I agree with you. Blizzard is not making control cards as powerful as aggro cards. For example, the fact that Webweave costs 5 instead of 4 makes it unplayable, because they thought that it would be "way too strong" at 4 mana. When in reality the card would probably still not see play at 4. They are too scared of making powerful cards. They have no tenacity, there really should be someone else balancing. Because whoever is right now are not doing a very good job.
Control is simply harder to play than aggro. Some aggro decks are also hard, and some are pathetically easy. All control decks are hard, both in the amount of decisions you have to make and the punishment for mistakes. A single misplay in the early game is usually enough for a control deck to lose. If you're playing control you literally plan your first 5-6 turns at the mulligan against the various threats aggro can present at each stage. Aggro just has to look for a good opening curve. Surviving until late game usually comes down to getting or not getting a specific card. Aggro is much more flexible.
If aggro players weren't so bent on trying to make what they do seem as skillful, then control players wouldn't spend as much time fighting for their moral highground. Aggro already have the faster games and easier wins, so it's a bit greedy to try to claim the skill factor as well.
You can play whatever you like as long as you behave like a decent human being,That's why aggro players deserve all the hate they get.I play the game since vanilla and my friends play since beta,we all agree that douchebags tend to choose aggro.Not that there aren't control or combo douchebags but come on,almost 1 in every three games against aggressive decks the opponent is mental.Spamming like an imbecile,roping before lethal,roping on when he has one card and somethimes adding to flame.I have seen control players do the same but it is sooo much rarer.And the reason for that is that there are three categories of aggro players:
a)The tryhards(the biggest category).They want to win no matter what,play the game all day long to farm ranks but since they are just an average joe,they are getting pissed when they lose and become toxic.They become even more toxic when other toxic players do the same to them.
b)The fun policie.There dipshits out there that have fun,ruining others people fun.Playing against face decks is no fun for the majority of players so they choose aggro.
c)There are also the new players but they are few and you dont see them below rank 15
.
There's also people who adapt to the meta and play a deck that is strong in local meta, got to legend first time cause I noticed everyone is playing midrange (karazhan) but nobody is playing anti aggro tools so took a big win streak with aggro, was playing midrange before that.
not everyone is toxic, I hate losing but I never add people to insult them
I already mention your category.You belong to the tryhards.You claim to be a non toxic tryhard and good for you but you are tryhard non the less.:P
All deck types are essential to a healthy meta. It is Blizzards job to ensure the balance. Everyone of us would like the meta to fit his own sense of enjoying the game, and thats about it.
The problem is that a single 5 minute aggro victory gives the same reward as a 20+ minute control victory. In this scenario, only a fool wouldn't play aggro, you could get 4 wins in the time a control player got one. ...
As more of a casual player I will say this doesn't apply to everyone. I would much rather loose a 20 minute game where both players had time to use seldom seen cards in inventive ways than win 4 forgettable games.
To players like me, whether they like playing control much or not, at least slower decks lead to more opportunities to actually try things. I don't dislike aggro per se (I am glad it is around for the health of the game), but those games offer little chance to get creative. So I wouldn't call it a moral high ground, but control can be preferable.
Why do people not understand that a healthy meta needs both? My friend actually insulted me just seeing that i'm playing hunter (that's actually mid range) all the while he decides to build a "cancer priest deck" that I'm sure is a netdeck anyways. I was actually playing my own custom priest deck and rank 15 and got tired of every game stretching to over 15 minutes rather.
Why do people not understand that a healthy meta needs both? My friend actually insulted me just seeing that i'm playing hunter (that's actually mid range) all the while he decides to build a "cancer priest deck" that I'm sure is a netdeck anyways. I was actually playing my own custom priest deck and rank 15 and got tired of every game stretching to over 15 minutes rather.
Why do people not understand that a healthy meta needs both? My friend actually insulted me just seeing that i'm playing hunter (that's actually mid range) all the while he decides to build a "cancer priest deck" that I'm sure is a netdeck anyways. I was actually playing my own custom priest deck and rank 15 and got tired of every game stretching to over 15 minutes rather.
You're right about most control decks. They have to do some counting and calculating as well, but it is not more skill intense than the counting and calculating an aggro deck has to do. Mostly you just calculate the odds of drawing and how long to delay board clears and so on, while hunter has to calculate when to squeeze in a heropower in the midgame, and so on. Both pretty easy tasks.
However, "combo" decks are definitely harder than both of those, cause they are bound to win conditions instead of attrition play, therefore implement more card draw and require way more calculating. IMO, a general rule of thumb: the more cheap card draw a deck has, the more skill intense it is, cause card draw enables possible things later that turn, which also have to be calculated beforehand.
The meta is control now and I absoultely hate it. People are playing such greedy decks that you either have to be greedy and lose versus aggro, or have some anti aggro and lose to the greedy players. It's the worst state of the meta in a long time imo.
Or you play midrange, what exactly is the problem? Aside from maybe jade druid, there's no deck that is particularly oppressing. It's easy to punish decks that are "too greedy", if you find that to be a big problem.
People are just mad that Blizz still hasnt done anything about the problem, thats always better to play an aggressive deck due to gametime.
If you win 55% with fast decks its still more value than winning 58% with a control deck and i think thats basically the reason why many control players are mad.
I agree with this response. Prior to this slow meta in KFT, there was no point in playing control decks until you reach rank 5 or legend, you would simply be wasting your time.
A good player knows that a healthy meta must have a diverse amount of archetypes. Control players do not hate aggro players, the ladder system is what control players hate.
The ladder should be changed from stars to a point system that factors in game length IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
4x Top 150 arena player #95 June 2017 6.80, #108 Aug 2017 7.67, #127 Feb 2018 Wildfest 7.7, #33 Nov 2018 7.53
HCT Challenger Finals qualifier: 2018 Season 1, 2, 3
I play control - and I won't lie and wish more people did so as well. I agree with many of the reasons above (feel it requires more long-game strategy, intellect). But the biggest reason I get frustrated with super aggro/face decks is that it doesn't allow me to get a chance to play - or even draw - many of my cards in my deck. You tend to feel cheated then by losing a match based upon your mulligan, where if you are playing another control match, the mulligan isn't as game-defining as with the pirates, token shamans, etc out there.
Why do people not understand that a healthy meta needs both? My friend actually insulted me just seeing that i'm playing hunter (that's actually mid range) all the while he decides to build a "cancer priest deck" that I'm sure is a netdeck anyways. I was actually playing my own custom priest deck and rank 15 and got tired of every game stretching to over 15 minutes rather.
Yikes, I miss the days of long games. 15min is a dream.
I'm a Control/Combo deck player and have always avoided playing aggressive strategies. This also applies to Magic the Gathering, which I've been playing for 16 years now. I admit to disliking aggressive strategies, the reasons being mostly what you guys mention, but also these two ; the goal of aggro is usually to end the game before the opponent actually gets to play properly, and games against aggro are usually decided by the Control player drawing or not drawing the card they put in the deck for this matchup. It's a very Yes/No match a lot of the time, without a lot of talk in between. This is especially emphasized to the extreme by Reno Jackson decks. endlessly boring.
for me, fights against aggro decks often turn too simplistic and polarized. they throw everything at me in the hopes to overwhelm from turn 1, they want me dead before I actually get to play my cards, the cards they use are most often mechanically uninteresting and are primarily just to take my life count down as fast as possible - and the worst part is that a lot of players running aggro are doing it just for efficiency's sake, like, they wanna grind up to their desired rank as fast as possible. they sacrifice the joy of actually playing the game to... rank up faster? brother, I'm ranking up too, no hurry here.
there are exceptions in people that actually enjoy aggro or have an urge sometimes to play that kind, that's all fine, no disrespect meant to anyone. I'm just looking for more exciting games than that, where we both play out what we want and see who comes on top based on our decisions. anyone remember those old Control Warrior vs Priest matches way back? gimme that back.
although, I will say I'm being endlessly annoyed by cards like Stonehill Defender in Control vs Control. cards like that shouldn't have such range of discovery.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
''He traded sands for skins, skins for gold, gold for life. In the end, he traded life for sand.''
For me, I just like playing the game and want to play for as long as possible without losing ten games to face-decks in the process. Long games allow me to play all the cool and fun cards, since those always seem to come into effect in the late game. That said, I don't think it's right to act all high and mighty about playing a control deck when someone else isn't. As long as it isn't one of those awful decks that gets turn 3-5 lethal, nobody should have a problem with it.
It's pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as the scrub mentality of people who complain if you use any remotely playable card ever and act like playing a strictly inferior card/deck somehow makes you Jesus Christ. There are a finite number of good cards/strategies. Like sweet....play Ironbark Protector instead of The Lich King, awesome dude.
The only complaint I have when it comes to true aggro decks is simple: you never get to actually play your deck. If their game plan goes well the game ends by turn 5-6. If their game plan doesn't go well they concede by T7.
This is a perfect point to the argument. there is no moral high ground or skill vs no skill argument that needs to be made. I have watched streamers run aggro or "cancerous" decks up to the top ranks before busting out their cool control or combo decks, are we saying that they somehow lost their skill while playing an aggro deck? At the end of the day everyone just gets mad that they lost in 5 turns and didn't get to play their cool cards, no big deal it was a 5 min match go on to the next one. In actuality I almost feel worse going through a 20 min game where I played all my combos and answers and still lost but at least at that point you just tip your hat and say GG. Nothing wrong with playing any archetype you want to, who am I to say what you should play to have fun?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Courage is not the absence of fear, Courage is the presence of faith.
I've always enjoyed playing and playing against the vast majority of decks. The only times I really complained about aggro were when it just plain got too fast. Something like MSoG era Pirate Warrior where you could pretty often lose on turn 4 or 5, and something like coin+Doomsayer on turn 1 sometimes could get killed by the board. Just felt like both of us wasted 5 minutes on a minimally interactive game. For me at least, the other extreme, where both players use every card in their deck and grind it out, is at least a fun and interactive experience when you lose, and generally allows you to reflect on decisions and such.
That said, I would rather die on turn 4 or 5 than face Exodia style combo decks. Quest Mage, DK Paladin, Worgen Warrior and even Anyfin Paladins have always been my least favourite decks to play against.
People are just mad that Blizz still hasnt done anything about the problem, thats always better to play an aggressive deck due to gametime.
If you win 55% with fast decks its still more value than winning 58% with a control deck and i think thats basically the reason why many control players are mad.
I agree with this response. Prior to this slow meta in KFT, there was no point in playing control decks until you reach rank 5 or legend, you would simply be wasting your time.
A good player knows that a healthy meta must have a diverse amount of archetypes. Control players do not hate aggro players, the ladder system is what control players hate.
The ladder should be changed from stars to a point system that factors in game length IMO.
If that was the case, then the winner of a long, greedy control match-up would be awarded for being greedy.
Skill is not even required, as long as the game is long, you get a lot more points.
Your system punishes wanting to end the game fast, while rewarding stalling.
I agree with you. Blizzard is not making control cards as powerful as aggro cards. For example, the fact that Webweave costs 5 instead of 4 makes it unplayable, because they thought that it would be "way too strong" at 4 mana. When in reality the card would probably still not see play at 4. They are too scared of making powerful cards. They have no tenacity, there really should be someone else balancing. Because whoever is right now are not doing a very good job.
Control is simply harder to play than aggro. Some aggro decks are also hard, and some are pathetically easy. All control decks are hard, both in the amount of decisions you have to make and the punishment for mistakes. A single misplay in the early game is usually enough for a control deck to lose. If you're playing control you literally plan your first 5-6 turns at the mulligan against the various threats aggro can present at each stage. Aggro just has to look for a good opening curve. Surviving until late game usually comes down to getting or not getting a specific card. Aggro is much more flexible.
If aggro players weren't so bent on trying to make what they do seem as skillful, then control players wouldn't spend as much time fighting for their moral highground. Aggro already have the faster games and easier wins, so it's a bit greedy to try to claim the skill factor as well.
All deck types are essential to a healthy meta. It is Blizzards job to ensure the balance. Everyone of us would like the meta to fit his own sense of enjoying the game, and thats about it.
I completely agree. I think aggro is as much as important for the good meta as control. I play and enjoy both.
Wait, wait! Stop hitting muh face! I wasn't ready! i haven't got my end game set up yet!
ERMEHGERD! Your rush deck is so cancer....!
No moral higher ground, its just frustrating if the 15k dust control deck loses vs. the meta-wise 1k deck. Blame the game, not the player.
4x Top 150 arena player
#95 June 2017 6.80, #108 Aug 2017 7.67, #127 Feb 2018 Wildfest 7.7, #33 Nov 2018 7.53
HCT Challenger Finals qualifier: 2018 Season 1, 2, 3
I play control - and I won't lie and wish more people did so as well. I agree with many of the reasons above (feel it requires more long-game strategy, intellect). But the biggest reason I get frustrated with super aggro/face decks is that it doesn't allow me to get a chance to play - or even draw - many of my cards in my deck. You tend to feel cheated then by losing a match based upon your mulligan, where if you are playing another control match, the mulligan isn't as game-defining as with the pirates, token shamans, etc out there.
I'm a Control/Combo deck player and have always avoided playing aggressive strategies. This also applies to Magic the Gathering, which I've been playing for 16 years now. I admit to disliking aggressive strategies, the reasons being mostly what you guys mention, but also these two ; the goal of aggro is usually to end the game before the opponent actually gets to play properly, and games against aggro are usually decided by the Control player drawing or not drawing the card they put in the deck for this matchup. It's a very Yes/No match a lot of the time, without a lot of talk in between. This is especially emphasized to the extreme by Reno Jackson decks. endlessly boring.
for me, fights against aggro decks often turn too simplistic and polarized. they throw everything at me in the hopes to overwhelm from turn 1, they want me dead before I actually get to play my cards, the cards they use are most often mechanically uninteresting and are primarily just to take my life count down as fast as possible - and the worst part is that a lot of players running aggro are doing it just for efficiency's sake, like, they wanna grind up to their desired rank as fast as possible. they sacrifice the joy of actually playing the game to... rank up faster? brother, I'm ranking up too, no hurry here.
there are exceptions in people that actually enjoy aggro or have an urge sometimes to play that kind, that's all fine, no disrespect meant to anyone. I'm just looking for more exciting games than that, where we both play out what we want and see who comes on top based on our decisions. anyone remember those old Control Warrior vs Priest matches way back? gimme that back.
although, I will say I'm being endlessly annoyed by cards like Stonehill Defender in Control vs Control. cards like that shouldn't have such range of discovery.
''He traded sands for skins, skins for gold, gold for life. In the end, he traded life for sand.''
(.o.))~ ~(('o') (.o.))~
For me, I just like playing the game and want to play for as long as possible without losing ten games to face-decks in the process. Long games allow me to play all the cool and fun cards, since those always seem to come into effect in the late game. That said, I don't think it's right to act all high and mighty about playing a control deck when someone else isn't. As long as it isn't one of those awful decks that gets turn 3-5 lethal, nobody should have a problem with it.
It's pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as the scrub mentality of people who complain if you use any remotely playable card ever and act like playing a strictly inferior card/deck somehow makes you Jesus Christ. There are a finite number of good cards/strategies. Like sweet....play Ironbark Protector instead of The Lich King, awesome dude.
Quasi-stellar radio source
Courage is not the absence of fear, Courage is the presence of faith.
I've always enjoyed playing and playing against the vast majority of decks. The only times I really complained about aggro were when it just plain got too fast. Something like MSoG era Pirate Warrior where you could pretty often lose on turn 4 or 5, and something like coin+Doomsayer on turn 1 sometimes could get killed by the board. Just felt like both of us wasted 5 minutes on a minimally interactive game. For me at least, the other extreme, where both players use every card in their deck and grind it out, is at least a fun and interactive experience when you lose, and generally allows you to reflect on decisions and such.
That said, I would rather die on turn 4 or 5 than face Exodia style combo decks. Quest Mage, DK Paladin, Worgen Warrior and even Anyfin Paladins have always been my least favourite decks to play against.
Ayy.