While it's never been this fast iirc, the meta in general has always been fast. Pretty rare for say control warrior to dominate.
And for good reason, while in the proper amount aggro decks are good, many view this much aggro as a bad thing. And it's commonly blamed on the power of early game cards and combos (ATM pirate synergy for instance. That kind of combo)
While I agree that's part of it I think there are Two things people are overlooking a lot in examining this. The first is the ladder system and the second is cost of cards.
The innate problem with the ladder, and idk if it's fixable, is there is not really a reason to play anything but the fastest decks which can win. You don't get more ranks by winning slower. So unless there's a massive difference in power of aggro vs control decks, you rank up much slower playing control.
Cost of cards I think is another that gets overlooked. On average, aggro decks are much cheaper to make than control. Its a lot of investment to make a control deck, which normally have multiple legendaries, vs aggro which has maybe 1 or 2 (pre patches certainly many has 0).
And I don't see any way either of these get solved.
Problem with card design is no one actually knows how they design cards. Or more specifically, why they print bad cards. Particularly legendaries. Hobart Grapplehammer for instance is certainly not a control warrior card. He is bad though.
in my opinion.. with cheap aggro decks if you're good you should be able to get to rank 10 and not dominate the ladder... if you can only afford aggro cards then you shouldn't be winning against people who have every card and know how to play well.
in my opinion.. with cheap aggro decks if you're good you should be able to get to rank 10 and not dominate the ladder... if you can only afford aggro cards then you shouldn't be winning against people who have every card and know how to play well.
This is how aggro decks should be. Low skill floor with low cost, but high skill ceiling and moderately counterable. A new player should be able to fumble through a face deck by SMOrcing, but a skilled player running aggro deck will know the mechanics of the deck, the counters to control decks, maintaining pressure on the board, not just on the face. This is how come shaman and pirate warriors are so strong, they can maintain a board presence while hitting face and clearing any opposing minions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wants to play Captain Cookie Druid because why not?
While it's never been this fast iirc, the meta in general has always been fast. Pretty rare for say control warrior to dominate.
And for good reason, while in the proper amount aggro decks are good, many view this much aggro as a bad thing. And it's commonly blamed on the power of early game cards and combos (ATM pirate synergy for instance. That kind of combo)
While I agree that's part of it I think there are Two things people are overlooking a lot in examining this. The first is the ladder system and the second is cost of cards.
The innate problem with the ladder, and idk if it's fixable, is there is not really a reason to play anything but the fastest decks which can win. You don't get more ranks by winning slower. So unless there's a massive difference in power of aggro vs control decks, you rank up much slower playing control.
Cost of cards I think is another that gets overlooked. On average, aggro decks are much cheaper to make than control. Its a lot of investment to make a control deck, which normally have multiple legendaries, vs aggro which has maybe 1 or 2 (pre patches certainly many has 0).
And I don't see any way either of these get solved.
If you are interested, VS published a game-length report a couple weeks ago. You can also google average game-length reports all the way back to GvG. In brief, the Whispers meta-game was the slowest we've seen since launch, until Karazhan. An average Karazhan game took a little more than ten full turns to play. Gadgetzan is slightly faster than Whispers - Gadgetzan is about 9.4 turns, while Whispers was about 9.5. The community likes to exaggerate - about 30% of the ladder is currently comprised of decks which are designed to go well past turn ten, with Reno Mage games averaging more than a dozen turns. It's true that Pirate Warrior wrecks the curve - its games last about seven turns - otherwise, the other aggro decks are all between 8 and 8.5 turns, which is historically quite slow for top-tier aggro. The meta was about 1.5 turns faster during GvG, and the game has slowed down with each subsequent release, until Gadgetzan sped things up by about half a turn. STB and Spirit Claws were nerfed about an hour ago - presumably, the meta-game will slow down in response.
Control decks are boring and not fun to play against, that's why it's way better and healthier for the game to have aggro meta then a control one... hope blizzard will never make the mistake to push a control meta.
As for the cost thing you are right but I think even if there cheaper control cards aggro will still be there. Who needs 1/2h games ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There is no cancer deck in hearthstone ! You are the Cancer !
Control decks are boring and not fun to play against, that's why it's way better and healthier for the game to have aggro meta then a control one... hope blizzard will never make the mistake to push a control meta.
As for the cost thing you are right but I think even if there cheaper control cards aggro will still be there. Who needs 1/2h games ?
Aww a player who loves to smash heroes faces, and can't focus more than 4 turns at a time :)
I need. I 'm constructing a deck with 30 CARDS and I want to play with at least 20 of them but guess what? I can only see 10 of my cards. Aggro is just ridiculous...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Memedeck-seeker. Always tries to build new decks. Hates tournements, streamers, netdecks and poor-o players. ah, but a tournement mode could be great !!!
Control decks are boring and not fun to play against, that's why it's way better and healthier for the game to have aggro meta then a control one... hope blizzard will never make the mistake to push a control meta.
As for the cost thing you are right but I think even if there cheaper control cards aggro will still be there. Who needs 1/2h games ?
Aww a player who loves to smash heroes faces, and can't focus more than 4 turns at a time :)
SOME control decks are boring, Control Warrior and Control Priest are NOT interesting to play against. Yay, it's so fun to have your every threat countered while your opponent's win condition is fatigue / outrageously high-healthed minions / both. The Reno decks are interesting to play against, even when you lose.
Control decks are boring and not fun to play against, that's why it's way better and healthier for the game to have aggro meta then a control one... hope blizzard will never make the mistake to push a control meta.
As for the cost thing you are right but I think even if there WERE cheaper control cards aggro will still be there. Who needs 1/2h games ?
Aww a player who loves to smash heroes faces, and can't focus more than 4 turns at a time :)
When one has no argument, one attacks the person...
I'm just telling what I think is the truth, feel free to argue if you disagree !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There is no cancer deck in hearthstone ! You are the Cancer !
Control decks are boring and not fun to play against, that's why it's way better and healthier for the game to have aggro meta then a control one... hope blizzard will never make the mistake to push a control meta.
As for the cost thing you are right but I think even if there WERE cheaper control cards aggro will still be there. Who needs 1/2h games ?
Aww a player who loves to smash heroes faces, and can't focus more than 4 turns at a time :)
When one has no argument, one attacks the person...
I'm just telling what I think is the truth, feel free to argue if you disagree !
You have no argument either. There is no way to prove the statement 'Control decks are boring and not fun to play against', because it comes down to personal preference. Some people prefer control decks while other prefer aggro decks. Therefore you cannot go and say 'that's why it's way better and healthier for the game to have aggro meta then a control one' as if you have provided a piece of profound wisdom for us all.
Aggro decks will always dominate because they are fast and consistent (their lower curve makes it less likely to draw dead cards). While I think all deck archetypes should exist for a healthy and balanced metagame, aggro decks being able to kill you in the first 4-5 turns consistently isn't particularly fun (and sometimes interactive) either.
Problem with card design is no one actually knows how they design cards. Or more specifically, why they print bad cards. Particularly legendaries. Hobart Grapplehammer for instance is certainly not a control warrior card. He is bad though.
What?
Bad cards are very easy to see why they exist;
1) Dopamines. It's much better to *finally* get that card you've wanted rather than just getting it right away. This requires more cards to be printed so it's harder to get ahold of the ones you want (I don't agree with it, but this IS conventional game design wisdom).
2) Balance. How amazing would it be to get Ragnaros off of Confessor Paletress every time, or Earth Elemental off of Firelands Portal? The ability to randomly pull out cards using other cards REQUIRES bad card to be printed so bad things happen to balance out the good things when you play those cards.
This is basic Game design, and the same exact thing that has allowed MtG to exist for as long as it has.
To be fair idk if even at rag quality level that would've made paeltress OP.
I get what you're saying but idk how much that applies to legendaries since by definition legendaries are rare to get to begin with so I don't think they are made to be throwaways compared to other quality cards.
I think they just got some reason like to create things for "fun decks" and throw legendaries into it those ideas. Though the why id love to hear them say.
I hit rank 5 legend this month with a 3 legendary aggro shaman deck, and am finishing it in the top 100 (currently L40) with a 3 legendary jade shaman deck.
With results like that, why would I ever bother with a 9 legendary control deck?
The thing is, while the things OP says are fairly accurate, he says these things are overlooked. This part is just false, they have been said and said again since the current form of laddering started. This is not new information.
If Blizzard would finally release some STRONG TAUNT-Minions WITHOUT treating Taunt as a Penalty, then yes, we might see a slower meta. Sadly Blizzard is stupid. Ironically they release so many strong minions with some power-creep, but never for taunt-minions.
But instead of balancing control by simply buffing them, they retire many control-type minions to wild. Naturally not a single aggro-card. In the end it's quite clear that blizzard seems to be quite happy with the aggro-meta and doesn't intent to make the game slower.
already 2% drop rate and get the chance to get trash is really bad.
aggro dominited and never die because of this. Even you spend $20 per month. You also ake long time to complete deck. Unless you open 300 pack in lauch days but only 1% of player doing this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While it's never been this fast iirc, the meta in general has always been fast. Pretty rare for say control warrior to dominate.
And for good reason, while in the proper amount aggro decks are good, many view this much aggro as a bad thing. And it's commonly blamed on the power of early game cards and combos (ATM pirate synergy for instance. That kind of combo)
While I agree that's part of it I think there are Two things people are overlooking a lot in examining this. The first is the ladder system and the second is cost of cards.
The innate problem with the ladder, and idk if it's fixable, is there is not really a reason to play anything but the fastest decks which can win. You don't get more ranks by winning slower. So unless there's a massive difference in power of aggro vs control decks, you rank up much slower playing control.
Cost of cards I think is another that gets overlooked. On average, aggro decks are much cheaper to make than control. Its a lot of investment to make a control deck, which normally have multiple legendaries, vs aggro which has maybe 1 or 2 (pre patches certainly many has 0).
And I don't see any way either of these get solved.
I'm not sure how to solve the problem of the fastness of the decks being good, but solving the cost of the decks is easy.
Stop printing common/rare aggro cards and stop printing epic/legendary control cards. Problem solved.
Problem with card design is no one actually knows how they design cards. Or more specifically, why they print bad cards. Particularly legendaries. Hobart Grapplehammer for instance is certainly not a control warrior card. He is bad though.
in my opinion.. with cheap aggro decks if you're good you should be able to get to rank 10 and not dominate the ladder... if you can only afford aggro cards then you shouldn't be winning against people who have every card and know how to play well.
Wants to play Captain Cookie Druid because why not?
Control decks are boring and not fun to play against, that's why it's way better and healthier for the game to have aggro meta then a control one... hope blizzard will never make the mistake to push a control meta.
As for the cost thing you are right but I think even if there cheaper control cards aggro will still be there. Who needs 1/2h games ?
There is no cancer deck in hearthstone ! You are the Cancer !
I need. I 'm constructing a deck with 30 CARDS and I want to play with at least 20 of them but guess what? I can only see 10 of my cards. Aggro is just ridiculous...
Memedeck-seeker. Always tries to build new decks. Hates tournements, streamers, netdecks and poor-o players.
ah, but a tournement mode could be great !!!
There is no cancer deck in hearthstone ! You are the Cancer !
To be fair idk if even at rag quality level that would've made paeltress OP.
I get what you're saying but idk how much that applies to legendaries since by definition legendaries are rare to get to begin with so I don't think they are made to be throwaways compared to other quality cards.
I think they just got some reason like to create things for "fun decks" and throw legendaries into it those ideas. Though the why id love to hear them say.
I hit rank 5 legend this month with a 3 legendary aggro shaman deck, and am finishing it in the top 100 (currently L40) with a 3 legendary jade shaman deck.
With results like that, why would I ever bother with a 9 legendary control deck?
S39 Legend - Quest Rogue, S38 Legend - Murloc Paladin, S37 Legend - Miracle Rogue, S36 Top 200 Legend - Aggro Shaman, S35 - Finished Rank 51 Legend - Aggro Shaman, S34 Legend - Aggro Shaman
The thing is, while the things OP says are fairly accurate, he says these things are overlooked. This part is just false, they have been said and said again since the current form of laddering started. This is not new information.
If Blizzard would finally release some STRONG TAUNT-Minions WITHOUT treating Taunt as a Penalty, then yes, we might see a slower meta. Sadly Blizzard is stupid. Ironically they release so many strong minions with some power-creep, but never for taunt-minions.
But instead of balancing control by simply buffing them, they retire many control-type minions to wild. Naturally not a single aggro-card. In the end it's quite clear that blizzard seems to be quite happy with the aggro-meta and doesn't intent to make the game slower.
I hope new expansion zero trash legendary.
already 2% drop rate and get the chance to get trash is really bad.
aggro dominited and never die because of this. Even you spend $20 per month. You also ake long time to complete deck. Unless you open 300 pack in lauch days but only 1% of player doing this.