What if Barnes could only clone 5- or less Cost minions?

Play Mode Discussion
02/26/2019 04:44 PMPosted by blackveiled
Yes, I am implying a Warlock player would come to the forum to ask for Priest nerfs because of bad matchups.


Joke's on you. I would adapt to the meta if I cared about climbing this season. I'm sitting on 10000 godforsaken dust, yshaarj + double shadow visions + double scream and my deck is complete, no big expense. Or else, I could invest in Kingsbane + Southsea Cap ×2 + Leeroy. Or Aya + jades for Even Shaman.

What would be the point in me whining, if I'm not ranking up atm? Explain.

To suggest doesn't equal to whine. Dozens of players have come here crying and insulting the devs with far worse attitude, as if their adolescent daughter had somehow taken hold of their keyboards. Then I bring myself to write my own tactful post about the situation, and you come here comparing me to said whiners? I might as well uninstall. Don't make me laugh.


Don’t misrepresent me. I never used the word whine or whiner.

My accusation is that you are a tactful, well spoken hypocrite who wants to deny Rogue, Hunter, and Priest the neutral tool for stat dumping while defending Warlock stat dumping that only the Priest deck can use to similar high win rates.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Joke's on you. I would adapt to the meta if I cared about climbing this season. I'm sitting on 10000 godforsaken dust, yshaarj + double shadow visions + double scream and my deck is complete, no big expense. Or else, I could invest in Kingsbane + Southsea Cap ×2 + Leeroy. Or Aya + jades for Even Shaman.

What would be the point in me whining, if I'm not ranking up atm? Explain.

To suggest doesn't equal to whine. Dozens of players have come here crying and insulting the devs with far worse attitude, as if their adolescent daughter had somehow taken hold of their keyboards. Then I bring myself to write my own tactful post about the situation, and you come here comparing me to said whiners? I might as well uninstall. Don't make me laugh.


Don’t misrepresent me. I never used the word whine or whiner.

My accusation is that you are a tactful, well spoken hypocrite who wants to deny Rogue, Hunter, and Priest the neutral tool for stat dumping while defending Warlock stat dumping that only the Priest deck can use to similar high win rates.


Sometimes innocent decks need to suffer for the health of the game, its happened before why should this be an exception?

Lets look at some numbers and compare Barnes to Mountain Giant, the only "stat dump" warlock has that can reliably come out at a similar time in the game:

Big Priest/Barnes: 59.7% global WR, 79% mulligan WR, 74.9% played WR

Even Lock/Giant: 62.7% global WR, 65.7% mulligan WR, 64.7% played WR

They are not even remotely comparable in the impact they have on a game. Yes, it sucks that innocent decks may be impacted, but thats no defence to keeping Barnes as is, period.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Don’t misrepresent me. I never used the word whine or whiner.

My accusation is that you are a tactful, well spoken hypocrite who wants to deny Rogue, Hunter, and Priest the neutral tool for stat dumping while defending Warlock stat dumping that only the Priest deck can use to similar high win rates.


Sometimes innocent decks need to suffer for the health of the game, its happened before why should this be an exception?

Lets look at some numbers and compare Barnes to Mountain Giant, the only "stat dump" warlock has that can reliably come out at a similar time in the game:

Big Priest/Barnes: 59.7% global WR, 79% mulligan WR, 74.9% played WR

Even Lock/Giant: 62.7% global WR, 65.7% mulligan WR, 64.7% played WR

They are not even remotely comparable in the impact they have on a game. Yes, it sucks that innocent decks may be impacted, but thats no defence to keeping Barnes as is, period.


Since we are going there let’s imagine how a Barnes nerf without changing anything else affects the Wild meta.

Warlock currently with 4 tier 1 decks tends to do poorly against Big Priest, but well against Big Priest’s counters. Thereafter Warlock hits similar levels of play as Hunter did in January in Standard and Shaman back in Karazhan Standard.

I say again I am calling hypocrisy out. A Barnes nerf right now would have to be accompanied by a Warlock nerf for balance purposes, probably to Defile and/or Voidcaller.

More ridiculous still would be also nerfing Reno Priest like the OP wants, another bad Warlock matchup BTW, thereby deleting Priest from Wild and boosting Warlock even more.

BTW, Warlock can more consistently play Giant on 3 than Priest due to the Hero Power and being a 2 of.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Sometimes innocent decks need to suffer for the health of the game, its happened before why should this be an exception?

Lets look at some numbers and compare Barnes to Mountain Giant, the only "stat dump" warlock has that can reliably come out at a similar time in the game:

Big Priest/Barnes: 59.7% global WR, 79% mulligan WR, 74.9% played WR

Even Lock/Giant: 62.7% global WR, 65.7% mulligan WR, 64.7% played WR

They are not even remotely comparable in the impact they have on a game. Yes, it sucks that innocent decks may be impacted, but thats no defence to keeping Barnes as is, period.


Since we are going there let’s imagine how a Barnes nerf without changing anything else affects the Wild meta.

Warlock currently with 4 tier 1 decks tends to do poorly against Big Priest, but well against Big Priest’s counters. Thereafter Warlock hits similar levels of play as Hunter did in January in Standard and Shaman back in Karazhan Standard.

I say again I am calling hypocrisy out. A Barnes nerf right now would have to be accompanied by a Warlock nerf for balance purposes, probably to Defile and/or Voidcaller.

More ridiculous still would be also nerfing Reno Priest like the OP wants, another bad Warlock matchup BTW, thereby deleting Priest from Wild and boosting Warlock even more.

BTW, Warlock can more consistently play Giant on 3 than Priest due to the Hero Power and being a 2 of.


Since we are going there, show me another card that when played on curve has an 80% winrate and/or a 20% increase on global win rate for the deck its used in, just one!

Then convince me that its fine as is, 'cos i doubt you will find one.

If you want to use this argument to defend Barnes, then show me a SINGLE card that has anywhere near as much impact as he does in Big Priest.

I'll wait.

Call hypocrisy all you like, doesn't make you right. Not until you can provide the info I requested. It's not hypocrisy to call out a busted card.
[Big Priest/Barnes: 59.7% global WR, 79% mulligan WR, 74.9% played WR

Even Lock/Giant: 62.7% global WR, 65.7% mulligan WR, 64.7% played WR

They are not even remotely comparable in the impact they have on a game. Yes, it sucks that innocent decks may be impacted, but thats no defence to keeping Barnes as is, period.

You get the mountain giant win rate twice as often though, because there are two giants and only one Barnes. So these stats are misleading.
02/26/2019 08:22 PMPosted by Marcoscongas
More ridiculous still would be also nerfing Reno Priest like the OP wants, another bad Warlock matchup BTW, thereby deleting Priest from Wild and boosting Warlock even more.


02/26/2019 01:42 PMPosted by blackveiled
Cube Hunter and Tempo Mage can put enough pressure on my gameplan to call it a win. Reno Priest, Control Priest and a well piloted aggro can take me down like nothing. Still, all of those decks are perfectly fine to me and I only wanted to suggest changes for a widely disliked Priest strategy.


Enough said.

I may have mistaken you (and I did) with another forumer calling me a whiner,
but this...

Outstanding move.
02/27/2019 12:56 AMPosted by Silverangel
[Big Priest/Barnes: 59.7% global WR, 79% mulligan WR, 74.9% played WR

Even Lock/Giant: 62.7% global WR, 65.7% mulligan WR, 64.7% played WR

They are not even remotely comparable in the impact they have on a game. Yes, it sucks that innocent decks may be impacted, but thats no defence to keeping Barnes as is, period.

You get the mountain giant win rate twice as often though, because there are two giants and only one Barnes. So these stats are misleading.


Yet despite that it's still only a 3% increased win rate compared to the near 20% seen by Barnes... Shows just how ridiculous Barnes is in BP, and only further shows why the card needs to be changed.

Think about it, despite having 2 Mountain Giants in a deck it is still only a 3% increased win rate globally. That accounts for the fact that 2 copies are included in the deck. Even if we used your implied theorem that it should be 6% due to 2 copies being included, Barnes is still over 300% better as an on curve play in BP than MG is in Evenlock.

Do you understand how data collection & statistics work? The 3% MG WR increase accounts for the inclusion of 2 copies. Significantly less than the almost 20% seen by Barnes in BP.

Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt
02/27/2019 12:56 AMPosted by Silverangel
...
You get the mountain giant win rate twice as often though, because there are two giants and only one Barnes. So these stats are misleading.


Yet despite that it's still only a 3% increased win rate compared to the near 20% seen by Barnes... Shows just how ridiculous Barnes is in BP, and only further shows why the card needs to be changed.

Think about it, despite having 2 Mountain Giants in a deck it is still only a 3% increased win rate globally. That accounts for the fact that 2 copies are included in the deck. Even if we used your implied theorem that it should be 6% due to 2 copies being included, Barnes is still over 300% better as an on curve play in BP than MG is in Evenlock.

Do you understand how data collection & statistics work? The 3% MG WR increase accounts for the inclusion of 2 copies. Significantly less than the almost 20% seen by Barnes in BP.

Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and prove it


Prince Keleseth in Standard Zoo Warlock.

Thekal in Wild Paladin.

You can’t compare Giants to Barnes precisely because of the statistical difference in drawing a 2 of with a draw Hero Power. You need to compare it with other legendary cards.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Yet despite that it's still only a 3% increased win rate compared to the near 20% seen by Barnes... Shows just how ridiculous Barnes is in BP, and only further shows why the card needs to be changed.

Think about it, despite having 2 Mountain Giants in a deck it is still only a 3% increased win rate globally. That accounts for the fact that 2 copies are included in the deck. Even if we used your implied theorem that it should be 6% due to 2 copies being included, Barnes is still over 300% better as an on curve play in BP than MG is in Evenlock.

Do you understand how data collection & statistics work? The 3% MG WR increase accounts for the inclusion of 2 copies. Significantly less than the almost 20% seen by Barnes in BP.

Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and prove it


Prince Keleseth in Standard Zoo Warlock.

Thekal in Wild Paladin.

You can’t compare Giants to Barnes precisely because of the statistical difference in drawing a 2 of with a draw Hero Power. You need to compare it with other legendary cards.


1. We are talking wild, so standard Zoo is out of the equation

2. Thekal is a CLASS card when you, yourself, specified NEUTRAL and even if we include Thekal, its still only +10% (mulligan) compared to the 20% seen by Barnes in BP... YOu know what else is at 10% mulligan WR? Barnes in Big ROGUE!

So, convince me that Barnes isnt a problem!
Heres an example of how Stupid Barnes is. I was doing my part spreading the Big Priest Love in Wild Casual and I Queue into a Warrior twice in a row he played 2 different versions of Odd Warrior 1 Agro 1 Control. First game Warriro was Control I went first and had Barnes in my opening hand. Turn 4 rolls around and I play my Barnes and get a Lich King. He removes my board I Resurect the Lich King with Eternal Servitude. He kills that Lich King I play Shadow Essence and get Obsidian Statue. He kills it I play Ressurect and it hits the Statue he equips Super Colider. I slow down as I an ahead on Fatigue and just toss away my dead cards so I don't overdraw. Now I am at the point I can play the minions in my Hand. Every time he kills something I play a new Minion and charge up my 4 spellstones. I manage to eat the Colider and all of his AoE and still have 2 Spellstones. Warrior is complete out of stuff and concedes when I play my last Card my Actual Lich King. 2 spellstone still in hand.

2nd game is the Agro version that game I went 2nd kept my Spirt Lash and Mulligans the other 3 and get Barnes. He plays First Mate and pulls Patch turn 1 and turn 2 2x Town Crier. I Spirt Lash on 2 because I have coin Barnes for 3 into Servitude turn 4 into 2x Resurrect which I high rolled and got 2x Lich King instead of any Barnes into Essense into Spellstone. He didn't have a chance either game.

Most classes don't even have a chance against the on curve Barnes and even the ones that do have answers they are way too slow for a proper punish. Totally fair and balance deck and mechanics.
@Marcos: fwiw I like Big Rogue as well, tbh its the only even remotely meta wild deck I can play for more than a couple of games in a row in wild, its actually a very fun deck...

BUT as I said earlier, sometimes innocent decks get hit in the crossfire and I am yet to see a reason, looking at the numbers, that Barnes should remain as is... ESPECIALLY once (wild) community feedback is accounted for - the general consensus for a LONG time now is that Barnes needs to change and the numbers support that request.
02/27/2019 02:38 AMPosted by Bowser
...

Prince Keleseth in Standard Zoo Warlock.

Thekal in Wild Paladin.

You can’t compare Giants to Barnes precisely because of the statistical difference in drawing a 2 of with a draw Hero Power. You need to compare it with other legendary cards.


1. We are talking wild, so standard Zoo is out of the equation

2. Thekal is a CLASS card when you, yourself, specified NEUTRAL and even if we include Thekal, its still only +10% (mulligan) compared to the 20% seen by Barnes in BP... YOu know what else is at 10% mulligan WR? Barnes in Big ROGUE!

So, convince me that Barnes isnt a problem!


I won’t.
OP check this out.

Wild Big Priest (non-Tar Creeper) cheat's out w 2 cards.
Barnes - 1 of, ideally turn-4, almost-useless after turn-8 because Res is greater than diluting the spellstone.
Shadow Essence - 2x, 6-mana, rarely backfires hitting Barnes.

So this is what starts the deck up, unless it can afford to stall until T7/8 for normal-play.

I'd argue that Barnes is so inconsistent to have by T4,5 because it is only 1 of and needed very-early.

So what's the bigger problem?
3 cheat out cards with 1 Banes 2 Essence?
or the 6 resurrection cards?

Resurrect - 2 mana (this is abso redic, 2 mana Y'saarj?!)
Servitude - 4 mana (are you kidding me?)
Spellstone - 7 mana (for like up to 35 ish mana of resups, with taunt, end of turns).

Barnes is highroll, its only 1 of, making it not-every match.
vs
Shadow Essence, is 6 mana 2x per deck, and is way more consistent to start the mana cheat snowball. Right? This is the key point.

Shadow Essence
Spellstone
Servitude
Res is fine, because you can't choose, and it's worthless until late game.

These cards, especially Spellstone, are what make DS/IF happen.
Essence you could argue enables Spellstone.
Servitude and Res just boost Spellstone.

Take away that Diamond Spellstone...how does Wild Big Priest do now?
Well, still good, but not nearly as bursty.
Want to nerf Spellstone?
Nerf Shadow Essence, it starts of the Spellstone early, more consistently than Barnes because it's 2x.

I mean if you're playing Standard, yea "Barnes is the only cheat out nerf it".
If you're playing Wild "Essence is like 2x more consistent to cheat out, at the cost of 2 turns later, so it's a bigger deal than Barnes w/o question"

A WBP enabler in Shadow Essence
vs
a 50 percent as consistent but more powerful when it hits Banes.

I think consistency wins here, majorly.
If you don't draw that barnes early, it didn't matter.
Will you draw 1 of your essences by T6, given Visions is there?
Yea, 100 percent of the time.
That's why consistency matters more than the spike-height.
02/27/2019 02:01 AMPosted by Bowser
Do you understand how data collection & statistics work? The 3% MG WR increase accounts for the inclusion of 2 copies. Significantly less than the almost 20% seen by Barnes in BP.

Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt

I was of course referring the the mulligan/played winrate. It was correct to say your stats are misleading, also because of additional draw power of warlock.

I do agree that this side argument is somewhat irrelevant, but it does cast legitimate shade on the OP's complaint. Was your tacked-on insult to my intelligence really necessary?

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum