Nope not superior. In fact, I've found that control and aggro players in general tend to more often fall on to that side of the playerbase that complains if an archtype beats them consistently. Midrange and OTK players are much less likely in my own experience to demand that playstyles that beat them get nerfed to the ground. Control very much has been behind the complaints against the following decks:
Undertaker Hunter
Raging Worgen Warrior
Pirate Warrior
Aggro Shaman
Midrange Shaman
Odd Rogue
Quest Rogue
Quest Mage
Maly Druid
Togwaggle Druid
Tempo Mage
Burn Mage
Taunt Druid
Evolve Shaman
Kingsbane Rogue
Jade Druid
Secret Pally
Christmas Tree Pally
Dragon Priest
IF Priest
MB Priest
Odd Pally
Even Pally
Dragon Warrior
Freeze Mage
Non-Kingsbane Mill Rogue
Mill Druid
Zoolock
Mech Mage
Big Priest
^ Control players heavily complained about all of the above decks during their prime. It is hard not to have noticed the long term trend of too many control players wanting everything except for control to get the nerf hammer. Meanwhile, too many control poster children pretend that the control archtype requires a ton of skill compared to everything else. It really doesn't. When playing decks like BS Mage, Control Lock, Reno Lock, etc the plays and win strats are fairly straightforward, with plenty of match-ups devolving into simply playing almost nothing to the board and baiting out threats for you to wipe out with a quantity of answers usually not available to most of the other classes. Control is is purely just not balanced as far as tuning. There is a reason classes like warlock, priest, mage, and sometimes warrior always end up dominating the control scene when the other classes don't.
No player is superior because of the decks they play, player are superior if they play more consistently correctly from a technical play standpoint.
In any situation on any game, there tend to be multiple lines a player can take and there are always lines that will statistically yield better results the majority of the time. Players that can identify these lines are just better players.
Playstyle only comes into play for a simple reason, each playstyle has a different amount of lines a player can take, meaning the amount of decisions to be made is lower for some playstyles.
Midrange requires the lowest amount of decisions, with some decks in this playstyle being absurdly low in regards to this (look at Spiteful Summoner decks, they practically fully abandon reactive tools and that removes the majority of the decisions to be made).
Aggro comes next, because you at least need to be able to maximise damage output with the few cards you draw. It is still not a great playstyle for decisions, because many times, you are hoping that your opponent is unlucky and doesn't happen to draw the answers they need in the few cards they draw from the deck, something they have no control over, the order they draw in.
Control enters here, with lots of playable lines, but rarely do they have a limited time window to finish their games and generally, as long as they survive the early game, they rule the late game with the value they have. There are lots of decisions to be made with Control because of all the tools they have, but it is still doesn't reach the level of Combo for a reason.
Lastly Combo, the playstyle that while having slightly less playable lines than Control, it is limited by a time window to use it's win condition. Combo decks are built with a finite amount of resources, resources that they need to carefully consider which can be used for survival, and which need to be saved for win condition. Control doesn't need to worry about this. Their win condition being value, they can afford to use tools as they like as long as they have enough to handle what the opponent is doing. Combo decks don't run the value that will end games for Control, they need to ration their tools to deal with the opponent but if they mess up, they lose the game because they can no longer end the game, they have no win condition. Being able to survive until you can Combo your opponent, being able to ration your tools, being able to identify your win condition window and not missing it, all of that needs to be done by the Combo player.
The reason it is harder for the Combo player, is they have very little room for error.
If you misuse your tools, you lose. If you don't use enough to survive, you lose. If you take too long, you get outvalued and lose. If you fuck up your combo while performing it, you lose. Lack of room for error, this is what makes Combo the hardest playstyle to play. The better you are playing Combo, the better you are at the game simply because you can perform better when you don't have room to make mistakes, meaning your technical play is better, you find the best line of play consistently.
Before people inevitably get angry, I want to say there's an important distinction between Archetype and deck. Combo archetypes are very much based on resource management between keeping enough to perform the combo, and staying alive long enough to execute it without getting outvalued, but combo decks in hearthstone are not. Many have tools so specifically designed that they serve near enough no purpose outside of their combo, or their combo does not consist of holding cards back but instead playing them in the case of shudderwock shaman.
Shudderwock is a very different kind of Combo. It doesn't require the player to play their pieces in a correct order to execute correctly or it gets fucked up. Something most Combo decks require, player actions to be done correctly or the win condition doesn't work. Shudderwock works randomly. You can increase your chances for it to work correctly, but you are still getting a random outcome which can either win or lose you the game regardless of how you played it.
This can be changed in the way I like to have Shudderwock build, with Murmuring Elemental, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the Combo deck itself doesn't require that much technical play at the time of the Win Condition. If you don't have minions on the board, the Combo with Murmuring will never fail, but the Combo shouldn't strictly be playing Shudderwock and watching him replay things in random order.
Shudderwock should at least be changed to replay Battlecries in order they were played before, to add some strategy to the win condition. It would make it 100% consistent when played correctly, which is perfectly fair, but not randomly lose games even when played correctly.
Shudderwock is like babies first OTK deck for all intents and purposes. All the player has to do is at some point in the game play the pieces in any order they want since it will have no effect on the end, and then play Shudderwock for the win that is either guaranteed or randomly can fail without your control.
Imagine if Infinite Burn Mage only had to play or generate 4 Apprentices over the course of the game without having to be alive for Antonidas, and you won the moment Antonidas was played, without having to worry about fucking up order, not getting spells for Antonidas, having enough Mana and so on. That would be crazy.
I'm gonna quote all this in hopes a lot of people will actually read it (and understand). Nicely written, especially the Shudderwock bit, the reason why I hate that deck is not that it beats me, it's that it's a Combo deck that doesn't work like a Combo deck.
This is wrong on so many levels you can't even understand.
It's neither more difficult nor superior.Just a different style.
The discussion hinges on the mirror matches, since Aggro vs Control...there's not really much room for debate. Control is far harder to play, without question. The aggro game plan is "play minions until their AOE turn, go face with everything."
So which takes more decision making, Control vs Control or Aggro vs Aggro? If it's equal, then the sum decision making favors Control as being more difficult overall.
Have you ever played a aggro deck ? The strategy you are describing won't get you past rank 10. Many times you need to trade appropriately and manage your resources properly, you just can't go face all the time hoping to win.
Control Players complained about quest rogue and jade druid because those decks are almost unbeatable if you are playing control. And pretty much EVERYBODY complained about undertaker hunter. Long drawn out games with control decks are boring, but so is dying on turn 4 to pirate warrior.
Sometimes its the actual deck match up than the skill of the players that decide the match. One of the best players can play one of the worst players and yet still get absolutely crushed because they are playing a control deck while the other player is playing quest rogue.
I like how the thread title and corresponding text actually have very little (if anything) to do with each other, except for being some form of complaint about control players in combination with just the subtlest hint of "I have never done this, I am different than all those control players whose thoughts and intentions I magically understand and thus, maybe it is me who is in fact superior". Well played, sir or madam - clickbait succeeded.^^
Now that I got that little potshot off my chest, let's actually have a serious answer to this - I apologize in advance. xD
Strangely enough, I feel like I've encountered more threads from people complaining about control players complaining, than actual threads by control players ... if that makes sense. Then again, this is just my subjective perception, just like everything our dear OP has written. Which leads me to suggest you heed your own advice and "accept it and move on". ;)
This is wrong on so many levels you can't even understand.
It's neither more difficult nor superior.Just a different style.
The discussion hinges on the mirror matches, since Aggro vs Control...there's not really much room for debate. Control is far harder to play, without question. The aggro game plan is "play minions until their AOE turn, go face with everything."
So which takes more decision making, Control vs Control or Aggro vs Aggro? If it's equal, then the sum decision making favors Control as being more difficult overall.
Have you ever played a aggro deck ? The strategy you are describing won't get you past rank 10. Many times you need to trade appropriately and manage your resources properly, you just can't go face all the time hoping to win.
If you're making trades in Aggro vs Control you're usually doing it wrong, unless the trades are super obvious (like trading a 3/3 into a 2/1 in order to protect your 8/2).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
Been playing since beta: Relative skill is on the player, not the deck. That being said, control is harder to play with lower skill. There are many more ways to make misplays than in aggro or midrange. Combo tends to drift in with control.
There’s nothing wrong with playing aggro and at higher levels you need to be good to succeed. However if you dropped a newbie in with a tier 1 aggro deck he can probably climb to 10 or 5 relatively easily.
This is wrong on so many levels you can't even understand.
It's neither more difficult nor superior.Just a different style.
The discussion hinges on the mirror matches, since Aggro vs Control...there's not really much room for debate. Control is far harder to play, without question. The aggro game plan is "play minions until their AOE turn, go face with everything."
So which takes more decision making, Control vs Control or Aggro vs Aggro? If it's equal, then the sum decision making favors Control as being more difficult overall.
Have you ever played a aggro deck ? The strategy you are describing won't get you past rank 10. Many times you need to trade appropriately and manage your resources properly, you just can't go face all the time hoping to win.
If you're making trades in Aggro vs Control you're usually doing it wrong, unless the trades are super obvious (like trading a 3/3 into a 2/1 in order to protect your 8/2).
No, you're doing it wrong if you don't take value trades, even in an aggro deck.
Different strokes for different folks. Some decks just feel more natural for me than others.
I can't tell if it's just objectively more powerful than most decks I've played, but I'm finding that control Priest is possibly deck for me to pilot that I've ever played. Or at least, the most intuitive. I just feel like I know from the moment I figure out the opposing archetype exactly how I'm going to win or lose the game. That's probably because control decks often are draw-heavy and therefore more consistent, especially in control mirrors where you're going to cycle through most of your deck.
It's probably objectively tougher to pilot than curve-based decks like Spiteful Priest, but I don't think it's harder than a tempo deck like, say, odd rogue where you have limited resources, you have to consider the probability of what you're going to draw (rather than the certainty that you'll find it eventually), and you oftentimes have to map out lethal to the number because 1 HP can be the difference between your opponent stabilizing or not stabilizing.
It's just a different skill, I think. Also, this feels like one of the more skill-intensive metas we've had in a long time. There's not really a viable face deck right now. Everybody needs either build a board or react to one in order to win. Feels good.
* Always play aggro crew * Accept all friend request crew * Don't mind/care if they rant crew * Find it funny that they rant crew * Google translate non english rant crew * Most friends on my friends list are people I've beaten crew Join my crew guys
@OP: Why is this even a question? People, please don't be butthurt if someone fronts your deck preferences.
In general, decks are a bit more complicated if they have a win condition or solution for problems concerning the board, which requires more than one / a few cards AND if they implement a lot of card draw. Low card draw means more strong on-curve-plays, means less considering what is left in the deck, means less decision making.
So in general, Control decks dont fall under this category. The only type which slightly stands out in terms of difficulty is combo decks, cause they likely implement all of the above listed factors.
Also: Note that the Freeze Mage you mentioned is a combo deck, not control. It uses controlling tools to survive till combo, yes, but all combo decks do that. A deck that is pure control on the other hand wins through attrition/value mostly. They rarely implement the comboing of more than 2 cards a turn.
I think that the control playstyle is just something elitist and egotistical people gravitate to.
Running your opponent out of resources is, at least on paper, the least straightforward win condition when compared to killing your opponent with a combo, tempo or just going full face.
Nope not superior. In fact, I've found that control and aggro players in general tend to more often fall on to that side of the playerbase that complains if an archtype beats them consistently. Midrange and OTK players are much less likely in my own experience to demand that playstyles that beat them get nerfed to the ground. Control very much has been behind the complaints against the following decks:
^ Control players heavily complained about all of the above decks during their prime. It is hard not to have noticed the long term trend of too many control players wanting everything except for control to get the nerf hammer. Meanwhile, too many control poster children pretend that the control archtype requires a ton of skill compared to everything else. It really doesn't. When playing decks like BS Mage, Control Lock, Reno Lock, etc the plays and win strats are fairly straightforward, with plenty of match-ups devolving into simply playing almost nothing to the board and baiting out threats for you to wipe out with a quantity of answers usually not available to most of the other classes. Control is is purely just not balanced as far as tuning. There is a reason classes like warlock, priest, mage, and sometimes warrior always end up dominating the control scene when the other classes don't.
I'm gonna quote all this in hopes a lot of people will actually read it (and understand). Nicely written, especially the Shudderwock bit, the reason why I hate that deck is not that it beats me, it's that it's a Combo deck that doesn't work like a Combo deck.
You can't stop the signal.
Have you ever played a aggro deck ? The strategy you are describing won't get you past rank 10. Many times you need to trade appropriately and manage your resources properly, you just can't go face all the time hoping to win.
Control Players complained about quest rogue and jade druid because those decks are almost unbeatable if you are playing control. And pretty much EVERYBODY complained about undertaker hunter. Long drawn out games with control decks are boring, but so is dying on turn 4 to pirate warrior.
Sometimes its the actual deck match up than the skill of the players that decide the match. One of the best players can play one of the worst players and yet still get absolutely crushed because they are playing a control deck while the other player is playing quest rogue.
Everyone is wrong. Freeze Shaman is the only skill-testing deck, case closed.
At the end of the day almost everyone plays the same netdecks.
Unpopular opinion: Rogue is OP
aggro needs no brain
Favorite Cards: 1. Lord Jaraxxus | 2. Malygos| 3. Edwin VanCleef | 4. Zephrys the Great| 5. Deathwing
I like how the thread title and corresponding text actually have very little (if anything) to do with each other, except for being some form of complaint about control players in combination with just the subtlest hint of "I have never done this, I am different than all those control players whose thoughts and intentions I magically understand and thus, maybe it is me who is in fact superior". Well played, sir or madam - clickbait succeeded.^^
Now that I got that little potshot off my chest, let's actually have a serious answer to this - I apologize in advance. xD
Strangely enough, I feel like I've encountered more threads from people complaining about control players complaining, than actual threads by control players ... if that makes sense. Then again, this is just my subjective perception, just like everything our dear OP has written. Which leads me to suggest you heed your own advice and "accept it and move on". ;)
Exactly. Never understood that dumbass argument
Also, NERF THAT FUCKING CARD I JUST LOST TO, STUPID GREEDY BLIZZARD/TEAM5
If you're making trades in Aggro vs Control you're usually doing it wrong, unless the trades are super obvious (like trading a 3/3 into a 2/1 in order to protect your 8/2).
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Been playing since beta: Relative skill is on the player, not the deck. That being said, control is harder to play with lower skill. There are many more ways to make misplays than in aggro or midrange. Combo tends to drift in with control.
There’s nothing wrong with playing aggro and at higher levels you need to be good to succeed. However if you dropped a newbie in with a tier 1 aggro deck he can probably climb to 10 or 5 relatively easily.
No, you're doing it wrong if you don't take value trades, even in an aggro deck.
the salt thread is leaking
Different strokes for different folks. Some decks just feel more natural for me than others.
I can't tell if it's just objectively more powerful than most decks I've played, but I'm finding that control Priest is possibly deck for me to pilot that I've ever played. Or at least, the most intuitive. I just feel like I know from the moment I figure out the opposing archetype exactly how I'm going to win or lose the game. That's probably because control decks often are draw-heavy and therefore more consistent, especially in control mirrors where you're going to cycle through most of your deck.
It's probably objectively tougher to pilot than curve-based decks like Spiteful Priest, but I don't think it's harder than a tempo deck like, say, odd rogue where you have limited resources, you have to consider the probability of what you're going to draw (rather than the certainty that you'll find it eventually), and you oftentimes have to map out lethal to the number because 1 HP can be the difference between your opponent stabilizing or not stabilizing.
It's just a different skill, I think. Also, this feels like one of the more skill-intensive metas we've had in a long time. There's not really a viable face deck right now. Everybody needs either build a board or react to one in order to win. Feels good.
WTF??!!
Well I never!
How dare you!
Control not superior? Of course they are!
Superior whiners for one...
/kidding
or am I?
* Always play aggro crew
* Accept all friend request crew
* Don't mind/care if they rant crew
* Find it funny that they rant crew
* Google translate non english rant crew
* Most friends on my friends list are people I've beaten crew
Join my crew guys
@OP: Why is this even a question? People, please don't be butthurt if someone fronts your deck preferences.
In general, decks are a bit more complicated if they have a win condition or solution for problems concerning the board, which requires more than one / a few cards AND if they implement a lot of card draw. Low card draw means more strong on-curve-plays, means less considering what is left in the deck, means less decision making.
So in general, Control decks dont fall under this category. The only type which slightly stands out in terms of difficulty is combo decks, cause they likely implement all of the above listed factors.
Also: Note that the Freeze Mage you mentioned is a combo deck, not control. It uses controlling tools to survive till combo, yes, but all combo decks do that. A deck that is pure control on the other hand wins through attrition/value mostly. They rarely implement the comboing of more than 2 cards a turn.
I think that the control playstyle is just something elitist and egotistical people gravitate to.
Running your opponent out of resources is, at least on paper, the least straightforward win condition when compared to killing your opponent with a combo, tempo or just going full face.
Ayy.
Have hard times of playing control decks right now. Only Azalina helps. So many anti-control cards, hell.
And tempo is a variety of aggro decks.
OP, Keep telling yourself that darling.
Yeah, they do seem to have that kind of air to them.