I love 20 minute control vs. control matches. I just don't like them with infinite resource generation. I like them when I can assume what the opponent has left in their deck/hand and what I have in order to beat them with.
When that gets thrown out the window it's not as much fun.
i prefer control classes/decks mostly but aggro has its own perks and definite place in any card game.anyone saying its brainless doesnt understand fundamental mechanics of hs.aggro vs aggro can be the most intense game you can have.
the only thing i have against aggro is that it is promoted solely by the gold incentive hearthstone has (all wins matter the same,imo time should be factored into that) and the fact that players with small collections "have to" play it because they have no cards...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
best way to win is have your opponent give up and concede.
Aggro is the farking poison of the game. Yes, OTK decks can be frustrating, infinite value can be garbage (jades) and some control decks can have b.s. play, but I'd rather lose a long game than a boring one that starts out with YOU NEED X MANY BOARD CLEARS/MULTIPLE TAUNTS in your hand, immediately, and the only surprise is when MUSHROOM POWAH or Bonemare is played.
It's possible for control decks to have the right tool card to stop OTK decks. Problem is those tech cards have to be dropped for more anti-aggro cards.
And aggro kills the potential for some oddball and/or meme decks that are fun to play and a breath of fresh air when you run into one. I still recall a game from four months ago -- me with control cubelock without Doomguards, running into a mill druid. How often do you see that encounter on the standard ladder? And I managed to win without Rin and my Gul'dan deathknight, which got milled. Omega Agent ftw.
For all those who say aggro keeps "x deck" like Quest Rogue in check, well, it wasn't doing a great job if that pile of shiat had to be nerfed twice or thrice.
/here's to seeing a return to control for paladin
//the best games? When you go through your entire deck and your last card is the decider against your opponent. Aggro card vomiting isn't a skill.
The only people who hate aggro and truly believe it to be "braindead" are those who never play it. And the same goes for people who hate control, and even midrange. (Though fewer hate midrange because it usually feels like it's playing fair. We've all had time to get over our fear of 4-mana 7/7s.)
Any archetype becomes hated when it contains single cards or synergies that are very obviously broken, yet Blizzard refuses to nerf them.
But plenty of control cards have generated the same amount of hatred, such as Ice Block and all Death Knights.
That's why it's so important for Blizzard to be more responsive to unpleasant metas. There's no reason to let oppressive decks at either end of the spectrum suck the fun out of the game for months at a time.
Aggro is important in the meta to make sure decks dont go super greed however its not very fun when it feels like nothing you could do aside from drawing board clears
Meh, I'd take a game against an aggro player any day over a deck that generates insane swing value out of nowhere, like deathrattle hunter / rogue, or cubelock. Tempo vs aggro matches are fun.
Honestly, I much prefer mid range and tempo style decks, but anyone saying that aggro is ‘brainless’ has probably not played it enough.
Most aggro decks - aside from Odd Paladin - have limited resources and have to manage them very carefully. Yes, sometimes they curve out and you die turn 5/6/7 but a lot of the time they draw average to poor hands and have to weigh up how best to maintain pressure without going all in and losing the game. The aggro mirrors require high levels of skill to gain board control and are more interesting than control mirrors which often just go to fatigue IMO.
I rushing face anymore brainless than playing aoe after aoe until you run someone out of resources?
The deck I love most atm is tempo rogue as it is mid rangey and can take on both aggro (back stabs, SI7, Tar Creeper etc) and control (keleseth, corpse taker, vilespine etc).
We need aggro as much as we need control, combo and mid range. The people who spam emotes and play odd paladin in casual are assholes though.
Its dominance in ranked meta and overall overrepresentation through expansions is the problem. Deliberate put in place poor balance, poor counter facilities for other play styles, is part of card design politics.
Marketing wise it is chosen to let aggro dominate through card design: low skill, one dimensional decision making, absent strategy. Part of the chosen average 'pace of the game', ranked meta is tuned to be aggressive. At the cost of outwitting, outmaneuvering, outclassing, outskill your opponent.
Aggro is part of the ' fast paced game' approach, therefore by definition must dominate/overrepresented in ranked game. But also aggressive midrange (Hunter) is part of that approach. Even OTK-decks can be seen as such. Aggression just takes a little more time: rush approach.
Rush approach vs let me outthink you. That is the bottom line. The card design choice rush over think makes the other side of the aisle 'hate' aggressive decks. The problem therefore is not a certain play style, but current group of developers.
There seem to be a relation between playing aggressive and content of character in real life. And that relationship is not laudable. But maybe I've watched too much Startrek. The game is set to follow the Klingon way as I rather prefer the Picard-approach.
I love 20 minute control vs. control matches. I just don't like them with infinite resource generation. I like them when I can assume what the opponent has left in their deck/hand and what I have in order to beat them with.
When that gets thrown out the window it's not as much fun.
Galavant Animation
i prefer control classes/decks mostly but aggro has its own perks and definite place in any card game.anyone saying its brainless doesnt understand fundamental mechanics of hs.aggro vs aggro can be the most intense game you can have.
the only thing i have against aggro is that it is promoted solely by the gold incentive hearthstone has (all wins matter the same,imo time should be factored into that) and the fact that players with small collections "have to" play it because they have no cards...
best way to win is have your opponent give up and concede.
Deleted
Aggro is the farking poison of the game. Yes, OTK decks can be frustrating, infinite value can be garbage (jades) and some control decks can have b.s. play, but I'd rather lose a long game than a boring one that starts out with YOU NEED X MANY BOARD CLEARS/MULTIPLE TAUNTS in your hand, immediately, and the only surprise is when MUSHROOM POWAH or Bonemare is played.
It's possible for control decks to have the right tool card to stop OTK decks. Problem is those tech cards have to be dropped for more anti-aggro cards.
And aggro kills the potential for some oddball and/or meme decks that are fun to play and a breath of fresh air when you run into one. I still recall a game from four months ago -- me with control cubelock without Doomguards, running into a mill druid. How often do you see that encounter on the standard ladder? And I managed to win without Rin and my Gul'dan deathknight, which got milled. Omega Agent ftw.
For all those who say aggro keeps "x deck" like Quest Rogue in check, well, it wasn't doing a great job if that pile of shiat had to be nerfed twice or thrice.
/here's to seeing a return to control for paladin
//the best games? When you go through your entire deck and your last card is the decider against your opponent. Aggro card vomiting isn't a skill.
///dust murlocs, make control decks
The only people who hate aggro and truly believe it to be "braindead" are those who never play it. And the same goes for people who hate control, and even midrange. (Though fewer hate midrange because it usually feels like it's playing fair. We've all had time to get over our fear of 4-mana 7/7s.)
Any archetype becomes hated when it contains single cards or synergies that are very obviously broken, yet Blizzard refuses to nerf them.
Some aggro examples of this would be: Undertaker, Patches the Pirate and, to a lesser extent, Divine Favor.
But plenty of control cards have generated the same amount of hatred, such as Ice Block and all Death Knights.
That's why it's so important for Blizzard to be more responsive to unpleasant metas. There's no reason to let oppressive decks at either end of the spectrum suck the fun out of the game for months at a time.
"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
Aggro is important in the meta to make sure decks dont go super greed however its not very fun when it feels like nothing you could do aside from drawing board clears
When 3/4 decks you face are aggro it gets old fast.
Agree with fellow comrades aggro is not interactive, henceforth stupid boring, I enjoy games where you can change the flow of the match.
The goal of all life is death.
I only really hate OTK decks as they are unbeatable as a control player unless the opponent is a idiot and waste a combo piece.
Control vs aggro is a fair matchup where it can go either way.
I do not like really strong aggro decks like Undertaker hunter or Pirate Warrior as they enter the zone of unbeatable.
My favorite matchup is control vs control as I'm pretty good at resource management.
Aggro is ok, I only hate Baku pala and tempo mage.
The most boring games are against warrior anyway. Why there is still no card that removes armor? Bring back old Alexstrasza.
Meh, I'd take a game against an aggro player any day over a deck that generates insane swing value out of nowhere, like deathrattle hunter / rogue, or cubelock. Tempo vs aggro matches are fun.
Honestly, I much prefer mid range and tempo style decks, but anyone saying that aggro is ‘brainless’ has probably not played it enough.
Most aggro decks - aside from Odd Paladin - have limited resources and have to manage them very carefully. Yes, sometimes they curve out and you die turn 5/6/7 but a lot of the time they draw average to poor hands and have to weigh up how best to maintain pressure without going all in and losing the game. The aggro mirrors require high levels of skill to gain board control and are more interesting than control mirrors which often just go to fatigue IMO.
I rushing face anymore brainless than playing aoe after aoe until you run someone out of resources?
The deck I love most atm is tempo rogue as it is mid rangey and can take on both aggro (back stabs, SI7, Tar Creeper etc) and control (keleseth, corpse taker, vilespine etc).
We need aggro as much as we need control, combo and mid range. The people who spam emotes and play odd paladin in casual are assholes though.
There is only my justice now
Its dominance in ranked meta and overall overrepresentation through expansions is the problem. Deliberate put in place poor balance, poor counter facilities for other play styles, is part of card design politics.
Marketing wise it is chosen to let aggro dominate through card design: low skill, one dimensional decision making, absent strategy. Part of the chosen average 'pace of the game', ranked meta is tuned to be aggressive. At the cost of outwitting, outmaneuvering, outclassing, outskill your opponent.
Aggro is part of the ' fast paced game' approach, therefore by definition must dominate/overrepresented in ranked game. But also aggressive midrange (Hunter) is part of that approach. Even OTK-decks can be seen as such. Aggression just takes a little more time: rush approach.
Rush approach vs let me outthink you. That is the bottom line. The card design choice rush over think makes the other side of the aisle 'hate' aggressive decks. The problem therefore is not a certain play style, but current group of developers.
There seem to be a relation between playing aggressive and content of character in real life. And that relationship is not laudable. But maybe I've watched too much Startrek. The game is set to follow the Klingon way as I rather prefer the Picard-approach.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.