The never ending multitude of mindless aggro decks I've been facing lately (and especially this season) is making the game boring to the verge of becoming pointless. In looking at my stats, 20% of my matches have been against Hunters, 17% Rogues, 15% Warriors. Nothing else is even close. I keep notes on my matches, so looking at the match notes for each class individually, the vast majority of Rogues were quest decks, and the Warriors were pirate decks. I only take notes on Hunters if they are anything BUT mid range, so almost none of my Hunter matches had notes. Additionally, despite being only 9% of my matches, almost all of the Druids I faced were aggro.
Because the meta was leaning heavy aggro from the start of this expansion, yes, all of the decks I play can deal with aggro. However, what I've noticed is that if my draw/mulligan doesn't give me at least one of the cards to deal with the onslaught that is to come, it's almost certain to be a loss, meaning most of the time draw/mulligan RNG is a win-loss proposition. Which brings me to the point of my post: constantly facing aggro decks is just boring, because the skill factor is completely removed from the game - it's ALL RNG - which is dumb.
I don't know why Blizzard has made the game mechanics so heavy leaning, but it seems like it's gotten worse and worse over time. Maybe Blizz feels it's a way to make it easier for less-skilled players to get wins/rank up, I dunno. What I do know is that it's way more fun (for me anyway) to play games that take longer than 7-9 turns, where a win feels more satisfying than the premature ejaculation races that make up the vast majority of matches in the current meta.
So, is it just me who's burnt on the repetitive aggro nonsense where you see the same 30 cards played over and over and over? Curious how other people feel about this aspect of the current meta.
Because the meta was leaning heavy aggro from the start of this expansion, yes, all of the decks I play can deal with aggro. However, what I've noticed is that if my draw/mulligan doesn't give me at least one of the cards to deal with the onslaught that is to come, it's almost certain to be a loss, meaning most of the time draw/mulligan RNG is a win-loss proposition. Which brings me to the point of my post: constantly facing aggro decks is just boring, because the skill factor is completely removed from the game - it's ALL RNG - which is dumb.
I think you just answered your own question. aggro decks are very efficient. my f2p account has to play midrange hunter because it is very cheap to craft and can farm gold really efficiently. i went from rank 25-15 in about 2 hours of play with a deck running freaking dark iron dwarf..
youre complaining about RNG when its the control decks running the most rng. aggro has very little rng because they use cheap cards for their stats/effect.
It seems to be very prevalent at the moment, but I'm used to seeing an aggro race to legend at the start and end of the seasons. With the exception of a few games, every deck I've faced so far has been one of a handful of netdecks that are very frustrating to play against. Murloc Paladin, Midrange Hunter, Pirate Warrior, Quest Rogue, Freeze Mage, Jade Druid, Egg Druid, Aggro Mage. Kudos to the player trying a Sherazin N'zoth Rogue without Patches or Gadgetzan Auctioneer.
To reason is pretty simple - without a major overhaul of some mechanics in the game,aggro will stay dominant and no cards from no expansion will change that.It's just that in 3 hours you can earn 100 k gold while playing a slower deck will give you 20/30 at the same time.You rank up faster on ladder,because matches last 4 to 6 minutes and not 15-20.Winrate of refined decks(aggro,control,midrange,etc.) is very similar so playing aggro just gives you more profit in less time than control for example.
PS why is midrange hunter called midrange?I don't want to hate on the deck or anything(i use it myself) but it's aggro apart from 2/3 cards.
because it revolves around board control. if hunter loses the board they have no real comeback mechanic and likely lose the game unless you are very low and they can draw burn
Changing the system to reward long games just a little bit more would improve the situation by a lot. It's hearthstone. Overall we all stuck between a winrate from 40 to 60%.
If you can play 10 aggro games, 6 midrange games or 3 control games in the same time, what would you couse? Of course aggro, you can climp mutch faster, even with a lower winrate
i agree, even though this meta is better then the msog meta. i have always hated aggro decks and always will hate it. I prefer to play control and when that isnt viable i play midrange paladin. There are a lot of agrro decks at. and yes i am really bored of facing quest rogue. its just kill him before turn 5 or you loose.
I think the problem is somewhat stated by the guy saying this game is resolved around board-control. Because this is the key to almost every matchup and the serious lack of good board clears in many classes, agrro will always be a thing!
But you have to think also about what could be otherwise.
Do you think a Control fest would be less boring?
I think some cheap weapons and spells shouldnt be allowed to go face, like fiery win axe, eaglehorn. Maybe even frostbolt.
That way Aggro should still be still a thing, but more... relaxed?
I dunno about QR. I like it, mainly because of the ability to change cards to new ways of playing them. But i admit it is not fun to play against it (unless i can pull huge Edwin).
Maybe the crystal core should fix to 4/4 or 4/5. But that nerf cannot happen before having nerfed a few Aggro things as well (otherwise QR would still be killed by Aggro but also too slow to kill Control).
Having games decided by opening hand is not cool .
But I have to say not every deck people call aggro is actually aggro . For example quest rogue is a combo deck and hunter is usually midrange / tempo .
I found our true aggro decks like pirate warrior are actually the easiest to counter , while most problems come from insane tempo cards like that murloc buffers or razormow in hunter .
Blizzard needs to stop printing such cards for the meta to be a little slower and more skill based .
I have a fully stacked quest rogue deck and I never play it because it's boring
Same. Still praying for a nerf so I can dust it for full refund. I auto-concede against quest rogue too, not because I can't beat them (though it's tough with a lot of decks I play) ... but because the reason I play this game is for fun -- no other reason -- and it's just not fun to play against (or with).
Aggro will always be the first pick. You can't simply counter it. Minions and spells should NEVER be able to go face. Uninteractive.
If minions can't go face how should the game ends? By going fatigue? Nice!
Also no need to play minions in this meta. Direct damage hurts opponents health once. The reason to play minions is to damage the opponents health multiple times over a period of turns.
Hey folks:
The never ending multitude of mindless aggro decks I've been facing lately (and especially this season) is making the game boring to the verge of becoming pointless. In looking at my stats, 20% of my matches have been against Hunters, 17% Rogues, 15% Warriors. Nothing else is even close. I keep notes on my matches, so looking at the match notes for each class individually, the vast majority of Rogues were quest decks, and the Warriors were pirate decks. I only take notes on Hunters if they are anything BUT mid range, so almost none of my Hunter matches had notes. Additionally, despite being only 9% of my matches, almost all of the Druids I faced were aggro.
Because the meta was leaning heavy aggro from the start of this expansion, yes, all of the decks I play can deal with aggro. However, what I've noticed is that if my draw/mulligan doesn't give me at least one of the cards to deal with the onslaught that is to come, it's almost certain to be a loss, meaning most of the time draw/mulligan RNG is a win-loss proposition. Which brings me to the point of my post: constantly facing aggro decks is just boring, because the skill factor is completely removed from the game - it's ALL RNG - which is dumb.
I don't know why Blizzard has made the game mechanics so heavy leaning, but it seems like it's gotten worse and worse over time. Maybe Blizz feels it's a way to make it easier for less-skilled players to get wins/rank up, I dunno. What I do know is that it's way more fun (for me anyway) to play games that take longer than 7-9 turns, where a win feels more satisfying than the premature ejaculation races that make up the vast majority of matches in the current meta.
So, is it just me who's burnt on the repetitive aggro nonsense where you see the same 30 cards played over and over and over? Curious how other people feel about this aspect of the current meta.
Cheers, Bueler
It seems to be very prevalent at the moment, but I'm used to seeing an aggro race to legend at the start and end of the seasons. With the exception of a few games, every deck I've faced so far has been one of a handful of netdecks that are very frustrating to play against. Murloc Paladin, Midrange Hunter, Pirate Warrior, Quest Rogue, Freeze Mage, Jade Druid, Egg Druid, Aggro Mage. Kudos to the player trying a Sherazin N'zoth Rogue without Patches or Gadgetzan Auctioneer.
Changing the system to reward long games just a little bit more would improve the situation by a lot. It's hearthstone. Overall we all stuck between a winrate from 40 to 60%.
If you can play 10 aggro games, 6 midrange games or 3 control games in the same time, what would you couse? Of course aggro, you can climp mutch faster, even with a lower winrate
Aggro will always be the first pick. You can't simply counter it. Minions and spells should NEVER be able to go face. Uninteractive.
Death to all who oppose the Horde!
i agree, even though this meta is better then the msog meta. i have always hated aggro decks and always will hate it. I prefer to play control and when that isnt viable i play midrange paladin. There are a lot of agrro decks at. and yes i am really bored of facing quest rogue. its just kill him before turn 5 or you loose.
I think the problem is somewhat stated by the guy saying this game is resolved around board-control. Because this is the key to almost every matchup and the serious lack of good board clears in many classes, agrro will always be a thing!
But you have to think also about what could be otherwise.
Do you think a Control fest would be less boring?
I think some cheap weapons and spells shouldnt be allowed to go face, like fiery win axe, eaglehorn. Maybe even frostbolt.
That way Aggro should still be still a thing, but more... relaxed?
I dunno about QR. I like it, mainly because of the ability to change cards to new ways of playing them. But i admit it is not fun to play against it (unless i can pull huge Edwin).
Maybe the crystal core should fix to 4/4 or 4/5. But that nerf cannot happen before having nerfed a few Aggro things as well (otherwise QR would still be killed by Aggro but also too slow to kill Control).
I agree.
Having games decided by opening hand is not cool .
But I have to say not every deck people call aggro is actually aggro . For example quest rogue is a combo deck and hunter is usually midrange / tempo .
I found our true aggro decks like pirate warrior are actually the easiest to counter , while most problems come from insane tempo cards like that murloc buffers or razormow in hunter .
Blizzard needs to stop printing such cards for the meta to be a little slower and more skill based .
sorry buddy, gotta climb and my greedy burgle rogue isn't cutting the mustard lol
playing wild
~nomad
I have a fully stacked quest rogue deck and I never play it because it's boring
my favorite la croix flavor is lime
The Plague of Whiners: Even During the Most Diverse Meta in Ages, People Still Complain
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland