For aggro players the board management, minion position, calculation of lethal, playing order etc are important. As aggro players play far more cards in each turn, they have to consider what to play, where to play and whether they should trade.
For control players as they play more high mana cards, usually their cards are stuck in hands to be played in later turns, WHen it's vs aggro, staying alive is the main theme
When it's vs control, resource management is the key to the final victory (which i am pretty bad at it)
Intuitively aggro is easier to play as you usually just need to play what you have in your hand. (except rouge imo, due to the keyword combo) BUT as you have more cards to be played each turn , some details are defining the difference between good and the best players.
When you play slower deck, it's actually easy to assume, that aggro decks don't need skill to play. This is illusion made by the fact, that you play no (or very few) minions, giving him time to expand and very few decisions to make. Aggro's game plan includes basicly 2 things: menage the board and go face as often as possible. If you don't play any significant threats (or taunts) on board and don't clear his threats on time, aggro player will just destroy you by turn 5-6, since all he have to do in this matchup, is smorc you to death. It's not his fault or lack of skill, it's you giving him too much space...
Obviously there are exceptions. Some hyper-aggressive decks can crush you regardless of your actions, because their aggression is too much to deal with for most slower decks in the meta. Examples: Pirate Warrior (too much early damage), Tempo Rogue (you cannot shield yourself with anything due to off-hand damage and Sap to remove taunts) or Murlock Shaman (it snowballs too easy, murloc's HP can be buffed by Coldlight Seer, which makes them almost impossible to remove in early-mid game, and Toxfin can get rid of any taunt or bigger threat on your side).
It's an age-old debate, and i doubt it will ever be fixed.
People think through stereotypes and fixed schemes. No matter the quality of the argument, and how many times you try to explain it: people love their prejudice more.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what people think of abstract archetypes, so it's all good either way, as long as the meta is varied enough...
Why do people like to say "aggro" requires no skill?
Because of the common "argumentative strategy" to discredit anyone on a personal level you disagree with. I'd make a joke about American debate culture here, but in all honesty, it's likely a phenomenon that occurs everywhere.
Don't like someone playing a fast deck? Say they lack the skill for "real" decks and are stupid/********/braindead/whatever. Just the term "aggro" has this dirty feeling to it by now, as it is commonly used pejoratively, in conjunction with insults or to frame it as something negative. You call people "aggro players", and that they are "just playing mindless aggro decks". You don't even go the extra mile to explain what you mean. Is it a deck that plays a lot of minions? Does it rely on burn spells? Is it a deck that doesn't want to trade, or is it a deck that generates a lot of pressure with early threats? Nevermind, just call it "aggro" and everyone knows what they need to know - that it's "wrong".
This kind of discourse disqualifies aggressive playstyle to be considered as an actual strategy - it is branded as undesirable, shameful, despicable. If you play an "aggro" deck, you should feel ashamed of yourself, you deserve the hatred of others. That's the message some people like to spread, and it worked to a point some people even refuse to play such decks, whether it strategically makes sense or not. They say they only want to play decks that are skillfull, they don't want to "degrade" themselves by playing "aggro". And naturally, they'll react with anger and hostility should they ever meet someone who's not on their side.
Many people probably don't even mean it negatively when they speak of "aggro" decks - they just use it, because it's established lingo, a term other people playing the game would recognize. You'll see it appear in relatively neutral articles and comments too. But as it has that negative connotation, it WILL agitate some readers. It is, in my opinion at least, a word that should be dropped from discourse entirely.
Now, one point people do have is that Hearthstone is a game that favors an aggressive playstyle, because unlike in MTG (for example), you cannot force your opponent to trade, and due to the progressing mana system, cheaper cards have the advantage of the initiave over more expensive cards. For a long time, most cards that costed more than 5 or 6 were deemed unplayable because of that, and many still have that problem that they are not impactful enough - simply because you are at too much of a disadvantage if your opponent can play cheaper cards on all the previous turns. The "going first" issue also contributes to this. That makes it somewhat understandable why people call aggressive decks cheap and unfair - because they make use of being favored by the game system.
However, regardless of what "skill" they do or do not require, aggressive strategies are part of the game, and they are necessary for the game balance. Competitive games are more interesting when they offer different approaches and strategies, and it's a relatively simple idea to establish that when Player A has an insurmountable advantage in the lategame, it should be an option for Player B to try to end the game beforehand. Whether or not they are too easy to play or too cheap or too effective or whatever is the developers' responsibility, and does not warrant this kind of hostility against other players who made the perfectly reasonable decision to play a deck that wins games.
Parts of Hearthstone's community are very toxic and seek to establish some weird elitism where only the "right" people are accepted. Excluding "aggro" is a part of that.
If we would all take this much time to write a decent post on this forum every once in a while, Hearthpwn would be a better place overall. Posts like these should be read by more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dad, husband, gamer, fueled by coffee.
Currently playing Dragon Galakrond Priest, Dragon Galakrond Warrior and Highlander Dragon Hunter.
Lets say you have 1 hour a day to play HS (ladder). With an aggro deck you can make 6-7 matches, while with stupid warrior control mirror match you play one game 45 minutes . :-D
The current meta's aggro is much reasonable and skill-required than the old ones... think about pirate warriors and force of nature+ roar combo decks. I don't get why ppl are complaining aggro now.
Honestly i thought this would somehow end up becoming another shitshow of insults destined to be locked and salt threaded (don't ask why,i was about to go to bed,maybe i wasn't thinking It through all that well) but i'm really Happy to see It became an actual discussion
The current meta's aggro is much reasonable and skill-required than the old ones... think about pirate warriors and force of nature+ roar combo decks. I don't get why ppl are complaining aggro now.
Imo. I dont see aggro as easy decks that much. Its more like its more forgiving to players, that fail something. Well i still rather lose fast, then losing because of worst draws in late game against control when playing control.
Aggro is more forgiving of mistakes than Midrange/Control is. Some players will just vomit everything on the board (even into a board clear) and there will be cases in which their opponent simply won't have an answer ready and they win as a result. Just playing stuff on curve can win games by itself and aggro is good doing exactly that.
Midrange/Control means you have to be much more aware of what you should play versus what you can play. Burning your board clear a turn too early against Token Druid only for them to refill the board with Wispering Woods can be an instant loss. You sometimes have to really think about when you need to keep a card in hand for a likely play by opponent to be made later on.
That said, at higher levels, I'd say both are equally tricky to play depending on their matchup. Knowing what your opponent likely has available to deny your aggro requires just as much skill to figure out.
Playing aggro is harder than control unless it's a control vs. control mirror match (or similar control matchup).
As aggro, much of the time there is only one path to lethal before your opponent can stabilize. It's not simply playing minion a/b/c; it's more about creating awkward board states vs. the particular class/deck you're facing. It's about knowing when to start pushing damage to face, which targets to trade with and finding which path maximizes your face damage. It's not that easy (unless of course you use odd paladin).
you have realy now knowledge about the game if you say aggro is harder then control
and to answer the question aggro is a low skil based deck its not a opinnion just a fact Easier to pilot that also you will always see a aggro deck by tier 1 on hs replays All aggro use the same no skill based strategy all new players always start with aggro not a opininon also a fact
Aggro seen as a no-skill archetype, because in general, it requires way less skill to operate with it successfully.
If your control wins in 25 min average and has a 55% potential, in 16 hour you are up to 21 win - 17 loss, so 4 more win.
But if your an aggro deck with 55% estaminated winrate and 7 min playtime, but you just can't play it that well (52%) and make mistakes that lose you the game, in 16 hours 71 win - 66 loss, so 5 more.
Which means an aggro player, who wastes 3% of the deck's potential makes the same result as the fully optimised control. So, if you are just not skilled enough, aggro is the least punishing for you, because the speed allows enough volume to succeed and room to improve how to use your deck, or just seeing the meta.
So, in short, aggro seems as a "no skill archetype", because if you have "no skill" you probably should play aggro. To have excessive learning experience, to save time for you and not get that punished on your early learning phase, because it way less punishing to make mistakes with an aggro deck than with any other archetype even if those mistakes lose you the game.
And honestly, while the "everyone should learn on this" sounds great, I loath when Blizzard makes an another overpowered aggro and it just floods the game. And yes, when you are winning with an overpowered deck that has the main strategy to destroy me before I can develop anything on board or just couldn't draw unnecessarily large amount of cards to counter it... swearing happens :D
Except aggro will have more playable cards than control in the first 3-4 turns. More playable cards = more decisions, not fewer. So, using your logic, the control deck is much easier for the beginning turns against an aggro deck, and the aggro deck is harder. This fits my experience for sure.
Except aggro will have more playable cards than control in the first 3-4 turns. More playable cards = more decisions, not fewer. So, using your logic, the control deck is much easier for the beginning turns against an aggro deck, and the aggro deck is harder. This fits my experience for sure.
This ^^ There's only so much brain power that goes into : Turn 1: Eternium Rover Turn 2: Hero Power. Turn 3: See turns 1->2...
Or even better: Turn 1 : Pass Turn 2: Hero Power Face Turn 3: Hero Power Face Turn 4: Hero Power Face Turn 5: Mass Hysteria Turn 6 : Fall asleep....
I looked for some tips on playing midrange hunter Vs control warrior. The tips were good and my winrate improved. I can tell you now how you play as the hunter takes far more skill than playing as the warrior.
1. The required skills are different
For aggro players the board management, minion position, calculation of lethal, playing order etc are important.
As aggro players play far more cards in each turn, they have to consider what to play, where to play and whether they should trade.
For control players as they play more high mana cards, usually their cards are stuck in hands to be played in later turns,
WHen it's vs aggro, staying alive is the main theme
When it's vs control, resource management is the key to the final victory (which i am pretty bad at it)
Intuitively aggro is easier to play as you usually just need to play what you have in your hand. (except rouge imo, due to the keyword combo)
BUT as you have more cards to be played each turn , some details are defining the difference between good and the best players.
When you play slower deck, it's actually easy to assume, that aggro decks don't need skill to play. This is illusion made by the fact, that you play no (or very few) minions, giving him time to expand and very few decisions to make. Aggro's game plan includes basicly 2 things: menage the board and go face as often as possible. If you don't play any significant threats (or taunts) on board and don't clear his threats on time, aggro player will just destroy you by turn 5-6, since all he have to do in this matchup, is smorc you to death. It's not his fault or lack of skill, it's you giving him too much space...
Obviously there are exceptions. Some hyper-aggressive decks can crush you regardless of your actions, because their aggression is too much to deal with for most slower decks in the meta. Examples: Pirate Warrior (too much early damage), Tempo Rogue (you cannot shield yourself with anything due to off-hand damage and Sap to remove taunts) or Murlock Shaman (it snowballs too easy, murloc's HP can be buffed by Coldlight Seer, which makes them almost impossible to remove in early-mid game, and Toxfin can get rid of any taunt or bigger threat on your side).
Doubled
It's an age-old debate, and i doubt it will ever be fixed.
People think through stereotypes and fixed schemes. No matter the quality of the argument, and how many times you try to explain it: people love their prejudice more.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what people think of abstract archetypes, so it's all good either way, as long as the meta is varied enough...
If we would all take this much time to write a decent post on this forum every once in a while, Hearthpwn would be a better place overall. Posts like these should be read by more.
Dad, husband, gamer, fueled by coffee.
Currently playing Dragon Galakrond Priest, Dragon Galakrond Warrior and Highlander Dragon Hunter.
This comes to mind... :-)
Lets say you have 1 hour a day to play HS (ladder). With an aggro deck you can make 6-7 matches, while with stupid warrior control mirror match you play one game 45 minutes . :-D
Dranzerr#2178
The current meta's aggro is much reasonable and skill-required than the old ones... think about pirate warriors and force of nature+ roar combo decks.
I don't get why ppl are complaining aggro now.
Honestly i thought this would somehow end up becoming another shitshow of insults destined to be locked and salt threaded (don't ask why,i was about to go to bed,maybe i wasn't thinking It through all that well) but i'm really Happy to see It became an actual discussion
Proud of You😉
Old habits die hard I guess, also elitism
Imo. I dont see aggro as easy decks that much. Its more like its more forgiving to players, that fail something. Well i still rather lose fast, then losing because of worst draws in late game against control when playing control.
Aggro is more forgiving of mistakes than Midrange/Control is. Some players will just vomit everything on the board (even into a board clear) and there will be cases in which their opponent simply won't have an answer ready and they win as a result. Just playing stuff on curve can win games by itself and aggro is good doing exactly that.
Midrange/Control means you have to be much more aware of what you should play versus what you can play. Burning your board clear a turn too early against Token Druid only for them to refill the board with Wispering Woods can be an instant loss. You sometimes have to really think about when you need to keep a card in hand for a likely play by opponent to be made later on.
That said, at higher levels, I'd say both are equally tricky to play depending on their matchup. Knowing what your opponent likely has available to deny your aggro requires just as much skill to figure out.
fewer decisions = easier to play
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
you have realy now knowledge about the game if you say aggro is harder then control
and to answer the question aggro is a low skil based deck its not a opinnion just a fact
Easier to pilot that also you will always see a aggro deck by tier 1 on hs replays
All aggro use the same no skill based strategy all new players always start with aggro not a opininon also a fact
Aggro seen as a no-skill archetype, because in general, it requires way less skill to operate with it successfully.
If your control wins in 25 min average and has a 55% potential, in 16 hour you are up to 21 win - 17 loss, so 4 more win.
But if your an aggro deck with 55% estaminated winrate and 7 min playtime, but you just can't play it that well (52%) and make mistakes that lose you the game, in 16 hours 71 win - 66 loss, so 5 more.
Which means an aggro player, who wastes 3% of the deck's potential makes the same result as the fully optimised control. So, if you are just not skilled enough, aggro is the least punishing for you, because the speed allows enough volume to succeed and room to improve how to use your deck, or just seeing the meta.
So, in short, aggro seems as a "no skill archetype", because if you have "no skill" you probably should play aggro. To have excessive learning experience, to save time for you and not get that punished on your early learning phase, because it way less punishing to make mistakes with an aggro deck than with any other archetype even if those mistakes lose you the game.
And honestly, while the "everyone should learn on this" sounds great, I loath when Blizzard makes an another overpowered aggro and it just floods the game. And yes, when you are winning with an overpowered deck that has the main strategy to destroy me before I can develop anything on board or just couldn't draw unnecessarily large amount of cards to counter it... swearing happens :D
We can live without pizza, but then, what for?
Except aggro will have more playable cards than control in the first 3-4 turns. More playable cards = more decisions, not fewer. So, using your logic, the control deck is much easier for the beginning turns against an aggro deck, and the aggro deck is harder. This fits my experience for sure.
This ^^
There's only so much brain power that goes into :
Turn 1: Eternium Rover
Turn 2: Hero Power.
Turn 3: See turns 1->2...
Or even better:
Turn 1 : Pass
Turn 2: Hero Power Face
Turn 3: Hero Power Face
Turn 4: Hero Power Face
Turn 5: Mass Hysteria
Turn 6 : Fall asleep....
Lol....
I looked for some tips on playing midrange hunter Vs control warrior. The tips were good and my winrate improved. I can tell you now how you play as the hunter takes far more skill than playing as the warrior.
You guys realize that
"Control is harder because aggro = just vomit your hand and go face"
is the exact same argument as
"Aggro is harder because control = hero power pass"
right? You're not magically special or "more knowledgeable" about the game because you think Control is easy in the opening turns.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!