I really don't want to sound arrogant, but Tempostorm doesn't even consider Pirate Warrior to be viable, while it's still able to tear apart most of today's decks
I totally agree with you, and you aren't arrogant at all.
My thought, my experience is that in wild there are a lot of viable deck, and there isn't out of there a real meta list that is complete. This because there is a high number of powerfull deck that aren't played enough to be shown in that kind of meta report based on numbers, on the most played decks.
Ok, I'll argument it. My opinion is A) mech hunter and mech paladin aren't anything strange for the usual wild meta B) mechwarper isn't that strong alone, is the tribal mech synergy that it is, and I feel it's right this way. Expecially because it's a cross class engine, something that this game is missing more expansion after expansion.
As Avalon pointend out, only card with very good effect still survives from the older sets. This is why Mech hunter and mech paladin are good, while mech mage isn't anywhere to be seen. I don't think it's correct to nerf old cards to open space, because that is the meaning of standard, not wild. Wild should nerf cards only when they are REALLY problematics.
Last but not least, a nerf to mechwarper like summoning portal would do too much harm to the card, because you want to discount cheap cards, so very often the 0 mana can be game changing. I don't know if I would play him after the nerf.
I think the 1/3 statline for 1 regardless of abilities is a mistake in general. I played Shadowverse for a while and though I don't agree or like a lot of the design there, one thing that was really nice was the clear hierarchy of minion costs and stats. No 1-drop minion had better than 1/2 stats, if they had an ability, their stats were most frequently 1/1. Unless a 2-drop had some serious abilities and thus took a major hit to its stats, a 1-drop simply had no chance of killing a 2-drop. Because, duh, you paid twice the amount of mana, of course it should be better. Similarly, two drops were mostly 2/2s, never 3/2s, so they never competed with 3-drops, which were generally 2/3s, etc etc.
In HS, the statlines are all over the place. There are one drops that merrily trade with the most common two drops (Brazen Zealot is the latest example) or snowball to sizes that can compete with 4-drops (the recently nerfed Mana Wyrm, Tunnel Trogg still does this shit, as could Undertaker and Brazen Zealot), 2-drops with 3/2 statline kill slightly understatted 3-drops, but themselves die to 2/1 1-drops etc. The reason 1/3 for 1 is so egregious is that there is literally no way outside of Forbidden Words to kill such a minion cost efficiently. The nearest removal that does the job is Frostbolt, for twice the amount of mana. Beyond that, you have to make major concessions through cards like Spirit Bomb, Soulfire or Corruption (lol). That means that any deck that goes first and lands its 1/3 is ahead for the foreseeable future right out of the gate with no room for response. This philosophy needs to change, and it's not limited to just Northshire Cleric or Rover. The stat hierarchy should be rethought across the board in Hearthstone IMO.
This isn't true at all IMHO. For 2 reasons. But there is a thing that has changed over time, and this is on favor of your argument.
First, Hearthstone doesn't have statline all over the place, there is a rule that has strictly been followed over the years, with little exception: vanilla minions have stats equal to their cost, +1. So we have a yeti 4/5 for (4) or an ogre 6/7 for (6). But effects will reduce the stats, and being a class card is worth another +1. This means that the standard (1) drop should be 2/1 or 1/2, while a class minion can be 2/2 or 1/3, and more powerfull effects are on 1/1 (or class only 1/2 or 2/1). This means that for design the conditional draw of the cleric or the conditional attack bonus of the (old) wyrm or the tunnel trogg or the secretkeeper is worth (0) mana, and I agree with this because their effect is a deckbuilding one: you need a specific deck to use it well, and you still need some other specific cards to do it right (spells for the wyrm, overloard for the trogg, or an opponent that deliberately summons a 1/1 for you to trade with your cleric).
And the second point is that the turn 1 1/3 are supposed to be balanced with turn 2 removal, as almost every class has, or had and it's waiting his replacement, a (2) mana card that can do the job:
Because this is not, IMHO, a point of mana cost (and the design choice that removal may cost more than the removed thing), but a tempo and turn one: turn 1 is followed by turn 2, either with (2) mana or with the coin, and a turn 1 should be answered by turn 2. This is good design IMHO. And if you thing about it, this kind of (1) drop are powerfull only in fast deck if played at turn 1, as we can see with the new unplayable wyrm. So this is a matter of tempo more then a matter of pure costs. Turn 1 play a minion turn 2 remove the above minions sound good to me. 1 card for 1 card.
Last, the only thing that isn't in favor of my argument are some nerfs, like the one to mana wyrm and to fiery war axe, that aren't in this balance mechanism anymore. But we can safely add that both card aren't played anymore, so I don't know how much they count nowaday.
We could choose to balance all this cards on current Big Priest iteration, starting on the idea that Barnes and Vargoth are fine.
We can image a curve that have the first "big" effect at (4) with Barnes and Resurrection, while having the second better effect at (6) with Shadow Essence and Eternal Servitude... Then at (7) the spellstone and at (9) the mass resurrection. Knowing that you cannot combo Vargoth with neither in the same turn, they are fine.
This could be better then killing Barnes. However, it would hardly accomplish anything, as Big Priest power level is not about how many threat you summon per turn, but for how many turns you can summon threats. The strenght of the archetype is aroung a lot of cards, no nerf will fix that.
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.
I strongly disagree with you.
First, I accept the fact that people can complain about a deck that isn't overpowered. I just say that if the deck isn't overpowered, the complain can be answered negatively.
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.
Big Priest is a deck with finite resources. A high number of resources, but still finite. Some of that resources can misfire, expecially if there is a Barnes in the resurrecting pool. There is RNG involved, of course, but that's hearthstone. If you dislike RNG, you should play chess. I like the RNG, it makes the game better. It's the same reason why chess isn't considered a war simulator, as in war you never have everything under control. So I have no problem on the idea that a card can 50% summon a vanilla 3/4 and 50% summon a mighty Ragnaros. However, this is only valid for some turns: after we reach the late game, there isn't that difference from dropping a threat from hand or resurrecting it.
For how I see things, there are three cases:
you are playing a deck with a good match-up against Big Priest, so no problem
you are playing a deck with a bad match-up against Big Priest, and you have adapted to make it the more even you could, so no problem
you are playing a deck with a bad match-up against Big Priest, and you don't want to adapt or can't adapt: this is a problem
This is why I think that the right answer is printing a tech instead of nerfing Barnes, so you can adapt. Just as if your deck is bad against Kingsbane Rogue, you put in some Oozes; or dirty rat against mecha'thun.
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.
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.
PPS: only personal opinion. Take everything and grammar with a grain of salt.
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.
Actually I too prefer VS to tempostorm, but I like to read tempostorm too to get more ideas... And as other said, VS didn't wrote their report yet.
And I'll add something, to this kind of comment:
I totally agree with you, and you aren't arrogant at all.
My thought, my experience is that in wild there are a lot of viable deck, and there isn't out of there a real meta list that is complete. This because there is a high number of powerfull deck that aren't played enough to be shown in that kind of meta report based on numbers, on the most played decks.
But the last time I read a meta report for wild, it said that mech decks aren't that good at all....
Ok, I'll argument it. My opinion is A) mech hunter and mech paladin aren't anything strange for the usual wild meta B) mechwarper isn't that strong alone, is the tribal mech synergy that it is, and I feel it's right this way. Expecially because it's a cross class engine, something that this game is missing more expansion after expansion.
As Avalon pointend out, only card with very good effect still survives from the older sets. This is why Mech hunter and mech paladin are good, while mech mage isn't anywhere to be seen. I don't think it's correct to nerf old cards to open space, because that is the meaning of standard, not wild. Wild should nerf cards only when they are REALLY problematics.
Last but not least, a nerf to mechwarper like summoning portal would do too much harm to the card, because you want to discount cheap cards, so very often the 0 mana can be game changing. I don't know if I would play him after the nerf.
The images are beautyfull
This isn't true at all IMHO. For 2 reasons. But there is a thing that has changed over time, and this is on favor of your argument.
First, Hearthstone doesn't have statline all over the place, there is a rule that has strictly been followed over the years, with little exception: vanilla minions have stats equal to their cost, +1. So we have a yeti 4/5 for (4) or an ogre 6/7 for (6). But effects will reduce the stats, and being a class card is worth another +1.
This means that the standard (1) drop should be 2/1 or 1/2, while a class minion can be 2/2 or 1/3, and more powerfull effects are on 1/1 (or class only 1/2 or 2/1). This means that for design the conditional draw of the cleric or the conditional attack bonus of the (old) wyrm or the tunnel trogg or the secretkeeper is worth (0) mana, and I agree with this because their effect is a deckbuilding one: you need a specific deck to use it well, and you still need some other specific cards to do it right (spells for the wyrm, overloard for the trogg, or an opponent that deliberately summons a 1/1 for you to trade with your cleric).
And the second point is that the turn 1 1/3 are supposed to be balanced with turn 2 removal, as almost every class has, or had and it's waiting his replacement, a (2) mana card that can do the job:
The only class missing is paladin.
Because this is not, IMHO, a point of mana cost (and the design choice that removal may cost more than the removed thing), but a tempo and turn one: turn 1 is followed by turn 2, either with (2) mana or with the coin, and a turn 1 should be answered by turn 2. This is good design IMHO. And if you thing about it, this kind of (1) drop are powerfull only in fast deck if played at turn 1, as we can see with the new unplayable wyrm. So this is a matter of tempo more then a matter of pure costs. Turn 1 play a minion turn 2 remove the above minions sound good to me. 1 card for 1 card.
Last, the only thing that isn't in favor of my argument are some nerfs, like the one to mana wyrm and to fiery war axe, that aren't in this balance mechanism anymore. But we can safely add that both card aren't played anymore, so I don't know how much they count nowaday.
We could choose to balance all this cards on current Big Priest iteration, starting on the idea that Barnes and Vargoth are fine.
We can image a curve that have the first "big" effect at (4) with Barnes and Resurrection, while having the second better effect at (6) with Shadow Essence and Eternal Servitude... Then at (7) the spellstone and at (9) the mass resurrection. Knowing that you cannot combo Vargoth with neither in the same turn, they are fine.
This could be better then killing Barnes. However, it would hardly accomplish anything, as Big Priest power level is not about how many threat you summon per turn, but for how many turns you can summon threats. The strenght of the archetype is aroung a lot of cards, no nerf will fix that.
I strongly disagree with you.
First, I accept the fact that people can complain about a deck that isn't overpowered. I just say that if the deck isn't overpowered, the complain can be answered negatively.
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.
Big Priest is a deck with finite resources. A high number of resources, but still finite. Some of that resources can misfire, expecially if there is a Barnes in the resurrecting pool. There is RNG involved, of course, but that's hearthstone. If you dislike RNG, you should play chess. I like the RNG, it makes the game better. It's the same reason why chess isn't considered a war simulator, as in war you never have everything under control. So I have no problem on the idea that a card can 50% summon a vanilla 3/4 and 50% summon a mighty Ragnaros. However, this is only valid for some turns: after we reach the late game, there isn't that difference from dropping a threat from hand or resurrecting it.
For how I see things, there are three cases:
This is why I think that the right answer is printing a tech instead of nerfing Barnes, so you can adapt. Just as if your deck is bad against Kingsbane Rogue, you put in some Oozes; or dirty rat against mecha'thun.
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.
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.
PPS: only personal opinion. Take everything and grammar with a grain of salt.
Please don't kill me.
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.