborn seems like yet another fine solution to me, honestly.
I do wonder though, would Catrina Muerte's effect stack? Would her dying four turns after she's been summoned, summon four 6/1s?
God I miss notifications on this website. 2 weeks old but anyway:
But it does, though? Look at the mulligan winrate of Barnes for both these decks, compared with any other card in that deck.
https://hsreplay.net/decks/nGF1ovvAyXkbQ52qSArUuh/#gameType=RANKED_WILD
https://hsreplay.net/decks/fpRjBOpJALZ08SHEici48d/#gameType=RANKED_WILD
The only way to adapt to big priest is to play aggressive decks that beat it before the bullshit starts. Which is exactly why the current wild meta is hyper aggressive with little to no control decks.
You're still missing the point on what actually makes the deck unfun. It's RNG, but not the RNG that you described. It's the RNG of "does your opponent draw card x before turn 3/4". Something that cannot be influenced in any way. This makes the deck extremely hit or miss, on top of it being braindead-easy to play.
Nerfing Barnes is a bloody start. It's a lot better than Blizzard saying "Yeah we're definitely looking at priest guise!" for the umpteenth time. But yes, just nerfing Barnes at this point probably isn't enough.
While I don't think the card necessarily needs a nerf, I am all for making his hero power consistent. Right now warrior mirrors are heavily impacted by the amount of times they get delivery drone. Which shouldn't be the deciding factor in a mirror match. I love the idea of it having a set rotation rather than being completely random.
You seem to be another one of these misinformed people who think that just because people are complaining about a deck it must be overpowered.
This is not the case with big priest. People complain about the deck because it is extremely unfun to play against and relies on nothing more than highrolling. The deck either stomps or gets stomped. Nothing in between.
Yes, there are decks that are far stronger and more consistent than big priest. Those decks are also far more enjoyable to play against.
Barnes arguably isn't even overpowered in wild. He's just extremely unfun. Your opponent playing him on turn 3/4 usually means you lose. Your opponent not drawing him on turn 3/4 usually means you win.
That's not healthy for the format.
Barnes isn't just a problem in big priest though. Albeit a lot less popular, spell hunter can cheat him and Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound out far more consistently on turn 4 than big priest can. Thanks to Tracking and Master's Call. Even in wild most decks just don't have a consistent answer against 14/15 worth of stats on turn 4. Barnes should cease to exist in its current form. But unfortunately, as others have stated, that won't be enough anymore to get rid of big priest.
That card is awful and quest warrior sees no play whatsoever. What are you on about?
Baited