Priest,Shaman and Paladin all have solid control builds that have a good chance of beating all different types of decks including aggro. The trick is knowing what to keep and what not to keep against each type of deck you face.
I see posts complaining about the death of control again and again and I see control decks win tournaments again and again. When are folks going to put those two facts together and realize they are wrong again and again?
I think the short answer is that people who complain that control decks are no good are not good enough to play control decks. And yes, they have counters, and yes, they should have counters. The only time control decks are truly dead are when the counters to control decks don't have counters to them. We are not in that state, and have only been there on a couple of occasions. But even then, control decks still tend to dominate tournaments because your decks need to be good against a field of foes, and control decks tend to be more capable of adapting their play to face a wide array of challenges and win.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my gaming blog: Downy Owlbear Designs and download free P&P games. Or argue with me about games on Qallout, the video debate site.
I read a suggestion on another thread that made a lot of sense to me: find a way to distribute greater rewards for longer games, so that the victory is proportional to the time invested.
[...]
As much as I would sympathize with Control aficionados, this suggestion seems totally off the mark, sorry. Sounds to me like if in chess tournaments a bigger reward was given to those who play Ruy Lopez, compared to those who play Sicilian. Which would be ludicrous, ofc.
IN the proposed duration-based system, the reward does not go to the slower player (be they Ruy Lopez or Sicilian) - the reward goes to whoever wins the game.
If the game goes on for a longer duration, the payoff for the winner is bigger than it would be for a shorter game - regardless of the pace of your deck. So if you are playing a fast deck and are matched up with a slower one, you still are rewarded proportionally for your time invested (assuming you win of course) - and vice versa.
I don't know a lot about chess tournaments so I may be missing something - but my assumption is that they are limited to a set number of games. In an online collectible card game, the number of games you play is limited only by the amount of free time you have available, so it's not really a meaningful comparison. (i'm talking about Hearthstone ranked play here, not tournaments).
A limited amount of leisure time incentives people to play faster decks in ranked play, even if they might prefer a slower play style. A duration-based proportional reward system would help to balance that out.
I've never played StarCraft but I understand a similar system is employed there, so there is a Blizzard precedent. It's pretty typical for video games - the quests, challenges or missions that take longer to complete have bigger payouts for the victors.
I see posts complaining about the death of control again and again and I see control decks win tournaments again and again. When are folks going to put those two facts together and realize they are wrong again and again?
You are missing a crucial point here, in tournament the players can BAN the class with tier 1 aggro deck, of course control have a much better chance with that.
If I can just ban warrior and free from cursed pirate decks I can make my control deck more refined and better for other decks.
I see posts complaining about the death of control again and again and I see control decks win tournaments again and again. When are folks going to put those two facts together and realize they are wrong again and again?
You are missing a crucial point here, in tournament the players can BAN the class with tier 1 aggro deck, of course control have a much better chance with that.
If I can just ban warrior and free from cursed pirate decks I can make my control deck more refined and better for other decks.
You trying to compare oranges with apples here.
You realize there are 3 strong aggro decks in the tournament meta right now, which doesn't even include the token shaman and faster hunter lists. You can ban whatever you want, you still have to play against aggro. Some people have full aggro lineups. RDU brought 4 aggro decks when he competed
I see posts complaining about the death of control again and again and I see control decks win tournaments again and again. When are folks going to put those two facts together and realize they are wrong again and again?
You are missing a crucial point here, in tournament the players can BAN the class with tier 1 aggro deck, of course control have a much better chance with that.
If I can just ban warrior and free from cursed pirate decks I can make my control deck more refined and better for other decks.
You trying to compare oranges with apples here.
You realize there are 3 strong aggro decks in the tournament meta right now, which doesn't even include the token shaman and faster hunter lists. You can ban whatever you want, you still have to play against aggro. Some people have full aggro lineups. RDU brought 4 aggro decks when he competed
But the player want to play control can build your decks without worry with the best tier 1 deck from a class, if have 15/20 decks in tier 1 this don't make a impact but if only have 3 or 4 is all the diference for best control deck results.
Ladder and tournaments are diferent, who complain about aggro in ladder have plenty of reasons for that.
I'm sorry, but why would Blizzard ever promote a "classic" style of control. Those decks basically comes down to remove every single threat your opponent has until they either concede or loose in fatigue. To majority of players that's a troll deck. I keep seeing this complain over and over and people need to move on. The era of you winning means your opponent had a really terrible 10-15 minutes is over, move on.
I have to agree with you, it does seem like with every set classic control decks just get worse and worse. Hopefully the next expansion to come out will slow the meta down some.
The meta will never slow down. Blame the tournament scene for that. People don't want to watch hour long games because they are playing control decks. They want quick games, seeing that players in tournaments always wait till the last possible moment to do their moves anyways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You do not truly know someone, until you fight them.....
What are you talking about? Renolock was the best control deck in the game before Un'Goro came out. Yeah Jade Druid ruins Fatigue Warrior, but playing against that deck can be so boring. Not like Taunt Warrior is much of an improvement. And now Priest has a huge toolbox to control the game until they get a combo.
I do think they hate control decks. They probably consider them 'unfun'.
And to be honest, not much has ever been less fun for me than facing off vs. a Freeze mage with my Ramp Druid deck.
Personally, I think we could use a little power creep in the 7-10 mana range. I think there should be greater reward for including and getting to play such high cost cards than we currently have. I believe that Blizz did a poor job in costing the downside of high mana cards when they built the game, and this is a fundamental reason that control decks suffer. A mana wyrm is just a better card than any 10 drop you care to mention. I think the reverse should be the case that a 10 drop should be game breaking. Give you a reason for pushing the game longer.
I'm sorry, but why would Blizzard ever promote a "classic" style of control. Those decks basically comes down to remove every single threat your opponent has until they either concede or loose in fatigue. To majority of players that's a troll deck. I keep seeing this complain over and over and people need to move on. The era of you winning means your opponent had a really terrible 10-15 minutes is over, move on.
I think you mistook "fatigue decks" for control. Control is more about out-valuing your opponent in the mid/late game rather than waiting for them to die of boredom doing practically nothing (hello, freeze mage).
Thijs had freeze mage in top 10 for his whole stream yesterday, almost hitting rank 1. In tier 1 and 2 there are multiple control decks and control mage might be the best deck in the game right now. Taunt warrior is also a control deck. What the fuck is this dude smoking.
Control Paladin. Control Warrior. Control Mage. All insanely good right now.
Since when freeze mage is a control deck? All it interact with is the opponent's face.
I'm sorry, but why would Blizzard ever promote a "classic" style of control. Those decks basically comes down to remove every single threat your opponent has until they either concede or loose in fatigue. To majority of players that's a troll deck. I keep seeing this complain over and over and people need to move on. The era of you winning means your opponent had a really terrible 10-15 minutes is over, move on.
I think you mistook "fatigue decks" for control. Control is more about out-valuing your opponent in the mid/late game rather than waiting for them to die of boredom doing practically nothing (hello, freeze mage).
Thijs had freeze mage in top 10 for his whole stream yesterday, almost hitting rank 1. In tier 1 and 2 there are multiple control decks and control mage might be the best deck in the game right now. Taunt warrior is also a control deck. What the fuck is this dude smoking.
Control Paladin. Control Warrior. Control Mage. All insanely good right now.
Since when freeze mage is a control deck? All it interact with is the opponent's face.
Yep, i think when you play freeze mage you start at 19 mana with alex/fireball/fireball/frostbolt in hand. Not sure why I thought freeze mage tries to control the board until they can win through burn, unlike other control decks that.....ummm...control the board until they win through some other win condition.
Freeze mage is the absolute definition of a control deck. If you think otherwise you have made your own definition for what a control deck is. Just because you don't like a deck doesn't mean you get to decide what type of deck it is. "This shit isn't an aggro deck its a bullshit deck because I say so"
I read a suggestion on another thread that made a lot of sense to me: find a way to distribute greater rewards for longer games, so that the victory is proportional to the time invested.
[...]
As much as I would sympathize with Control aficionados, this suggestion seems totally off the mark, sorry. Sounds to me like if in chess tournaments a bigger reward was given to those who play Ruy Lopez, compared to those who play Sicilian. Which would be ludicrous, ofc.
IN the proposed duration-based system, the reward does not go to the slower player (be they Ruy Lopez or Sicilian) - the reward goes to whoever wins the game.
If the game goes on for a longer duration, the payoff for the winner is bigger than it would be for a shorter game - regardless of the pace of your deck. So if you are playing a fast deck and are matched up with a slower one, you still are rewarded proportionally for your time invested (assuming you win of course) - and vice versa.
[...]
I stand corrected. Had indeed understood that the reward went to the slower player, my bad.
Still have some perplexities, though... but at least the major one is gone ;)
I think Blizzard doesn't do enough to support control as an archetype and does too much to punish control as an archetype, for instance the existance of decks like Freeze Mage, Anyfin, Jade Druid and Quest Rogue is only to TKO control by taking advantage of the game's lack of interaction, and it's not necessary for control to have a "counter" archetype like aggro because control deck's keep each other in check by gambling on how much value they can play relative to their ability to beat aggro or midrange out curves their removal and plays a top heavy deck.
I believe Blizzard just hates Warlock control, because Life Tap is "impossible" to balance and Lord Jaraxaus is an I win button. Quest Warrior just seems to me like a design error, because in the control mirror it's an I win button that doesn't cost you much if anything vs aggro - it's like Lord Jaraxus 2.0 - but Quests in general were a terrible idea that had a horrible effect on deck builing and match up interactions, I'm pretty sure they just don't have good designers/testers on their staff, or they just don't give a fuck about balance.
They don't hate control decks but the game is obviously designed to be accessible for scrubs. Scrubs don't understand control decks so they have to put easy win aggro decks in the game.
I read a suggestion on another thread that made a lot of sense to me: find a way to distribute greater rewards for longer games, so that the victory is proportional to the time invested.
[...]
As much as I would sympathize with Control aficionados, this suggestion seems totally off the mark, sorry. Sounds to me like if in chess tournaments a bigger reward was given to those who play Ruy Lopez, compared to those who play Sicilian. Which would be ludicrous, ofc.
You can't compare chess with HS, seriously dude. Chess is a game that has zero rng in it, only skill matters while HS is a game where rng decides nearly everything. You choose a deck in HS before the game starts but in chess the opening that appears on the board is always a two-sided discussion. If the opponent so chooses, you don't get to play either Sicilian or Spanish games. Therefor you cant give rewards for playing certain openings or if you did you'd have to give the reward for both players.
[...]
Man, I wasn't comparing chess with HS "tout court". Not only there are the differences you stated but also serious chess games are real-time, while HS is turn-based. As I'm sure you know, there are clocks and you might have like 2 hours for your first 40 moves plus another hour to finish the game, or whatever the format dictates. One has the liberty to think on a move as much as they want but if they run out of time, they lose no matter the position on the board.
No, rather than a full-fledged comparison between chess and HS my point was that the suggestion introduced a distortion, linking together aspects of the game which are not naturally related, that is reward and choice of strategy / playstyle. Don't like the openings example? Fine. I might have said playing black or white. Or, switching to yet another game, a hearts contract vs a spades one in bridge. Don't know, playing Alliance rather than Horde in WoW?
All of this, because I had (wrongly) understood that the extra reward unconditionally went to the slower player.
Which you might have known if you had read post # 37 in this thread, right before yours ;)
The idea is actually pretty good one tbh. If the game lasts less than 10 turns, you get your usual rewards like before. If the game lasts over 10 turns, you get some free dust or gold and the amount increases the more turns the game lasts.
Exactly...this way - while you might not rank up as fast if you are playing a slower deck - you earn some rewards for your time invested (assuming you win of course).
It balances out the major incentive to play faster decks which rank up quickly - and if you dislike longer games, at least you get some compensation for your time (again, assuming you win).
* Always play aggro crew * Accept all friend request crew * Don't mind/care if they rant crew * Find it funny that they rant crew * Google translate non english rant crew * Most friends on my friends list are people I've beaten crew Join my crew guys
Besides if you find your opponent with the upper hand dragging out a game and you have no way to win, just concede - this is what ladder grinders do anyway.
Priest,Shaman and Paladin all have solid control builds that have a good chance of beating all different types of decks including aggro. The trick is knowing what to keep and what not to keep against each type of deck you face.
I see posts complaining about the death of control again and again and I see control decks win tournaments again and again. When are folks going to put those two facts together and realize they are wrong again and again?
I think the short answer is that people who complain that control decks are no good are not good enough to play control decks. And yes, they have counters, and yes, they should have counters. The only time control decks are truly dead are when the counters to control decks don't have counters to them. We are not in that state, and have only been there on a couple of occasions. But even then, control decks still tend to dominate tournaments because your decks need to be good against a field of foes, and control decks tend to be more capable of adapting their play to face a wide array of challenges and win.
Check out my gaming blog: Downy Owlbear Designs and download free P&P games.
Or argue with me about games on Qallout, the video debate site.
I'm sorry, but why would Blizzard ever promote a "classic" style of control. Those decks basically comes down to remove every single threat your opponent has until they either concede or loose in fatigue. To majority of players that's a troll deck. I keep seeing this complain over and over and people need to move on. The era of you winning means your opponent had a really terrible 10-15 minutes is over, move on.
You do not truly know someone, until you fight them.....
What are you talking about? Renolock was the best control deck in the game before Un'Goro came out. Yeah Jade Druid ruins Fatigue Warrior, but playing against that deck can be so boring. Not like Taunt Warrior is much of an improvement. And now Priest has a huge toolbox to control the game until they get a combo.
Justicar Trueheart in Rogue?
Blizzard doesn't hate Control decks, players hate Control decks.
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.
I do think they hate control decks. They probably consider them 'unfun'.
And to be honest, not much has ever been less fun for me than facing off vs. a Freeze mage with my Ramp Druid deck.
Personally, I think we could use a little power creep in the 7-10 mana range. I think there should be greater reward for including and getting to play such high cost cards than we currently have. I believe that Blizz did a poor job in costing the downside of high mana cards when they built the game, and this is a fundamental reason that control decks suffer. A mana wyrm is just a better card than any 10 drop you care to mention. I think the reverse should be the case that a 10 drop should be game breaking. Give you a reason for pushing the game longer.
Galavant Animation
I think Blizzard doesn't do enough to support control as an archetype and does too much to punish control as an archetype, for instance the existance of decks like Freeze Mage, Anyfin, Jade Druid and Quest Rogue is only to TKO control by taking advantage of the game's lack of interaction, and it's not necessary for control to have a "counter" archetype like aggro because control deck's keep each other in check by gambling on how much value they can play relative to their ability to beat aggro or midrange out curves their removal and plays a top heavy deck.
I believe Blizzard just hates Warlock control, because Life Tap is "impossible" to balance and Lord Jaraxaus is an I win button. Quest Warrior just seems to me like a design error, because in the control mirror it's an I win button that doesn't cost you much if anything vs aggro - it's like Lord Jaraxus 2.0 - but Quests in general were a terrible idea that had a horrible effect on deck builing and match up interactions, I'm pretty sure they just don't have good designers/testers on their staff, or they just don't give a fuck about balance.
They don't hate control decks but the game is obviously designed to be accessible for scrubs. Scrubs don't understand control decks so they have to put easy win aggro decks in the game.
Have lethal? Yes!
Kill opponent? No!
Because drag out game, LOL!
* Always play aggro crew
* Accept all friend request crew
* Don't mind/care if they rant crew
* Find it funny that they rant crew
* Google translate non english rant crew
* Most friends on my friends list are people I've beaten crew
Join my crew guys
Have lethal? Yes!
Kill opponent? No!
Opponent finds lethal next turn? Yes!
You lose!
Because not a winning strategy, LOL!
Besides if you find your opponent with the upper hand dragging out a game and you have no way to win, just concede - this is what ladder grinders do anyway.
On to the next turn 5 victory LOL!