Note: I don't play Aggro decks as often as Midrange/Control decks, so do not think that I am trying to illogically defend Aggro players. Please read through everything before you comment.
As I have seen a lot of threads recently ridiculing Aggro players, I thought that I would offer my thoughts on whether or not they are justly criticizing Aggro.
First Point - Deck Cost
If you look at the average Aggro, Midrange, and Control decks, Aggro will tend to be the cheapest to craft. Generally, this is because Control has a ton of Legendaries, Midrange has a few, and Aggro has none. Thus, it will usually be much cheaper for new players to reach Rank 5 for the first time with an Aggro deck.
Second Point - Game Speed
I think that the main reason why I don't mind Aggro is the time it takes to play the game. Even when a Face Hunter gets super lucky and plays a Quick Shot, draws another Quick Shot, and then draws a Kill Command for the win, it usually only takes about 5 minutes. In contrast, playing a Control/Fatigue Warrior mirror match might take 30-40 minutes, only to lose at the end to Deathwing. Personally, I would prefer a 100% Aggro meta to a 100% Control meta. Playing an Aggro vs. Aggro game would only take a couple minutes, so with a win or a loss you could just queue up several other games in the time it would take to play a Control vs. Control game.
Third Point - Deck Counters
Aggro provides a counter to a certain scummy, mindless deck that has been very popular recently (yes, I am talking about Secret Paladin). Although the deck has no real hard counter, extremely aggressive decks are pretty much as close as you can get to one. A couple Face Hunters and Aggro Shamans here or there can help to decrease the number of Secret Paladins. I think we can all agree that this point is definitely in favor of Aggro.
Fourth Point - Required Skill Level
I think the only point that is obviously against Aggro is the required level of skill to successfully play the deck. Although Aggro tends to be easy to play, there are other decks like Secret Paladin and Dragon Priest that also require little thinking. In addition, Aggro decks tend to rely on RNG (Random Number Generation) more than other archetypes. No matter what type of deck we are talking about, there will most likely be an easy deck that fits under the archetype.
In conclusion, I will say that I believe that Aggro players should not be ridiculed as they are. Each type of deck contributes to balancing others, forming a well-rounded, balanced game.
People that complain about aggro are as new as it gets. They still haven't grasped the concept that in every game, one side of the table is playing the part of aggro and one is answering with control moves. If there was no aggression or tempo, then every game would end in fatigue.
Are there decks out there that are tempo/aggro oriented? Yes, it's just another arch type that has been in every card game to ever exist. If there was no aggro there would be no control, everyone would just be playing midrange, and like I said, one player has to be playing aggressively/tempo oriented or the games become a fatigue fest.
Cause control requires so much thinking wow.. Should I use my removal to clear the board? Yes. Then heal heal heal(or armor up).. So it doesn't require much more thinking than aggro.. Control warrior is easy to play it's just that most people can't craft the deck.
Same for priest..
People think that if the game is longer they are more skilled but nah.. They are just stalling.. And for some reason every control warrior has always brawl in turn 5..
There's no real debate. Those people who are unwilling to play aggro as a principle as just as bad as those who only play aggro. In Sirlin's words, those people are called scrubs. One should seek to be a complete player and play a variety of decks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Honestly, I am not a big aggro player. Even though I have the dust to craft aggro shaman I do not want to do that. However, blaming on people who play aggro decks are just ridiculous and stupid. I am a midrangy control player and let's think about how op some control decks are. Control warrior's average health would be around 50. That's op not aggro decks. I do get frustrated sometimes when I lose to a top deck aggro, but that's really what hearthstone is. If you are angry about it just join the aggro players. I am a big renolock player but really just saying shit to aggro players is not right.
I think Aggro vs Control are the matchups that require the least thinking on both sides. The aggro player is trying to get as much damage out before the control player can stabilise, and the control player is trying to control the board so they can start playing big dudes and get out of lethal range. Aggro vs Aggro and Control vs Control both require a lot more thinking because the former is about who's the beatdown, and the latter is about attrition. The hardest games I've played have either been Face Hunter vs Face Hunter or Control Warrior vs Control Priest.
And Aggro decks require a lot more nuanced thought. Knowing when to start hero powering in Hunter is key, and generally choosing to play or not play a single card before a board clear will determine the game. Similarly Aggro Shaman is about overload management, knowing when to overextend and not get punished for it. Sure anyone can pick up these decks and just SMorc their ways to easy wins, but to get Legend with these decks isn't just as simple as going face.
Aggro decks will always represent a very active style of play, which needs to exist in basically everything. From dual welding in Skyrim to a dps class in an mmo or something, there has to be an aggressor of some kind or the gameplay may become stale. It not only fits the personalities of some people but their repective personas they might keep even on a daily basis. In conclusion it's not just about meta or even hearthstone, it's a mindset.
The general negative attitude toward aggressive decks on HearthPwn is dumb, and in many ways, hypocritical. Loading up a control decklist with axes, removal spells, armor gain, and card draw does NOT make you a "skillful" or "smart" player. These recent Warrior decks that run double Brawl, double Bash, and double Deathlord are a coward's creation.
Would like to see the community realize that playing a completely passive control deck is just as bad (if not worse!) for the game and meta as the hyper-aggressive "face" decks.
Control warrior is easy to play it's just that most people can't craft the deck.
Same for priest..
You don't play much control warrior or priest do you?
As for the actual discussion: I complain about aggro when the meta is too flooded with it. Any meta that is too heavy one way or the other isn't fun. Unfortunately Blizzard has yet to find a good balance and most formats have been very heavy on aggro.
In this game Control players are a vocal minority. Most players prefer Mid Range or Aggro, but the comments are largely anti aggro. I'd hate to see the play move to where every game goes to fatigue, and I believe most other players would concur with that.
As for the actual discussion: I complain about aggro when the meta is too flooded with it. Any meta that is too heavy one way or the other isn't fun. Unfortunately Blizzard has yet to find a good balance and most formats have been very heavy on aggro.
What are you talking about. It's secret paladin and combo druids all day nowadays, which are both midrange decks. People who can't distinguish between aggro and midrange should not complain about either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
As for the actual discussion: I complain about aggro when the meta is too flooded with it. Any meta that is too heavy one way or the other isn't fun. Unfortunately Blizzard has yet to find a good balance and most formats have been very heavy on aggro.
What are you talking about. It's secret paladin and combo druids all day nowadays, which are both midrange decks. People who can't distinguish between aggro and midrange should not complain about either.
I never said anything about this format. Read my post again.
Control warrior is easy to play it's just that most people can't craft the deck.
Same for priest..
You don't play much control warrior or priest do you?
As for the actual discussion: I complain about aggro when the meta is too flooded with it. Any meta that is too heavy one way or the other isn't fun. Unfortunately Blizzard has yet to find a good balance and most formats have been very heavy on aggro.
Tried playing "budget" control warrior(missing 2 legendaries and 2 shoeldslam).. Easy deck, patron is much much harder.
Priest like just steals all your stuff never botheredcplaying it renolock is harder for sure.
IMO control is the real cancer. Leads to boring games and way too many qqing scrubs acting like they are hot shit for having some 9000 dust deck that bored the opponent to sleep.
I had a shaman quest yesterday I am missing only doom hammer and I don't know the deck much I really failed playing the deck (didn't learn how to play it) In the end I just gone with mech shaman which I already know how to play..
Aggro is not as brainless as it seems it's actually kinda hard.. But it's maybe cause I am too used to midrange and trading that I failed with aggro shaman.
Also face hunter needs some learning not every idiot can hit rank 5 with it, you need to know how to play the deck.
Control warrior is easy to play it's just that most people can't craft the deck.
Same for priest..
You don't play much control warrior or priest do you?
I got my golden Warrior with Control Warrior wins. It is not even close to being difficult. Aggro Shaman is much more difficult.
Here is what I have found from teaching people Hearthstone: I've taught several friends how to play face hunter well enough to get to legend, but I have yet to be able to teach them to play Control Warrior well enough to get to legend. You may personally find it easy (and I do as well), but it seems that on average it is hard for the typical hearthstone player to play.
Control warrior is easy to play it's just that most people can't craft the deck.
Same for priest..
You don't play much control warrior or priest do you?
As for the actual discussion: I complain about aggro when the meta is too flooded with it. Any meta that is too heavy one way or the other isn't fun. Unfortunately Blizzard has yet to find a good balance and most formats have been very heavy on aggro.
Tried playing "budget" control warrior(missing 2 legendaries and 2 shoeldslam).. Easy deck, patron is much much harder.
Priest like just steals all your stuff never botheredcplaying it renolock is harder for sure.
Patron is harder than control warrior, but I that doesn't mean that Control Warrior or priest is "easy". Patron is also not as hard as it used to be. I miss those days.
I played a ton of face hunter when I started playing, and since then I don't like playing decks where me getting the win relies mostly on me being lucky. I would much rather play a deck where it's slow enough that the person who plays better/greedier is the winner. You can say that it's brainless to play control warrior or priest but when you get down to it it's less about thinking about what you're going to do that turn (no shit you're going to clear the board that's what makes a control deck work) and more of HOW you are going to do it. Are you going to use brawl to potentially kill a couple minions, will you clear in another way, or will you play greedy and wait until you can get even more value? Much more interesting than deciding what cards you're going to hit face with that turn.
I really don't feel that someone playing face hunter means they're a bad player, more that they don't feel like trying right then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm here to kick ass and play cards, and I'm all out of ass.
Probably another hidden face hunter/shaman player who is trying to make an argument for himself.
Problem with aggro decks ( Face hunter or face shaman generally). There is nothing you can you if they get a good hand they will destroy you in 5-6 Turns because you don't get heals or you don't get taunts. Even if you do then they silince it and continue to hit your face. The games you play against these cancer decks has nothing to do with which deck you play, which card you have or how experience player you are. It is annoying as hell.
No planning, no strategy, no creativity... nothing just stupid simple hitting face and using low mana cost spells on you.
Aggro decks need to go if Blizzard wants to make a way for their new fancy 10 mana cost cards.
Note: I don't play Aggro decks as often as Midrange/Control decks, so do not think that I am trying to illogically defend Aggro players. Please read through everything before you comment.
As I have seen a lot of threads recently ridiculing Aggro players, I thought that I would offer my thoughts on whether or not they are justly criticizing Aggro.
First Point - Deck Cost
If you look at the average Aggro, Midrange, and Control decks, Aggro will tend to be the cheapest to craft. Generally, this is because Control has a ton of Legendaries, Midrange has a few, and Aggro has none. Thus, it will usually be much cheaper for new players to reach Rank 5 for the first time with an Aggro deck.
Second Point - Game Speed
I think that the main reason why I don't mind Aggro is the time it takes to play the game. Even when a Face Hunter gets super lucky and plays a Quick Shot, draws another Quick Shot, and then draws a Kill Command for the win, it usually only takes about 5 minutes. In contrast, playing a Control/Fatigue Warrior mirror match might take 30-40 minutes, only to lose at the end to Deathwing. Personally, I would prefer a 100% Aggro meta to a 100% Control meta. Playing an Aggro vs. Aggro game would only take a couple minutes, so with a win or a loss you could just queue up several other games in the time it would take to play a Control vs. Control game.
Third Point - Deck Counters
Aggro provides a counter to a certain scummy, mindless deck that has been very popular recently (yes, I am talking about Secret Paladin). Although the deck has no real hard counter, extremely aggressive decks are pretty much as close as you can get to one. A couple Face Hunters and Aggro Shamans here or there can help to decrease the number of Secret Paladins. I think we can all agree that this point is definitely in favor of Aggro.
Fourth Point - Required Skill Level
I think the only point that is obviously against Aggro is the required level of skill to successfully play the deck. Although Aggro tends to be easy to play, there are other decks like Secret Paladin and Dragon Priest that also require little thinking. In addition, Aggro decks tend to rely on RNG (Random Number Generation) more than other archetypes. No matter what type of deck we are talking about, there will most likely be an easy deck that fits under the archetype.
In conclusion, I will say that I believe that Aggro players should not be ridiculed as they are. Each type of deck contributes to balancing others, forming a well-rounded, balanced game.
People that complain about aggro are as new as it gets. They still haven't grasped the concept that in every game, one side of the table is playing the part of aggro and one is answering with control moves. If there was no aggression or tempo, then every game would end in fatigue.
Are there decks out there that are tempo/aggro oriented? Yes, it's just another arch type that has been in every card game to ever exist. If there was no aggro there would be no control, everyone would just be playing midrange, and like I said, one player has to be playing aggressively/tempo oriented or the games become a fatigue fest.
Cause control requires so much thinking wow.. Should I use my removal to clear the board? Yes. Then heal heal heal(or armor up).. So it doesn't require much more thinking than aggro.. Control warrior is easy to play it's just that most people can't craft the deck.
Same for priest..
People think that if the game is longer they are more skilled but nah.. They are just stalling.. And for some reason every control warrior has always brawl in turn 5..
There's no real debate. Those people who are unwilling to play aggro as a principle as just as bad as those who only play aggro. In Sirlin's words, those people are called scrubs. One should seek to be a complete player and play a variety of decks.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Honestly, I am not a big aggro player. Even though I have the dust to craft aggro shaman I do not want to do that. However, blaming on people who play aggro decks are just ridiculous and stupid. I am a midrangy control player and let's think about how op some control decks are. Control warrior's average health would be around 50. That's op not aggro decks. I do get frustrated sometimes when I lose to a top deck aggro, but that's really what hearthstone is. If you are angry about it just join the aggro players. I am a big renolock player but really just saying shit to aggro players is not right.
I think Aggro vs Control are the matchups that require the least thinking on both sides. The aggro player is trying to get as much damage out before the control player can stabilise, and the control player is trying to control the board so they can start playing big dudes and get out of lethal range. Aggro vs Aggro and Control vs Control both require a lot more thinking because the former is about who's the beatdown, and the latter is about attrition. The hardest games I've played have either been Face Hunter vs Face Hunter or Control Warrior vs Control Priest.
And Aggro decks require a lot more nuanced thought. Knowing when to start hero powering in Hunter is key, and generally choosing to play or not play a single card before a board clear will determine the game. Similarly Aggro Shaman is about overload management, knowing when to overextend and not get punished for it. Sure anyone can pick up these decks and just SMorc their ways to easy wins, but to get Legend with these decks isn't just as simple as going face.
Aggro decks will always represent a very active style of play, which needs to exist in basically everything. From dual welding in Skyrim to a dps class in an mmo or something, there has to be an aggressor of some kind or the gameplay may become stale. It not only fits the personalities of some people but their repective personas they might keep even on a daily basis. In conclusion it's not just about meta or even hearthstone, it's a mindset.
The general negative attitude toward aggressive decks on HearthPwn is dumb, and in many ways, hypocritical. Loading up a control decklist with axes, removal spells, armor gain, and card draw does NOT make you a "skillful" or "smart" player. These recent Warrior decks that run double Brawl, double Bash, and double Deathlord are a coward's creation.
Would like to see the community realize that playing a completely passive control deck is just as bad (if not worse!) for the game and meta as the hyper-aggressive "face" decks.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
IMO control is the real cancer. Leads to boring games and way too many qqing scrubs acting like they are hot shit for having some 9000 dust deck that bored the opponent to sleep.
I had a shaman quest yesterday I am missing only doom hammer and I don't know the deck much I really failed playing the deck (didn't learn how to play it) In the end I just gone with mech shaman which I already know how to play..
Aggro is not as brainless as it seems it's actually kinda hard.. But it's maybe cause I am too used to midrange and trading that I failed with aggro shaman.
Also face hunter needs some learning not every idiot can hit rank 5 with it, you need to know how to play the deck.
I played a ton of face hunter when I started playing, and since then I don't like playing decks where me getting the win relies mostly on me being lucky. I would much rather play a deck where it's slow enough that the person who plays better/greedier is the winner. You can say that it's brainless to play control warrior or priest but when you get down to it it's less about thinking about what you're going to do that turn (no shit you're going to clear the board that's what makes a control deck work) and more of HOW you are going to do it. Are you going to use brawl to potentially kill a couple minions, will you clear in another way, or will you play greedy and wait until you can get even more value? Much more interesting than deciding what cards you're going to hit face with that turn.
I really don't feel that someone playing face hunter means they're a bad player, more that they don't feel like trying right then.
I'm here to kick ass and play cards, and I'm all out of ass.
Probably another hidden face hunter/shaman player who is trying to make an argument for himself.
Problem with aggro decks ( Face hunter or face shaman generally). There is nothing you can you if they get a good hand they will destroy you in 5-6 Turns because you don't get heals or you don't get taunts. Even if you do then they silince it and continue to hit your face. The games you play against these cancer decks has nothing to do with which deck you play, which card you have or how experience player you are. It is annoying as hell.
No planning, no strategy, no creativity... nothing just stupid simple hitting face and using low mana cost spells on you.
Aggro decks need to go if Blizzard wants to make a way for their new fancy 10 mana cost cards.
Dead but dreaming