Aggro as an archetype is fine,the problem is that since naxx aggro is too rewarding AND too forgiving.Another reason people hate aggro decks is the players that pilot them.In my experience there are few games when my opponent plays a face deck and doesnt bm non stop.So many players accuse the archetype and not the playerbase(wrongly in my opinion)
The problems really started when Blizz decided to give the other guy a deck and let him play cards too. My win rate would be 100% if it weren't for that bullshit design flaw.
Aggro>Midrange, Control>Aggro, Midrange>Control. The reason why people play control is to counter aggro decks. You use your removal until the aggro deck runs out of steam then out value them in the late game. If the meta is full of aggro, then it is expected that there will be control warriors, control priests, renolocks hunting down zoo, hunter and face shaman. In my opinion, it's not fun losing on turn 6 and I prefer losing in the late game after a hard fought match. In addition, quick and easy wins makes the game less fun, it is more fun playing a deck that requires thinking such as freeze Mage even if I win or lose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That was topdecked? Nah, it was because I let the Heart of the Cards guide me ;)
It's true that aggro gets more hate than it deserves. It is a stupid statement to say aggro decks are super easy to play and controll/midrange decks are super hard. It may be true that aggro decks are often easier to play than midrange ones but this isn't a written rule. Moreover which deck is easy and which one is hard is often a personal thing. Some players just have a really hard time to not trade in certain situations, while other have a really hard time to "waste" 7 damage on a 2 health minion. Those two players will be good/bad with compeltely different decks.
Face Shaman for example is quite a hard deck to play. Well at least I would call it "medium" difficulty besides being a face deck. That's the same difficulty in which controll warrior is. (one of my favourite decks) In fact controll warrior is a very easy to play deck because you play mostly the value game. Playing for mostly value is in a lot of cases way easier than playing a pure tempo game (because playing tempo, sometimes feels very wastefull) but playing mostly tempo is usually the better thing to do with most decks in hearthstone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who can take your trash out? Stomp it down for you? Shake the plastic bag and do the twisty thingy, too?
Aggro is important to the gameplay because it provides balance. It keeps extreme control and combo decks honest. If aggro didn't exist than freeze mage would be everywhere because it counters almost everything except control warriors for example.
Freeze Mage is one of the counters to aggro, not a deck that aggro beats easily. Freeze Mage can easily stall the aggro decks and combo them down. Aggro is there to counter midrange decks such as midrange paladin and Druid. The reason why there is a lot of aggro is because of the number of Druids on the ladder so people are playing decks such as Freeze Mage and Control Warrior to beat the aggro decks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That was topdecked? Nah, it was because I let the Heart of the Cards guide me ;)
I am a control player, by temperament, and also enjoy midrange. Combo and Aggro just aren't to my taste.
Obviously, and as many have said here and elsewhere, Aggro is necessary for a healthy metagame (such as the present situation).
The only issue that I do have with Aggro is that it is often overrepresented in the metagame due to Blizzard's stupid Ranked Play mechanics. Awarding extra stars for win streaks without doing the same for loss streaks just incentivises players to choose decks which can play more games per hour instead of decks with higher win rates.
I do hope that Blizzard actively debates this topic and is open to the idea of changing the ranking system some day.
Besides, creativity, what are you talking about, I m pretty much sure you run a 100% netdeck, but correct me if i m wrong... What a creativity you re talking about.
I am correcting you YOU ARE SO WRONG!
I am relatively new player in HS but I am a veteran MTG player so I am familiar with the concept. I reach almost every season Rank 5 without even trying, Because I am a working adult I don't play 4-5 hours a day. I don't care about the Rank or winning/losing I just want to enjoy the game. I like to try funny decks, different decks, unusual decks. I use cards no-one even tried before.
Problem with aggro was actually there is no mana curve, it doesn't matter what you get whatever cheap minion or cheap spell just hit your opponent face you will be OK. You have to have a very aggressive aggro to counter it. Because no matter how much taunt, heal and aoe you add into your deck, they can get past your taunts. If you can get your early minions and aoe, you may survive first 5 turns. After that, it is about time that you must draw your healing cards. Because, no matter how much bigger body you drop onto the board it does not matter, you can only hit one minion at the end. You have to heal your self and continue to clean the board meanwhile. You see, when you face an aggro deck it mostly does not matter what they draw; but if you cant get your taunts aoe or early minions at your starting turns, then you are basically done. That is why aggro decks are so successful and popular, because it depends on you not being able to draw your aoe answers and it does require minimum amount of thinking and skill.
I feel like there would be a lot more creativity in this game as far as deck building if it weren't for SMOrc FACE decks. You shouldn't be able to just dump your hand and go face every turn and reach legend rank that way. The one who lie about aggro decks are usually who play themselves. NO OFFENCE...
I'm a guy who plays every type of deck archtype there is, I think like you said that aggro is not only necessary in every game but there is always some type of aggressor in every game. The problem is that aggro decks in Hearthstone can get out of hand, but little do people know we actually have plenty answers to deal with aggro decks and Blizzard continues to dish them out. I don't know if you guys noticed but the infamous Face Hunter is pretty near dead on ladder, as for aggro Shaman, yeah it's really annoying and I've been the person to defeat you on turn 5 I've also been the one defeated on turn 5.
I think the real problem here is that people just don't like losing to aggro lol. In their mind they feel that aggro players beat them so easily and with out thought and this kind of pisses people off don't you think? People just want to win every single game that they que in to and if they do lose they want it too take about 10 minutes so that they feel they gave their opponent a challenge or so they can get that feeling of I could've won had I just did this or that differently. Problem with aggro is that the games can be quick and you have a feeling that you had no chance of winning so it hurts more then a loss against a slower deck.
This is just my opinion though. I think people can and should play whatever they want to, even though I despise and disgust Secret Paladin :D, they have the right to play it. Anyways for those who prefer a slower meta then I'm sure you'll get what you want in Standard format.
I play the decktypes that tend to get destroyed by Aggro every time. And I should, because if there was no punishment for playing super greedy decks that rely on combos, then we'd just have an unstoppable combo deck as the meta, and that's no fun. Proof: Patron Warrior.
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.
I brought this up in another thread (and it's not a novel idea, but for whatever reason, some commenters seem to not understand).....Aggressive decks and "Face" decks (more appropriately called "rush" decks) are NOT the same thing. Aggressive decks do NOT "need to go" and there is zero chance that they will be leaving Hearthstone.
It seems to me that many anti-aggro-control players simply overvalue their decision making. The difference between aggro and control in decision making is simply is that control make more decisions in one game because the game is longer. In a matchup control vs. aggro, both parties are making very similar decisions: Do I overextend into a possible brawl to generate more pressure or do I keep this minion in my hand for a refill? Are there sufficient minions for brawl or do I wait for more value? One side tries to rush the other down (if it works the game is instantly over), while the other side simply tries to survive and stabilize (once that happened, the game is also over although it can go on for several turns). Who is the beatdown and who is the control is clear from the beginning in Aggro vs. control .
The more difficult matchups are the mirrorish ones. And decisions (and knowing the matchup) are equal important in an aggro vs. aggro as it is in control vs. control. Firstly, both have to identify their role (beatdown or control) which can even change within the game. And depending on that estimation, you need to make decisions which will win or lose you the game. Like the warrior has to ask himsself whether he wants to draw cards because he doesn't have removal in his hand, a facehunter needs to think whether it's worth to Play knifejuggler on turn 2 or wait for turn 5 to Combo with unleash. And if silencing the leper gnome is the right move or whether you wait for a scientist/trogg/whatever.
Decisions have to be made by all decks, with aggro the decisions are usually in the beginning and they decide the games pretty quick, while with control you will have the gamedeciding decisions more in mid- to lategame.
Aggro as an archetype is fine,the problem is that since naxx aggro is too rewarding AND too forgiving.Another reason people hate aggro decks is the players that pilot them.In my experience there are few games when my opponent plays a face deck and doesnt bm non stop.So many players accuse the archetype and not the playerbase(wrongly in my opinion)
The problems really started when Blizz decided to give the other guy a deck and let him play cards too. My win rate would be 100% if it weren't for that bullshit design flaw.
Aggro>Midrange, Control>Aggro, Midrange>Control. The reason why people play control is to counter aggro decks. You use your removal until the aggro deck runs out of steam then out value them in the late game. If the meta is full of aggro, then it is expected that there will be control warriors, control priests, renolocks hunting down zoo, hunter and face shaman. In my opinion, it's not fun losing on turn 6 and I prefer losing in the late game after a hard fought match. In addition, quick and easy wins makes the game less fun, it is more fun playing a deck that requires thinking such as freeze Mage even if I win or lose.
That was topdecked? Nah, it was because I let the Heart of the Cards guide me ;)
It's true that aggro gets more hate than it deserves. It is a stupid statement to say aggro decks are super easy to play and controll/midrange decks are super hard. It may be true that aggro decks are often easier to play than midrange ones but this isn't a written rule. Moreover which deck is easy and which one is hard is often a personal thing. Some players just have a really hard time to not trade in certain situations, while other have a really hard time to "waste" 7 damage on a 2 health minion. Those two players will be good/bad with compeltely different decks.
Face Shaman for example is quite a hard deck to play. Well at least I would call it "medium" difficulty besides being a face deck. That's the same difficulty in which controll warrior is. (one of my favourite decks) In fact controll warrior is a very easy to play deck because you play mostly the value game. Playing for mostly value is in a lot of cases way easier than playing a pure tempo game (because playing tempo, sometimes feels very wastefull) but playing mostly tempo is usually the better thing to do with most decks in hearthstone.
Who can take your trash out?
Stomp it down for you?
Shake the plastic bag
and do the twisty thingy, too?
Aggro is important to the gameplay because it provides balance. It keeps extreme control and combo decks honest. If aggro didn't exist than freeze mage would be everywhere because it counters almost everything except control warriors for example.
Freeze Mage is one of the counters to aggro, not a deck that aggro beats easily. Freeze Mage can easily stall the aggro decks and combo them down. Aggro is there to counter midrange decks such as midrange paladin and Druid. The reason why there is a lot of aggro is because of the number of Druids on the ladder so people are playing decks such as Freeze Mage and Control Warrior to beat the aggro decks.
That was topdecked? Nah, it was because I let the Heart of the Cards guide me ;)
I am a control player, by temperament, and also enjoy midrange. Combo and Aggro just aren't to my taste.
Obviously, and as many have said here and elsewhere, Aggro is necessary for a healthy metagame (such as the present situation).
The only issue that I do have with Aggro is that it is often overrepresented in the metagame due to Blizzard's stupid Ranked Play mechanics. Awarding extra stars for win streaks without doing the same for loss streaks just incentivises players to choose decks which can play more games per hour instead of decks with higher win rates.
I do hope that Blizzard actively debates this topic and is open to the idea of changing the ranking system some day.
Dead but dreaming
Boring.
A tons of useless topics about things like that around this forum makes me sooo sad.
Nothing to complain, if u like motorcycles - u will ride a bike, if u like cars - u will drive a car.
No problems, winners cant be judged, no matter what your play style about, if u won - u a winner.
Simple. Why that make people crazy?
O_O
I'm a guy who plays every type of deck archtype there is, I think like you said that aggro is not only necessary in every game but there is always some type of aggressor in every game. The problem is that aggro decks in Hearthstone can get out of hand, but little do people know we actually have plenty answers to deal with aggro decks and Blizzard continues to dish them out. I don't know if you guys noticed but the infamous Face Hunter is pretty near dead on ladder, as for aggro Shaman, yeah it's really annoying and I've been the person to defeat you on turn 5 I've also been the one defeated on turn 5.
I think the real problem here is that people just don't like losing to aggro lol. In their mind they feel that aggro players beat them so easily and with out thought and this kind of pisses people off don't you think? People just want to win every single game that they que in to and if they do lose they want it too take about 10 minutes so that they feel they gave their opponent a challenge or so they can get that feeling of I could've won had I just did this or that differently. Problem with aggro is that the games can be quick and you have a feeling that you had no chance of winning so it hurts more then a loss against a slower deck.
This is just my opinion though. I think people can and should play whatever they want to, even though I despise and disgust Secret Paladin :D, they have the right to play it. Anyways for those who prefer a slower meta then I'm sure you'll get what you want in Standard format.
I play the decktypes that tend to get destroyed by Aggro every time. And I should, because if there was no punishment for playing super greedy decks that rely on combos, then we'd just have an unstoppable combo deck as the meta, and that's no fun. Proof: Patron Warrior.
Make the Card: The biggest thread on the site!
My mandibles which are capable of pressing down and tearing, my talons which are known to intercept and hold.
It seems to me that many anti-aggro-control players simply overvalue their decision making. The difference between aggro and control in decision making is simply is that control make more decisions in one game because the game is longer. In a matchup control vs. aggro, both parties are making very similar decisions: Do I overextend into a possible brawl to generate more pressure or do I keep this minion in my hand for a refill? Are there sufficient minions for brawl or do I wait for more value? One side tries to rush the other down (if it works the game is instantly over), while the other side simply tries to survive and stabilize (once that happened, the game is also over although it can go on for several turns). Who is the beatdown and who is the control is clear from the beginning in Aggro vs. control .
The more difficult matchups are the mirrorish ones. And decisions (and knowing the matchup) are equal important in an aggro vs. aggro as it is in control vs. control. Firstly, both have to identify their role (beatdown or control) which can even change within the game. And depending on that estimation, you need to make decisions which will win or lose you the game. Like the warrior has to ask himsself whether he wants to draw cards because he doesn't have removal in his hand, a facehunter needs to think whether it's worth to Play knifejuggler on turn 2 or wait for turn 5 to Combo with unleash. And if silencing the leper gnome is the right move or whether you wait for a scientist/trogg/whatever.
Decisions have to be made by all decks, with aggro the decisions are usually in the beginning and they decide the games pretty quick, while with control you will have the gamedeciding decisions more in mid- to lategame.