Hearthpwn

It's the most simplistic gameplan the game offers, and it's one of the easiest for even the most inexperienced player to take advantage of and do well with. That is why it is regularly insulted.  It also prevents people from doing fun flashy things all for the sake of you winning and satisfying your tiny ego in a card game. Keyword being GAME. People try to have fun and aggro is the archetype that ruins it, because even if you lose to a control match. At least they were given time to play out their strategy. 

That is why aggro is seen as dumb and annoying. Dumb because it's the playstyle a noob starts with. Annoying because it ruins unique gameplans. Even high ranking aggro players often struggle to make the basic trades at time. I have lost count on how many times I have seen an aggro play go face despite being dead on board, or ignoring obvious trades that cost them the game. It's also no wonder that aggro decks enable people to abuse bots in game. That is just how thoughtless aggro is in hearthstone.

From a balance standpoint, Aggro is broken. Aggro is broken because Blizzard as a company only cares to maximize the number of people playing.  The easiest way to do that is to make sure that cheap and easy to play decks win at a disproportional rate (as this brings in the player base looking for a brainless time waste game).  But there are also players who prefer a real PvP game with strategy and counter-play; There are people who want this game to be more like Chess than Tic-Tac-Toe.  The problem with Hearthstone is that most of the people playing brainless decks and winning games doing so don't realize that they are being gifted wins by Blizzard's market strategy.  If Hearthstone were designed to be a balanced game, brainless decks like face-hunter and pirate warrior would not be able to compete against any skilled player playing any well-balanced (having a strategy for all phases of the game, early+mid and late) deck.

Quote from GhostTrickx1 >>

It's the most simplistic gameplan the game offers, and it's one of the easiest for even the most inexperienced player to take advantage of and do well with. That is why it is regularly insulted.  It also prevents people from doing fun flashy things all for the sake of you winning and satisfying your tiny ego in a card game. Keyword being GAME. People try to have fun and aggro is the archetype that ruins it, because even if you lose to a control match. At least they were given time to play out their strategy. 

That is why aggro is seen as dumb and annoying. Dumb because it's the playstyle a noob starts with. Annoying because it ruins unique gameplans. Even high ranking aggro players often struggle to make the basic trades at time. I have lost count on how many times I have seen an aggro play go face despite being dead on board, or ignoring obvious trades that cost them the game. It's also no wonder that aggro decks enable people to abuse bots in game. That is just how thoughtless aggro is in hearthstone.

Quote from breach_deciphern >>

I'm a Control/Combo deck player and have always avoided playing aggressive strategies. This also applies to Magic the Gathering, which I've been playing for 16 years now. I admit to disliking aggressive strategies, the reasons being mostly what you guys mention, but also these two ; the goal of aggro is usually to end the game before the opponent actually gets to play properly, and games against aggro are usually decided by the Control player drawing or not drawing the card they put in the deck for this matchup. It's a very Yes/No match a lot of the time, without a lot of talk in between. This is especially emphasized to the extreme by Reno Jackson decks. endlessly boring.

for me, fights against aggro decks often turn too simplistic and polarized. they throw everything at me in the hopes to overwhelm from turn 1, they want me dead before I actually get to play my cards, the cards they use are most often mechanically uninteresting and are primarily just to take my life count down as fast as possible - and the worst part is that a lot of players running aggro are doing it just for efficiency's sake, like, they wanna grind up to their desired rank as fast as possible. they sacrifice the joy of actually playing the game to... rank up faster? brother, I'm ranking up too, no hurry here. 

there are exceptions in people that actually enjoy aggro or have an urge sometimes to play that kind, that's all fine, no disrespect meant to anyone. I'm just looking for more exciting games than that, where we both play out what we want and see who comes on top based on our decisions. anyone remember those old Control Warrior vs Priest matches way back? gimme that back.

although, I will say I'm being endlessly annoyed by cards like Stonehill Defender in Control vs Control. cards like that shouldn't have such range of discovery. 

 

Quote from Morkimus >>

Uhm... But there already was an aggro meta. Several, actually. The fieldtrip to Satan's anus on Hitler's baby tear powered wagen  Gadgetzan's meta is a good example of one.

Quote from Abnell >>

If you're playing control you literally plan your first 5-6 turns at the mulligan against the various threats aggro can present at each stage.

You know, it doesn't matter what you call aggro or control. What matters is the length of the game, and the longer the game goes the more plays you can make. Which means more chances for mistakes,  more comebacks, and ultimately more satisfying wins (or devastating losses).

Ignoring Pirate Warrior here, the most aggroish deck I encounter at the moment is what people widely consider midrange Hunter. As a Priest player this is by far my worst matchup, but  I would never complain about them being too aggressive. The pressure is incredibly high from turn one, the games are over sooner than against other classes sure, but there is still PLENTY of room to make plays. And that's what matters to me, chances to make cool plays.

Decks like the old Face Hunter and Pirate Warrior don't leave much room for that. The only positive aspect of those decks is the price and their simplicity, which is a double edged sword considering that those decks will be the first experience for many new players. And if I had to play those two decks back when I was new to HS, I would have dropped the entire game then and there (thankfully Zoo Warlock was a viable alternative, which was also an aggro deck but not face).

Anyway, this is the most fun I had in Hearthstone in a long, long time. It's not close to the glorious Handlock or Patron warrior days, the current decks in play are all easy to pilot, but as long as I'm not facing a Face deck every second game I'm fine.

I'm just worried that the next "cancer" face deck is already in the making.

Quote from TwentyOneBeers >>

Quote from Abnell >>

If you're playing control you literally plan your first 5-6 turns at the mulligan against the various threats aggro can present at each stage.

 With 4 cards in hand you plan ahead 5 turns...suuure.

 and by the way?

Quote from jainaishot >>

Quote from DoubleSummon >>

Quote from jainaishot >>

You can play whatever you like as long as you behave like a decent human being,That's why aggro players deserve all the hate they get.I play the game since vanilla and my friends play since beta,we all agree that douchebags tend to choose aggro.Not that there aren't control or combo douchebags but come on,almost 1 in every three games against aggressive decks the opponent is mental.Spamming like an imbecile,roping before lethal,roping on when he has one card and somethimes adding to flame.I have seen control players do the same but it is sooo much rarer.And the reason for that is that there are three categories of aggro players:

a)The tryhards(the biggest category).They want to win no matter what,play the game all day long to farm ranks but since they are just an average joe,they are getting pissed when they lose and become toxic.They become even more toxic when other toxic players do the same to them.

b)The fun policie.There dipshits out there that have fun,ruining others people fun.Playing against face decks is no fun for the majority of players so they choose aggro.

c)There are also the new players but they are few and you dont see them below rank 15

.

 There's also people who adapt to the meta and play a deck that is strong in local meta, got to legend first time cause I noticed everyone is playing midrange (karazhan) but nobody is playing anti aggro tools so took a big win streak with aggro, was playing midrange before that.

not everyone is toxic, I hate losing but I never add people to insult them

 

 I already mention your category.You belong to the tryhards.You claim to be a non toxic tryhard and good for you but you are tryhard non the less.:P

Here's the thing, players think this game is skill based. when it is just card/matchup based. and control is generally seen as the deck that takes more "skill" in other games(which is probably false tbh)

But since most card game players have never played or been good at sports, they use collectible card games as a skill based platform, even though it is not.

The real argument for this game is that there is not a healthy medium for decks.

Because some people actually like to play the game, not essentially draw 5 cards and then hit the restart button.

This thread is full of cancer FeelsBadMan

It might be a matter of personal preference and I think most control players prefer playing against mirrors. Everyone's just frustrated because you're playing a deck they don't enjoy playing against.  They're frustrated because they can't play out a lot of their cards they mindfully put in their decks

The argument that aggro decks can highroll draws and kill the opponent in 6 turns is stupid.  Is it really the aggro player's fault that RNG gave them a good hand? Is it their fault for playing a deck that can highroll so hard? Not really, because every deck can highroll. Most take longer to kill their opponent when they do so it's less obvious and shocking to an inexperienced player.  By this logic, everyone who plays Reno decks should be in the same boat as aggro players.  Having Reno on curve vs an aggro player takes the same amount of skill as an aggro player to highroll an opening and has the same effect on the game

As someone who almost exclusively played control priest in 2015, I love control mirrors. I love them so much that my lists are often slightly too greedy for their own good in the given meta. But at the same time, I also really enjoy playing against aggro, even with unfavored lists. Nothing feels as 'skillful' as burning up silver hand recruits and haunted creeper tokens with a well planned wild pyromancer turn.  Unless the opponent is horribly missplaying, I don't care how much "skill" they put or needs to put into the game. I only care about the plays I make and the "skill" involved with that is satisfying enough. Aggro opponents are nothing but a worthy challenge.  Sometimes I lose because one player drew better than the other but that's how the game works! If everyone won every game they played perfectly, the global winrate would be 75% or something else mathematically impossible

How come every post i see on this forum is cry posts, nobody ever tries to bring anything constructed... very sad

Quote from MewYawn >>

 

As for people saying "it's faster with aggro to climb" I'll tell you my experience from this month. 9th of August was at rank 2 with value shadow priest. One day before priest got his tools from the expansion. I decided to derank to 5, because I wanted to experience more diverse decks once it comes out. 14th of august I was at top 100 legend... with a new priest deck while playing 2 hours a day. Keep telling yourself you are doing it because it's faster. For slow minds it's faster. Because if you want to be legend fast, this means you really are slow or struggle to get there, with your fast aggro decks. Funny.

The problem isn't aggro, the problem is the ladder itself.

1. Winstreaks is problem Nr 1. Even with a lower winrate aggro deck you climp a lot faster, and aggro and face decks had always a high winrate.

2. Control deck games needs 10-20 minutes to win a game. Aggro/face often less then 5 ... points for the win counts the same.

3. The ladder floors generate "fun" zones with extremly slow and greedy fun decks... fun floors for aggro... and hate zones for control.

To this ladder flaws we've the Counter mechanics design flaws... this tech cards counter only a few specific decks hard and vs other they are really bad. So even if you tech against a popular cancer deck you lose more?

Aggro isn't the problem, control or combo either... the games is the problem.

aggro is fine , whats not fine is that its always aggro decks that are always the top tier decks.

Aggro has a change against anything, a control deck has more bad matchups and even loses prob about 45% of the time to a aggro deck as well.

I still think who goes first and opening hand has to much influence to the outcome of the game and is something hearthstone prob should adress somehow in the future.

if you are building a deck by investing lots of time it is normal to want enjoy that deck 

Aggro players are playing the numbers game, whereas everyone else would actually enjoy playing a card game instead.

Aggro and control are two sides of the same coin, altho' I think control players are dismissive of aggro players considering how binary their deck and play style is and considering the truth of the matter is that control vs aggro and control vs control match ups are much more skill intensive than the aggro vs control and aggro vs aggro match ups they rightfully have a bit of a chip on their shoulder. We're not all arrogant tho', I'd like to thank you every time you turn 6 a Jade Druid or Quest Rogue and give you a big manly bear hug.

If they somehow allow you to keep on having winstreaks even after rank 5 as control, then it would do a lot to help the problem.