The following was originally made as a comment to LightbaneBR in why do people get salty thread (so if you want some deeper context you know where to look), but i went so far in dept and kinda explained a great deal more so i made this a new thread about why everyone plays midrange and what is wrong about the way blizzard appeals to casuals
I never bashed casuals in any way or form i am a strong believer in learn by doing so obviously everyone will be bad or casuals at some stage in their play experience, with that said what i am criticizing is the way blizzards business strategy is appealing to the casual. they could give more packs to new comers they could make some adventures that learned people to play around stuff, but no what they do is make all the stuff that you really need to play around obsolete. fx the reason why midrange and aggro are so prominent is not because they themselves are good, it is because combo and control are bad, and it is all about statistic, if you make a deck that is either combo or control then you need to do a few certain things... you need sustain, meaning healing and removal you need draw to have consistency, meaning having the answers primarily the sustain when you need it and then you need your win condition, either your powerful combos or late game minions (because you need powerful late game when you have sacrificed so much of your decks value to sustain and draw) so now you have a deck separated into thee things sustain draw and combo/value (depending on if it is control or combo) meaning your consistency of having the right card at the right time is split into 33% if we assume that we have 10 cards in each separation (I know decks are not made like this but it is to keep it some how simple) on top of that the value late game minions or combos are for the late game, meaning till you hit that certain turn this card will be a block of useless clay in your hand giving you a even lower procentage of having the right card at the right time... so what do you do(you don't do anything, people who knows this game does something and you netdeck it), you change some things you add some more early curve minions and spells and what do you end up with??? at the end daddadaadad fkn da you end up with a midrange or aggro deck according to how balls to the walls you went, so what have been taken out? the win condition is taken out and the draw is taken out so what we have left is sustain and curve minions or just curve and some basic op burst cards... so this new meta is pretty much hyper aggro that tries so hard to hit the curve that it needs to win early and is basically carried by tempo or "snowballing" as some people say on the other hand there is midrange who only does one thing, and one thing only (not lose) so they just put all the stall cards in their deck and wait for the aggro to lose their steam and then they concede and you "win" by not losing, not win by killing them you win by not losing. this in my opinion is very bad for the game, the earlier the game is decided the more random the and bad the game is, more or less the once great strategy game is reduced to a a simple slot machine 2.0 where the the plays are obvious and the game is entirely desidet by chance... like a slot machine and on top of that there is the whole rock paper scissor thing
and that ladies and gentlemen is why everyone is either playing aggro or midrange
I just figured that if people had the choice of a hard control deck with a 100% win rate or an aggro deck with a 100% win rate, people would pick the aggro because it finishes games quicker, and you could get 3 wins in the time it takes the control deck to get 1. Also 1 and 2 drop minions in this game are better than most high cost cards (which is seriously fucked up and Blizzard needs to stop that).
Summary (Maybe, I dunno; it's hard to decipher the grammar):
He respects casuals. (Although I he is confusing casual and novice player. A casual can be experienced but plays at a not-so-serious level.)
He wants Blizzard to make more tutorial adventures and more free card packs avaliable to newcomers
He claims that Blizzard takes away Control/Combo tools
He states that Aggro/Midrange is not too good but rather Control/Combo is too bad (I'd like to disagree since we basically have a counter to every aggro deck. Golakka Crawler, Taunts, Hungry Crab, etc.)
He proclaims that control decks have 3 essential parts, and each deck has about 33% of each:
Sustaining (Healing, Taunt, etc.)
Drawing
Late Game Combo/Win Condition (I'd like to think that control decks slowly chip away at their opponent, and combo decks are the ones that prepare a big burst of damage, but whatever)
He claims that Late Game Combo/Win Condition parts are too unreliable since you can draw them early.
He reasons that people who netdeck take these decks take away this unreliable Win Condition part and add smaller, curve minions in its place which are more reliable. Also, the draw part is taken away for consitency. This creates an aggro/midrange deck and thus the current meta.
This creates curvestone.
This also forces the majority of the game to be based on the early game since midrange basically stall until aggro runs out of steam, and, if successful, midrange "wins" not by winning but by making your opponent lose (Wait, isn't that what a control decks does?)
This causes a RNG-based game because games are too dependant on draws in the early game
He detests the whole "rock-paper-scissors" system where Control (Taunt Warrior, Control Priest, Control Mage, Zoolock, Dragon Priest, Jade Druid etc.) > Aggro/Midrange (Egg Druid, Pirate Warrior, Murlock decks, Midrange Pally, Elemental Shaman, Midrange Hunter, etc.) > Combo (Miracle Rogue, Quest Rogue, Exodia Mage, etc.)
Now my arguments and agreements:
Once again, I think you're confusing "causal" with "novice".
With the new formation of an adventure team for three upcoming free adventures, I agree that tutorial adventures should be instated. Also, due to the large cardpool Hearthstone has now, I think that some free card packs wouldn't be too bad. Then again, said adventure team is going to provide us with FREE card packs with every FREE adventure that now comes in the upcoming expansions (Can't wait!).
I do not think they made control tech obsolete because, once again, we have a counter to every aggro deck. Lots of AoE, direct tribal removal, healing, yadda yadda yadda.
I think Control decks and Aggro decks are more complex then you're making it out to be. Yes, you could argue that aggro decks lose the "bad, unreliable parts" of control decks but here's something you're not getting: aggro decks don't keep the sustain part. Only control decks do. Aggro decks require constant burst damage. Control has a greater amount of tech than late game cards! It's not 33%. Depending on your sustain/draw, you can make it as small as possible! (Just look at OTK druid). Thus, draws CAN be reliable. Plus, some control decks can be uniform and just cause a slow but steady stream of damage while self-sustaining to outlast aggro decks.
I agree that curvestone is bad, no question.
However, to say that the game is too dependent on the early game is kind of obvious. Games are dependent on what's going on. It just happens that "What's going on" includes the early game. That's how life works too. You change what happens early, you affect what happens later. A basic cause and effect principle. You can't really change that unless you have tech cards...oh wait. Plus, card games are dependent on draws. You can't change that RNG part. You can't really control it much without having a drawback. It's just how it is. I think control decks can find their way into this meta. Taunt Warrior and a bunch of others already have.
Yes, this meta may be "hyper aggro", but I find that it easy to control...deck your way out. You yourself has mentioned the rock-paper-scissor system, but if you look at the diverse amount of options available above, you'll see how easy it can be to win. We need to adapt. We need to learn about what's going on in the meta, and learn how to counter it with the tools we (actually) have. Than, we can successfully have a dynamic meta. One which changes to our adaptations. One that doesn't adapt to us, but rather vice versa
However, it's likely that I'm just a small, little idiot in a sea of intelligent and asinine creatures. Your thoughts?
Its simple, most people play to rank up, right? That's like, the point of the game.
Aggro or midrange decks, whether you win or lose, take less time, and most of time, they're easier to pilot, you know, play stronger minions statwise each turn, make good trades, profit. Combo and control decks require experience, and you have to invest some time.
Also, aggro, tempo and midrange decks are almost always cheaper.
Assume you're a F2P player, who has an average collection, and you also have the adventure. Look at the decks like n'zoth paladin, which costs so much, or control warrior, or even miracle rogue, quest and freeze mages, control priest and etc.
Then look at the decks like mid shaman (still not bad in todays meta), pirate warrior, aggro druid, it goes on and on. Actually, the only expensive viable midrange deck is midrange paladin right now. Rest of them is at most 4000 dust.
Not everyone spend real money, so not everyone have access to a large collection.
You are right about extra packs for newcomers, though, I seriously suspect this will change many things, because the other two reasons I have listed here.
I find solace in making face deck sit there for 20 minutes and then friend them so they can tell me how busy their lives are and how they dont have time for a 20 minute game.
First of all Thank you for putting in the time and effort to help me out, very kind of you
your point 1 confusing casuals and beginners, you are absolutely right, by my own lackluster definition I would be a beginner myself, though i think in general casuals are beginners it is not necessarily so.
2nd your aggro is not to good, combo/control is to bad, you talk about those crabs as solutions to an aggressive meta, I personally think they are bad design, I believe in counter cards and i think Flare is an example of a good one, because even in bad match ups it is cycle and not some how just a bad and boring minion that is boring to play without its effect (I am thinking human psychology, we get more disappointed when stuff goes bad then we get happy when things goes good, and by that the crabs will mostly just be a bad Experience to play, again it is a matter of consistency)
3th, i claim blizzard takes away control tools, not entirely correct I think you misunderstood "Obsolete definition, no longer in general use." I don't think they take them away, i think they don't make them good enough or in other words consistent enough, they are to unreliable.
I state that midrange/control win by stalling/out valuing aggro to death, and yes that is correct, but it has never been as Extreme is it is now and that was what i wanted to point out
in addition, a thing i didn't really adresse was the fact that when blizzard released ungoro they yes, added a whole bunch of cards, but the problem was they removed a great deal more, making the variety in standard very low, this will solve itself in time, it was clearly ment to be so, properly to add cards gradually and make the meta easier to figure out for new players, it is bad right now but it will solve itself eventually, till the season passes and the same issue will come right back
There are many moving parts that go into why aggro is so popular. Fixing certain parts of the game may only decrease the amount of aggro decks by a negligible amount, but maybe that is what the community wants. I do not have all the answers, but as someone mentioned, the rank system is partially to blame. This was made worse with the introduction of rank chests. People will gravitate towards aggro decks when ranking because it's just way faster and easier. An aggro deck with a lower win rate than a control or combo can still rank up faster by playing way more games. This isn't even factoring the frustration when losing multiple stars/ranks when you just spent a hour getting them.
Rank 5 is the objective for many players and the grind to that in a month is just way too time consuming for many players. I found myself several times this season gravitating towards a more aggro deck (yes, even pirate warrior) because I dropped a rank playing a control deck. To me, the underlying problem is the fact that people are grinding for rewards. I am not advocating for the removal of rank chests as everyone greatly benefits from them, but it could be possible that less people will play rank/play aggro in rank if Blizzard just made accumulating cards easier. Rank floors was a step in the right direction as I am now playing fun decks at the floor as are many other players, but I still had to grind there to thoroughly enjoy the game. Again, even by solving this problem, aggro may still exist at the state it is today.
This is what makes aggro, tempo and midrange decks so common/popular:
- They are cheap to craft (you might not have to craft anything to play them) - They are fast to climb with (game is decided quickly) - They are simple to play (this is a children's card game after all) - They have high win rates (more consistent draws/less dead turns and HS got broken 1/2-drops)
The reason control decks are less common/popular is because:
- They are very slow to climb with (games last a long time, especially if it's a game you're gonna win) - They are often extremely expensive to craft (difficult to build, often rely heavily on legendary cards) - They can be pretty difficult to play well (coming up with the right answer is ofc harder than asking the questions) - They are inconsistent (you usually have to run a lot of highly situational and high mana cost cards) - They have low win rates because aggro, tempo and combo/OTK decks wreck it real hard (aggro/tempo are popular for reasons I mentioned above, combo/OTK decks are often popular solely due to high win rates, but also gain some popularity due to some players really enjoying that archetype)
What is Hearthstone to you? A fun and semi-competitive game with wacky effects and crazy RNG outcomes or just a card game you wanna grind as many wins you can get as fast as possible in?
Summary (Maybe, I dunno; it's hard to decipher the grammar):
He respects casuals. (Although I he is confusing casual and novice player. A casual can be experienced but plays at a not-so-serious level.)
He wants Blizzard to make more tutorial adventures and more free card packs avaliable to newcomers
He claims that Blizzard takes away Control/Combo tools
He states that Aggro/Midrange is not too good but rather Control/Combo is too bad (I'd like to disagree since we basically have a counter to every aggro deck. Golakka Crawler, Taunts, Hungry Crab, etc.)
He proclaims that control decks have 3 essential parts, and each deck has about 33% of each:
Sustaining (Healing, Taunt, etc.)
Drawing
Late Game Combo/Win Condition (I'd like to think that control decks slowly chip away at their opponent, and combo decks are the ones that prepare a big burst of damage, but whatever)
He claims that Late Game Combo/Win Condition parts are too unreliable since you can draw them early.
He reasons that people who netdeck take these decks take away this unreliable Win Condition part and add smaller, curve minions in its place which are more reliable. Also, the draw part is taken away for consitency. This creates an aggro/midrange deck and thus the current meta.
This creates curvestone.
This also forces the majority of the game to be based on the early game since midrange basically stall until aggro runs out of steam, and, if successful, midrange "wins" not by winning but by making your opponent lose (Wait, isn't that what a control decks does?)
This causes a RNG-based game because games are too dependant on draws in the early game
He detests the whole "rock-paper-scissors" system where Control (Taunt Warrior, Control Priest, Control Mage, Zoolock, Dragon Priest, Jade Druid etc.) > Aggro/Midrange (Egg Druid, Pirate Warrior, Murlock decks, Midrange Pally, Elemental Shaman, Midrange Hunter, etc.) > Combo (Miracle Rogue, Quest Rogue, Exodia Mage, etc.)
Now my arguments and agreements:
Once again, I think you're confusing "causal" with "novice".
With the new formation of an adventure team for three upcoming free adventures, I agree that tutorial adventures should be instated. Also, due to the large cardpool Hearthstone has now, I think that some free card packs wouldn't be too bad. Then again, said adventure team is going to provide us with FREE card packs with every FREE adventure that now comes in the upcoming expansions (Can't wait!).
I do not think they made control tech obsolete because, once again, we have a counter to every aggro deck. Lots of AoE, direct tribal removal, healing, yadda yadda yadda.
I think Control decks and Aggro decks are more complex then you're making it out to be. Yes, you could argue that aggro decks lose the "bad, unreliable parts" of control decks but here's something you're not getting: aggro decks don't keep the sustain part. Only control decks do. Aggro decks require constant burst damage. Control has a greater amount of tech than late game cards! It's not 33%. Depending on your sustain/draw, you can make it as small as possible! (Just look at OTK druid). Thus, draws CAN be reliable. Plus, some control decks can be uniform and just cause a slow but steady stream of damage while self-sustaining to outlast aggro decks.
I agree that curvestone is bad, no question.
However, to say that the game is too dependent on the early game is kind of obvious. Games are dependent on what's going on. It just happens that "What's going on" includes the early game. That's how life works too. You change what happens early, you affect what happens later. A basic cause and effect principle. You can't really change that unless you have tech cards...oh wait. Plus, card games are dependent on draws. You can't change that RNG part. You can't really control it much without having a drawback. It's just how it is. I think control decks can find their way into this meta. Taunt Warrior and a bunch of others already have.
Yes, this meta may be "hyper aggro", but I find that it easy to control...deck your way out. You yourself has mentioned the rock-paper-scissor system, but if you look at the diverse amount of options available above, you'll see how easy it can be to win. We need to adapt. We need to learn about what's going on in the meta, and learn how to counter it with the tools we (actually) have. Than, we can successfully have a dynamic meta. One which changes to our adaptations. One that doesn't adapt to us, but rather vice versa
However, it's likely that I'm just a small, little idiot in a sea of intelligent and asinine creatures. Your thoughts?
TL;DR- this is longer than the "one paragraph" original post. It was hard to read since I like grammar (sorry OP). I disagree with some of your statement as some of the great early decks since pirate meta started were control- taunt warrior before the quest AND dragon priest.
Also... OP very disagree about "plays are obvious" because unless you have one 1-mana minion in your hand on turn one, there are a lot more decisions than you admit to. Even in aggro/midrange decks, trading smartly until you can hit lethal is what is done by most decks. That... or get a taunt up and continue to push for lethal (sometimes zoo).
Also... at this time of month, people play aggro/midrange to push their rank up. Are you playing control if you're rank 7 making a push for 5 and the golden epic at the end of the season? Probably not as control might not get you there. Now in general, the top 3 decks in current meta per tempostorm are pirate warrior, midrange paladin, and aggro paladin. After that are combo-miracle rogue, taunt warrior, and quest rogue. So top 6 are 4 midrange/aggro, 1 controlish, 1 combo/miracle.
This conversation reminds me of how Blizzard has handled the ranked ladder in Starcraft 2. In SC2 winning a game wins you experience and a rank increase based off of how long the game went. So if I win a 5 minute game where I rushed my opponent, it is not worth as much as when I win a 30 minute game. That makes a lot of sense for rewards to be proportional to time played. Why would I ever play a long game strategy if my win isn't rewarded? Hearthstone suffers this problem a lot. Not only are control decks traditionally weaker than aggro decks, the reward system further encourages a ton of games to be played.
there are a few things we don't agree on, for example I don't accept your inclusion of pre quest taunt warrior as control, nor does i accept dragon priest as control. These decks I would label as midrange stall decks, these decks have no win conditions and are based only on countering hyper aggro.
fx dragon priest full of stupid over valued minions for the low cost of having a dragon in hand (only encouraging a bland deck design with stable cards) Ill not deny that these decks are control inspired but they are midrange at their core simply trying to curve along with the aggro decks, true control decks are reactive and with few if any low cost minions and these decks are full of curve options therefor making them midrange and not control... I wish i could go over pre quest taunt warrior but i can not remember the list
and to your point of plays not being obvious, well for me they are, maybe not for new players
This is what makes aggro, tempo and midrange decks so common/popular:
- They are cheap to craft (you might not have to craft anything to play them) - They are fast to climb with (game is decided quickly) - They are simple to play (this is a children's card game after all) - They have high win rates (more consistent draws/less dead turns and HS got broken 1/2-drops)
The reason control decks are less common/popular is because:
- They are very slow to climb with (games last a long time, especially if it's a game you're gonna win) - They are often extremely expensive to craft (difficult to build, often rely heavily on legendary cards) - They can be pretty difficult to play well (coming up with the right answer is ofc harder than asking the questions) - They are inconsistent (you usually have to run a lot of highly situational and high mana cost cards) - They have low win rates because aggro, tempo and combo/OTK decks wreck it real hard (aggro/tempo are popular for reasons I mentioned above, combo/OTK decks are often popular solely due to high win rates, but also gain some popularity due to some players really enjoying that archetype)
there is another thing iv made threads about, the rarity system. It is pushing people into these midrange and aggro decks for all the reasons you stated above
cheap, fast, simple, overpowered.
it is like people are only trying to earn the expensive fun cards by playing decks that would never run them. when we come to the bottom of this howl thing, this is a game and not your 9 to 5 job that you are just trying to get through every day, people treating this game like it is a job because people want the expensive ledengaries that they don't even play. why do you play this game if you just want each game to be won as soon as possible?? it is like indirectly you don't even like this game if you want it to end before it begins, and the plays are so obvious, it is like do you like to answer people when they ask stupid questions?
it almost seems like if there was a turn based game where the howl primise was to say the color on a yellow card in your hand correctly repeatedly, you would all just sit there and fkn say yellow yellow yellow all day and feel like you doing something with your life, even though it is boring and requires not skill, and when some motherfkr says yellow before you it is some stupid BULLSHIT TOP DECK RNG because he was lucky enough to win the coin toss to start with...
like my point is, why play a game if you don't want to play the game? if you don't want to explore the howl thing and win by doing the most crazy innovative strategy, if you don't want to make the hard choices, why are you even playing??
This is what makes aggro, tempo and midrange decks so common/popular:
- They are cheap to craft (you might not have to craft anything to play them) - They are fast to climb with (game is decided quickly) - They are simple to play (this is a children's card game after all) - They have high win rates (more consistent draws/less dead turns and HS got broken 1/2-drops)
The reason control decks are less common/popular is because:
- They are very slow to climb with (games last a long time, especially if it's a game you're gonna win) - They are often extremely expensive to craft (difficult to build, often rely heavily on legendary cards) - They can be pretty difficult to play well (coming up with the right answer is ofc harder than asking the questions) - They are inconsistent (you usually have to run a lot of highly situational and high mana cost cards) - They have low win rates because aggro, tempo and combo/OTK decks wreck it real hard (aggro/tempo are popular for reasons I mentioned above, combo/OTK decks are often popular solely due to high win rates, but also gain some popularity due to some players really enjoying that archetype)
there is another thing iv made threads about, the rarity system. It is pushing people into these midrange and aggro decks for all the reasons you stated above
cheap, fast, simple, overpowered.
it is like people are only trying to earn the expensive fun cards by playing decks that would never run them. when we come to the bottom of this howl thing, this is a game and not your 9 to 5 job that you are just trying to get through every day, people treating this game like it is a job because people want the expensive ledengaries that they don't even play. why do you play this game if you just want each game to be won as soon as possible?? it is like indirectly you don't even like this game if you want it to end before it begins, and the plays are so obvious, it is like do you like to answer people when they ask stupid questions?
it almost seems like if there was a turn based game where the howl primise was to say the color on a yellow card in your hand correctly repeatedly, you would all just sit there and fkn say yellow yellow yellow all day and feel like you doing something with your life, even though it is boring and requires not skill, and when some motherfkr says yellow before you it is some stupid BULLSHIT TOP DECK RNG because he was lucky enough to win the coin toss to start with...
like my point is, why play a game if you don't want to play the game? if you don't want to explore the howl thing and win by doing the most crazy innovative strategy, if you don't want to make the hard choices, why are you even playing??
Most of my howling is done when I deal 32 face damage on turn 4 with my Silence Priest. That's what you're talking about, right?
I don't know about turn 4, it is to early to win for the game to be enjoyable for me, but other than that yes, winning with a combo is what gets me "howling"
I don't know about turn 4, it is to early to win for the game to be enjoyable for me, but other than that yes, winning with a combo is what gets me "howling"
Turn 4, turn 8, whatever. Amping up a plant to a 40 damage overkill in one turn against a full board makes me laugh harder than the best Dave Chapelle skit I've ever seen. If you ask me, that's the epitome of enjoyable.
Summary (Maybe, I dunno; it's hard to decipher the grammar):
He respects casuals. (Although I he is confusing casual and novice player. A casual can be experienced but plays at a not-so-serious level.)
He wants Blizzard to make more tutorial adventures and more free card packs avaliable to newcomers
He claims that Blizzard takes away Control/Combo tools
He states that Aggro/Midrange is not too good but rather Control/Combo is too bad (I'd like to disagree since we basically have a counter to every aggro deck. Golakka Crawler, Taunts, Hungry Crab, etc.)
He proclaims that control decks have 3 essential parts, and each deck has about 33% of each:
Sustaining (Healing, Taunt, etc.)
Drawing
Late Game Combo/Win Condition (I'd like to think that control decks slowly chip away at their opponent, and combo decks are the ones that prepare a big burst of damage, but whatever)
He claims that Late Game Combo/Win Condition parts are too unreliable since you can draw them early.
He reasons that people who netdeck take these decks take away this unreliable Win Condition part and add smaller, curve minions in its place which are more reliable. Also, the draw part is taken away for consitency. This creates an aggro/midrange deck and thus the current meta.
This creates curvestone.
This also forces the majority of the game to be based on the early game since midrange basically stall until aggro runs out of steam, and, if successful, midrange "wins" not by winning but by making your opponent lose (Wait, isn't that what a control decks does?)
This causes a RNG-based game because games are too dependant on draws in the early game
He detests the whole "rock-paper-scissors" system where Control (Taunt Warrior, Control Priest, Control Mage, Zoolock, Dragon Priest, Jade Druid etc.) > Aggro/Midrange (Egg Druid, Pirate Warrior, Murlock decks, Midrange Pally, Elemental Shaman, Midrange Hunter, etc.) > Combo (Miracle Rogue, Quest Rogue, Exodia Mage, etc.)
Now my arguments and agreements:
Once again, I think you're confusing "causal" with "novice".
With the new formation of an adventure team for three upcoming free adventures, I agree that tutorial adventures should be instated. Also, due to the large cardpool Hearthstone has now, I think that some free card packs wouldn't be too bad. Then again, said adventure team is going to provide us with FREE card packs with every FREE adventure that now comes in the upcoming expansions (Can't wait!).
I do not think they made control tech obsolete because, once again, we have a counter to every aggro deck. Lots of AoE, direct tribal removal, healing, yadda yadda yadda.
I think Control decks and Aggro decks are more complex then you're making it out to be. Yes, you could argue that aggro decks lose the "bad, unreliable parts" of control decks but here's something you're not getting: aggro decks don't keep the sustain part. Only control decks do. Aggro decks require constant burst damage. Control has a greater amount of tech than late game cards! It's not 33%. Depending on your sustain/draw, you can make it as small as possible! (Just look at OTK druid). Thus, draws CAN be reliable. Plus, some control decks can be uniform and just cause a slow but steady stream of damage while self-sustaining to outlast aggro decks.
I agree that curvestone is bad, no question.
However, to say that the game is too dependent on the early game is kind of obvious. Games are dependent on what's going on. It just happens that "What's going on" includes the early game. That's how life works too. You change what happens early, you affect what happens later. A basic cause and effect principle. You can't really change that unless you have tech cards...oh wait. Plus, card games are dependent on draws. You can't change that RNG part. You can't really control it much without having a drawback. It's just how it is. I think control decks can find their way into this meta. Taunt Warrior and a bunch of others already have.
Yes, this meta may be "hyper aggro", but I find that it easy to control...deck your way out. You yourself has mentioned the rock-paper-scissor system, but if you look at the diverse amount of options available above, you'll see how easy it can be to win. We need to adapt. We need to learn about what's going on in the meta, and learn how to counter it with the tools we (actually) have. Than, we can successfully have a dynamic meta. One which changes to our adaptations. One that doesn't adapt to us, but rather vice versa
However, it's likely that I'm just a small, little idiot in a sea of intelligent and asinine creatures. Your thoughts?
Thanks for editing but even you were tl;dr. Props for putting in the effort though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Member of Fever Clan | Battle tag: sparkis#1748 | Discord: sparkis#5613
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The following was originally made as a comment to LightbaneBR in why do people get salty thread (so if you want some deeper context you know where to look), but i went so far in dept and kinda explained a great deal more so i made this a new thread about why everyone plays midrange and what is wrong about the way blizzard appeals to casuals
I never bashed casuals in any way or form i am a strong believer in learn by doing so obviously everyone will be bad or casuals at some stage in their play experience, with that said what i am criticizing is the way blizzards business strategy is appealing to the casual. they could give more packs to new comers they could make some adventures that learned people to play around stuff, but no what they do is make all the stuff that you really need to play around obsolete. fx the reason why midrange and aggro are so prominent is not because they themselves are good, it is because combo and control are bad, and it is all about statistic, if you make a deck that is either combo or control then you need to do a few certain things... you need sustain, meaning healing and removal you need draw to have consistency, meaning having the answers primarily the sustain when you need it and then you need your win condition, either your powerful combos or late game minions (because you need powerful late game when you have sacrificed so much of your decks value to sustain and draw) so now you have a deck separated into thee things sustain draw and combo/value (depending on if it is control or combo) meaning your consistency of having the right card at the right time is split into 33% if we assume that we have 10 cards in each separation (I know decks are not made like this but it is to keep it some how simple) on top of that the value late game minions or combos are for the late game, meaning till you hit that certain turn this card will be a block of useless clay in your hand giving you a even lower procentage of having the right card at the right time... so what do you do(you don't do anything, people who knows this game does something and you netdeck it), you change some things you add some more early curve minions and spells and what do you end up with??? at the end daddadaadad fkn da you end up with a midrange or aggro deck according to how balls to the walls you went, so what have been taken out? the win condition is taken out and the draw is taken out so what we have left is sustain and curve minions or just curve and some basic op burst cards... so this new meta is pretty much hyper aggro that tries so hard to hit the curve that it needs to win early and is basically carried by tempo or "snowballing" as some people say on the other hand there is midrange who only does one thing, and one thing only (not lose) so they just put all the stall cards in their deck and wait for the aggro to lose their steam and then they concede and you "win" by not losing, not win by killing them you win by not losing. this in my opinion is very bad for the game, the earlier the game is decided the more random the and bad the game is, more or less the once great strategy game is reduced to a a simple slot machine 2.0 where the the plays are obvious and the game is entirely desidet by chance... like a slot machine and on top of that there is the whole rock paper scissor thing
and that ladies and gentlemen is why everyone is either playing aggro or midrange
giant wall of text, so it must be right. i don't know, didn't read it.
Paragraphs please, paragraphs... (then I will happily read it).
I just figured that if people had the choice of a hard control deck with a 100% win rate or an aggro deck with a 100% win rate, people would pick the aggro because it finishes games quicker, and you could get 3 wins in the time it takes the control deck to get 1. Also 1 and 2 drop minions in this game are better than most high cost cards (which is seriously fucked up and Blizzard needs to stop that).
tl;dr
Summary (Maybe, I dunno; it's hard to decipher the grammar):
Now my arguments and agreements:
However, it's likely that I'm just a small, little idiot in a sea of intelligent and asinine creatures. Your thoughts?
Its simple, most people play to rank up, right? That's like, the point of the game.
Aggro or midrange decks, whether you win or lose, take less time, and most of time, they're easier to pilot, you know, play stronger minions statwise each turn, make good trades, profit. Combo and control decks require experience, and you have to invest some time.
Also, aggro, tempo and midrange decks are almost always cheaper.
Assume you're a F2P player, who has an average collection, and you also have the adventure. Look at the decks like n'zoth paladin, which costs so much, or control warrior, or even miracle rogue, quest and freeze mages, control priest and etc.
Then look at the decks like mid shaman (still not bad in todays meta), pirate warrior, aggro druid, it goes on and on. Actually, the only expensive viable midrange deck is midrange paladin right now. Rest of them is at most 4000 dust.
Not everyone spend real money, so not everyone have access to a large collection.
You are right about extra packs for newcomers, though, I seriously suspect this will change many things, because the other two reasons I have listed here.
Hey gaiz. Quest mage and quest warrior guy here.
I find solace in making face deck sit there for 20 minutes and then friend them so they can tell me how busy their lives are and how they dont have time for a 20 minute game.
I told them they could have quit
First of all Thank you for putting in the time and effort to help me out, very kind of you
your point 1 confusing casuals and beginners, you are absolutely right, by my own lackluster definition I would be a beginner myself, though i think in general casuals are beginners it is not necessarily so.
2nd your aggro is not to good, combo/control is to bad, you talk about those crabs as solutions to an aggressive meta, I personally think they are bad design, I believe in counter cards and i think Flare is an example of a good one, because even in bad match ups it is cycle and not some how just a bad and boring minion that is boring to play without its effect (I am thinking human psychology, we get more disappointed when stuff goes bad then we get happy when things goes good, and by that the crabs will mostly just be a bad Experience to play, again it is a matter of consistency)
3th, i claim blizzard takes away control tools, not entirely correct I think you misunderstood "Obsolete definition, no longer in general use." I don't think they take them away, i think they don't make them good enough or in other words consistent enough, they are to unreliable.
I state that midrange/control win by stalling/out valuing aggro to death, and yes that is correct, but it has never been as Extreme is it is now and that was what i wanted to point out
in addition, a thing i didn't really adresse was the fact that when blizzard released ungoro they yes, added a whole bunch of cards, but the problem was they removed a great deal more, making the variety in standard very low, this will solve itself in time, it was clearly ment to be so, properly to add cards gradually and make the meta easier to figure out for new players, it is bad right now but it will solve itself eventually, till the season passes and the same issue will come right back
There are many moving parts that go into why aggro is so popular. Fixing certain parts of the game may only decrease the amount of aggro decks by a negligible amount, but maybe that is what the community wants. I do not have all the answers, but as someone mentioned, the rank system is partially to blame. This was made worse with the introduction of rank chests. People will gravitate towards aggro decks when ranking because it's just way faster and easier. An aggro deck with a lower win rate than a control or combo can still rank up faster by playing way more games. This isn't even factoring the frustration when losing multiple stars/ranks when you just spent a hour getting them.
Rank 5 is the objective for many players and the grind to that in a month is just way too time consuming for many players. I found myself several times this season gravitating towards a more aggro deck (yes, even pirate warrior) because I dropped a rank playing a control deck. To me, the underlying problem is the fact that people are grinding for rewards. I am not advocating for the removal of rank chests as everyone greatly benefits from them, but it could be possible that less people will play rank/play aggro in rank if Blizzard just made accumulating cards easier. Rank floors was a step in the right direction as I am now playing fun decks at the floor as are many other players, but I still had to grind there to thoroughly enjoy the game. Again, even by solving this problem, aggro may still exist at the state it is today.
I can make it short:
This is what makes aggro, tempo and midrange decks so common/popular:
- They are cheap to craft (you might not have to craft anything to play them)
- They are fast to climb with (game is decided quickly)
- They are simple to play (this is a children's card game after all)
- They have high win rates (more consistent draws/less dead turns and HS got broken 1/2-drops)
The reason control decks are less common/popular is because:
- They are very slow to climb with (games last a long time, especially if it's a game you're gonna win)
- They are often extremely expensive to craft (difficult to build, often rely heavily on legendary cards)
- They can be pretty difficult to play well (coming up with the right answer is ofc harder than asking the questions)
- They are inconsistent (you usually have to run a lot of highly situational and high mana cost cards)
- They have low win rates because aggro, tempo and combo/OTK decks wreck it real hard (aggro/tempo are popular for reasons I mentioned above, combo/OTK decks are often popular solely due to high win rates, but also gain some popularity due to some players really enjoying that archetype)
What is Hearthstone to you?
A fun and semi-competitive game with wacky effects and crazy RNG outcomes or just a card game you wanna grind as many wins you can get as fast as possible in?
This conversation reminds me of how Blizzard has handled the ranked ladder in Starcraft 2. In SC2 winning a game wins you experience and a rank increase based off of how long the game went. So if I win a 5 minute game where I rushed my opponent, it is not worth as much as when I win a 30 minute game. That makes a lot of sense for rewards to be proportional to time played. Why would I ever play a long game strategy if my win isn't rewarded? Hearthstone suffers this problem a lot. Not only are control decks traditionally weaker than aggro decks, the reward system further encourages a ton of games to be played.
Check out my fun and innovative decks here:
Beat your opponent to a pulp with Revenant Warrior or outlast them with Demon Reno Warlock.
I agree that curvestone is bad, no question
Why?
Forgive me, friend. I have failed.
there are a few things we don't agree on, for example I don't accept your inclusion of pre quest taunt warrior as control, nor does i accept dragon priest as control. These decks I would label as midrange stall decks, these decks have no win conditions and are based only on countering hyper aggro.
fx dragon priest full of stupid over valued minions for the low cost of having a dragon in hand (only encouraging a bland deck design with stable cards) Ill not deny that these decks are control inspired but they are midrange at their core simply trying to curve along with the aggro decks, true control decks are reactive and with few if any low cost minions and these decks are full of curve options therefor making them midrange and not control... I wish i could go over pre quest taunt warrior but i can not remember the list
and to your point of plays not being obvious, well for me they are, maybe not for new players
I don't know about turn 4, it is to early to win for the game to be enjoyable for me, but other than that yes, winning with a combo is what gets me "howling"
hmmm, that's a good point!
Member of Fever Clan | Battle tag: sparkis#1748 | Discord: sparkis#5613