I personally have enjoyed un'goro more than any other expansion, and I feel like it has taken the right pace in terms of game length and deck strategy. There are control decks and aggro decks and midrange decks and combo decks. That mélange of strategies makes games interesting. Plus homebrew, meme, and off-meta decks are more viable right now than they have been since early Old Gods.
This meta is defined by the aggressive decks though. Pirate warrior, token druid, and token shaman, as well as murloc paladin on occasion, shape the meta into what it is.
Every time another type of deck has been the driving force has gone poorly: Midrange shaman was toxic, many say patron was toxic, secret paladin was toxic, gadgetzan's reno versus pirate meta was toxic. These meta's were mainly or partially driven by non-aggressive decks. I feel patron warrior's meta was fine and quite diverse but patron itself was a little out of hand as a deck, but we can all agree that midrange shaman was overly dominant and pushed out variety, same with secret paladin. Gadgetzan had two decks, one aggro but one control, that were far too powerful and barely anything else was able to eek out an existence because nothing could stand to both consistently enough and those two were about fifty fifty against each other at most ranks.
Slower decks than aggro defining a meta, naturally seem to be more dominant, and therefore limit a meta more.
Aggro is never the problem, midrange usually is, combo is rarely the problem, control occasionally is.
I used to want the meta to speed up, but I think at this point that that wish is wrong, I learned that in kara, but I still see many threads wishing the meta would slow, and I wondered if there was any insight into why?
Well I for one, hate games that are decided in the first turns. Theres so many cool and powerful cards but cant be used cause youre just overrun by aggro.
Maybe some people want to actually play the game. Of course from the perspective of someone who wants to end it in 4 minutes or less this would seem an alien concept.
Different people enjoy different styles of play. The problem is that if you like slower it's harder to find them if the overall meta leans towards aggro.
The Quest Rogue nerf might go a way towards slowing things a bit; people had to play very fast decks to avoid the inevitable storm of 5/5's, many of which had charge or taunt.
When aggro dominated games are decided very quickly, which tends to be not fun for the person on the losing side -- especially if they like to play big, late-game cards.
yeah, because turn5 lethal is so much fun... aggro is usually braindead smorcing, and you can (most of the time) only counter them with a perfect hand for that matchup, which is rare af.
and as Setoxsc said, half of the cards in your deck are never played because you either dead by turn 5-6-7, or your opponent concedes because you countered them and they ran out of cards, but its still at turn 5-6-7.
So let me explain this because all these responses are non-responsive. I don't want all games to end turn 4 that would suck more, but I don't want the meta to slow down from where it is now, just for new decks to come into the current meta and old decks to change some.
I generally play a weird control or combo or midrange deck and try to take the game to turn 12 or later. I know that the average game goes around 7.5 minutes and mine last on average a little longer than that, so some people experience a shorter average than that. I rarely feel like a game is unwinnable in this meta, and when I do it is when I am a slow deck facing a slower deck, with more value than I have.
this meta is super fun in my opinion, and I just wonder why it it that people want it slower, what it is they feel like is wrong with this meta, and not just people telling me I love aggro so much. I hate aggro and that is why I clear aggro's board and then play big stuff or combo things together. I just believe that aggro being the best makes the rest of the meta more likely to be great.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?
Because 60% of the cards in hearthstone are too slow to see play. A lot of them are fun/interesting/powerful and we simply cant use that awesome part of our game because of how fast the meta is. I dont mind aggro, personally my favorite matchup in hearthstone is control vs aggro. However, its stupid that the speed of the meta prevents us from enjoying so many cool cards
It's simply really, aggro is too powerful. If you play a control or mid range deck you have to hope that your opponent has a bad hand, so that you can win.
If aggro was a case of winning the game by turn 6, 7 or 8 if they played it correctly, then people wouldn't be complaining about how fast aggro wins. It's because they are too fast and so now players want a slower meta so that can try to play a game past turn 5. Just because people want a slower meta doesn't mean aggro would be useless, however they would have to be more resourceful rather than rely on a good top deck.
Mostly because people like to pretend that playing removal on curve takes more skill than playing minions on curve.
The release of Reno spawned immortal warrior and fatigue battles, and that's when I realized how terrible a control meta would actually be. Ungoro has been the best meta in hearth history and hope that the pace of the game doesn't change too much with the expo.
This meta is defined by the aggressive decks though. Pirate warrior, token druid, and token shaman, as well as murloc paladin on occasion, shape the meta into what it is.
Slower decks than aggro defining a meta, naturally seem to be more dominant, and therefore limit a meta more.
Aggro is never the problem, midrange usually is, combo is rarely the problem, control occasionally is.
You must not have played Hearthstone for very long. It is very rare for decks that aren't aggro to define a meta. Aggro Shaman dominated the game for almost an entire year, and probably still would if Rockbiter hadn't been nerfed. Midrange Shaman and Secret Paladin were both VERY fast for midrange decks. Secret Paladin wins turn 7. When Pirate Warrior was on top, deck building was literally "Does my deck beat Pirate Warrior?" And if it didn't you had to go back to the drawing board. Why is Pirate Warrior no longer on top? Because of Golakka Crawler.
Also, this current meta is really defined by a slower build Midrange Paladin and Control Mage and Quest Rogue. These were the strongest decks on launch at Un'Goro, and still are (Minus Quest Rogue). The two former stomped out Aggro, and the latter made any Control deck that wasn't Mage unplayable. Quest Rogue is an AGGRO Combo deck.
The only meta that wasn't defined by an aggressive deck was Patron Warrior. Which also shared a Meta with Zoo, Secret Paladin, and Face Hunter. And Patron Warrior was meta defining because it was a pure combo deck. If you knew how to pilot it, it had like a 70% winrate. Of course that would be meta defining.
TL:DR- Ever since the first Standard rotation, every meta except this one has been defined by aggro decks. Aggro decks have always been the problem in Hearthstone.
There have been tier one aggro decks that were toxic and tier one non-aggro decks that were not toxic. It sounds like you are cherry picking decks and metas that support your viewpoint and are ignoring decks and metas that go against it.
The problem with metas that are toxic is not that the toxic decks are aggro or not aggro, it's that the meta is defined by a toxic deck (regardless of archtype). The reason why that toxic deck tends to be non-aggro is because non-aggro decks almost have to be toxic to be able to go toe to toe with the aggro decks.
The meta should slow down so more cards aswell as more other archetypes see play. Aggro is good for the game, but should have a similar representation to Midrange and Control, but right now its more like 70% Aggro, 20% Midrange and 10% Control. It should be more like 33% of each in the meta or at least closer together then what we have right now. I see a lot of people who don't want Aggro at all, but they have no idea what balance is in the first place, so just ignore their whining.
Edit: Combo can be a part of any of the 3 archetypes and use them as its core with their Combo as a finisher or buildaround.
I have an issue with the statement that it should be 33% of each deck type, and also with the statement that this meta is 70% aggro 20% midrange, and 10% control. Aggro will always be a greater percentage of players no matter how viable different decks are (easier to make and play and faster to rank up) until we get to the point where the ability for decks to be countered gets broken. This is why I don't think we should have 33% of each type of deck represented, but for us to have as many interesting control and midrange and even aggro decks as possible. if another deck type happens to be good enough that it dominates the meta the meta sucks, if aggro is worse than it is now, I am happy with that, if aggro is less represented than it is now I will worry that another deck type that is slower is getting out of hand, and since slower decks can adapt more they are scarier. I basically just want matches to be less polarized not for the meta to slow down. This statement may disagree with what I said earlier, if so, take this statement over the earlier as this had more thought as it has been longer.
I also believe that since representation of decks is not a good measure of how good a meta is, we should look at number of decks. Right now we have 3 aggro: pirate warrior, token druid, token shaman. 3 midrange: Murloc paladin, hunter, Miracle rogue. And 3 control:burn mage, quest warrior, and dragon priest.
Arguably we could have a few more in each category but those are all pretty strong decks right now. The top 3 in the meta are also constantly shifting with generally pirate warrior in there but the other two slots moving around. Even more interesting there is a smooth line of how fast each deck is, where the difference in speed is nearly equal between any two pairs of adjacent decks.
People who like to play fast decks will always play fast decks.
If the fast midrange of today becomes the aggro of tomorrow, it's still going to beat the slower midrange decks. The main difference will be that it will lose slightly more often to control decks if those get more powerful.
But the more people play control, the easier it will be to win with true midrange, so in terms of speed there will always be a balance.
The only problem we frequently run into with Hearthstone is when one or two particular archetypes get far too powerful and can easily beat a disproportionate subset of the meta. It's not (usually) about fast or slow. It's usually about single, broken cards or synergies.
I personally have enjoyed un'goro more than any other expansion, and I feel like it has taken the right pace in terms of game length and deck strategy. There are control decks and aggro decks and midrange decks and combo decks. That mélange of strategies makes games interesting. Plus homebrew, meme, and off-meta decks are more viable right now than they have been since early Old Gods.
This meta is defined by the aggressive decks though. Pirate warrior, token druid, and token shaman, as well as murloc paladin on occasion, shape the meta into what it is.
Every time another type of deck has been the driving force has gone poorly: Midrange shaman was toxic, many say patron was toxic, secret paladin was toxic, gadgetzan's reno versus pirate meta was toxic. These meta's were mainly or partially driven by non-aggressive decks. I feel patron warrior's meta was fine and quite diverse but patron itself was a little out of hand as a deck, but we can all agree that midrange shaman was overly dominant and pushed out variety, same with secret paladin. Gadgetzan had two decks, one aggro but one control, that were far too powerful and barely anything else was able to eek out an existence because nothing could stand to both consistently enough and those two were about fifty fifty against each other at most ranks.
Slower decks than aggro defining a meta, naturally seem to be more dominant, and therefore limit a meta more.
Aggro is never the problem, midrange usually is, combo is rarely the problem, control occasionally is.
I used to want the meta to speed up, but I think at this point that that wish is wrong, I learned that in kara, but I still see many threads wishing the meta would slow, and I wondered if there was any insight into why?
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?
Control is never the problem, aggro usually is, midrange is rarely the problem, combo occasionally is
FTFY
Well I for one, hate games that are decided in the first turns. Theres so many cool and powerful cards but cant be used cause youre just overrun by aggro.
Well, I play 30 cards in my deck for a reason, I could like to use more than six.
Maybe some people want to actually play the game. Of course from the perspective of someone who wants to end it in 4 minutes or less this would seem an alien concept.
Losing a game by turn 4 is not a good time by anyone's standards. Some more skill and time invested per game would be great.
You probably haven't played enough if you cant see what's wrong with aggro decks. Playing a game isn't fun if it ends before turn 5
Different people enjoy different styles of play. The problem is that if you like slower it's harder to find them if the overall meta leans towards aggro.
The Quest Rogue nerf might go a way towards slowing things a bit; people had to play very fast decks to avoid the inevitable storm of 5/5's, many of which had charge or taunt.
When aggro dominated games are decided very quickly, which tends to be not fun for the person on the losing side -- especially if they like to play big, late-game cards.
yeah, because turn5 lethal is so much fun... aggro is usually braindead smorcing, and you can (most of the time) only counter them with a perfect hand for that matchup, which is rare af.
and as Setoxsc said, half of the cards in your deck are never played because you either dead by turn 5-6-7, or your opponent concedes because you countered them and they ran out of cards, but its still at turn 5-6-7.
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world and loses his own soul?
So let me explain this because all these responses are non-responsive. I don't want all games to end turn 4 that would suck more, but I don't want the meta to slow down from where it is now, just for new decks to come into the current meta and old decks to change some.
I generally play a weird control or combo or midrange deck and try to take the game to turn 12 or later. I know that the average game goes around 7.5 minutes and mine last on average a little longer than that, so some people experience a shorter average than that. I rarely feel like a game is unwinnable in this meta, and when I do it is when I am a slow deck facing a slower deck, with more value than I have.
this meta is super fun in my opinion, and I just wonder why it it that people want it slower, what it is they feel like is wrong with this meta, and not just people telling me I love aggro so much. I hate aggro and that is why I clear aggro's board and then play big stuff or combo things together. I just believe that aggro being the best makes the rest of the meta more likely to be great.
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?
Because 60% of the cards in hearthstone are too slow to see play. A lot of them are fun/interesting/powerful and we simply cant use that awesome part of our game because of how fast the meta is. I dont mind aggro, personally my favorite matchup in hearthstone is control vs aggro. However, its stupid that the speed of the meta prevents us from enjoying so many cool cards
It's simply really, aggro is too powerful. If you play a control or mid range deck you have to hope that your opponent has a bad hand, so that you can win.
If aggro was a case of winning the game by turn 6, 7 or 8 if they played it correctly, then people wouldn't be complaining about how fast aggro wins. It's because they are too fast and so now players want a slower meta so that can try to play a game past turn 5. Just because people want a slower meta doesn't mean aggro would be useless, however they would have to be more resourceful rather than rely on a good top deck.
My Entry for this week's Card Design Competition - Season 8.16:
Because people like playing 45 minute games when taking a dump.
Mostly because people like to pretend that playing removal on curve takes more skill than playing minions on curve.
The release of Reno spawned immortal warrior and fatigue battles, and that's when I realized how terrible a control meta would actually be. Ungoro has been the best meta in hearth history and hope that the pace of the game doesn't change too much with the expo.
I remember the days when Tier 4 was only Shaman decks.
There have been tier one aggro decks that were toxic and tier one non-aggro decks that were not toxic. It sounds like you are cherry picking decks and metas that support your viewpoint and are ignoring decks and metas that go against it.
The problem with metas that are toxic is not that the toxic decks are aggro or not aggro, it's that the meta is defined by a toxic deck (regardless of archtype). The reason why that toxic deck tends to be non-aggro is because non-aggro decks almost have to be toxic to be able to go toe to toe with the aggro decks.
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?
People who like to play fast decks will always play fast decks.
If the fast midrange of today becomes the aggro of tomorrow, it's still going to beat the slower midrange decks. The main difference will be that it will lose slightly more often to control decks if those get more powerful.
But the more people play control, the easier it will be to win with true midrange, so in terms of speed there will always be a balance.
The only problem we frequently run into with Hearthstone is when one or two particular archetypes get far too powerful and can easily beat a disproportionate subset of the meta. It's not (usually) about fast or slow. It's usually about single, broken cards or synergies.
"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