Hearthpwn

Aggro is very easy to play. Of course, you need to know when to trade and when not to trade, but compared to other decks Zoo Lock, Tempo Rogue, Old Kingsbane, Old Pirate Warrior, etc... don't take have a lot of decisions making. It's either go face or trade, play a minion or dont. Whereas control and combo have to focus on drawing out cards, keeping card advantage and managing resources. Also as an aggro player you almost never look at your hp, only your opponents.

Quote from Spiderhaz >>

Aggro is very easy to play. Of course, you need to know when to trade and when not to trade, but compared to other decks Zoo Lock, Tempo Rogue, Old Kingsbane, Old Pirate Warrior, etc... don't take have a lot of decisions making. It's either go face or trade, play a minion or dont. Whereas control and combo have to focus on drawing out cards, keeping card advantage and managing resources. Also as an aggro player you almost never look at your hp, only your opponents.

 I think you're underestimating the skill level required to "know when to trade" at a high level.  Playing aggro well requires a player to identify their opponents removal options and as much as possible play around them.  Knowing when to trade and what to trade with requires moderate skill to do well as does knowing when to go "all in" face.  Playing against aggro with a control deck is often merely a function of drawing AOE removal like Warpath or Brawl.  Sometimes control is as simple as draw removal, play removal.  Other times control decks take a lot of skill to pilot, especially in mirror matchups.  It doesn't take much skill to pilot any deck in a mediocre manner; it takes skill to pilot most every deck in an optimal manner.

Sometimes playing agro it is a no-brainer, usually because one of the advantages of Agro is it exploits weak starting hands better than control or midrange does. So sometimes when playing agro you just steamroll the opponent without ever having to decide much or anything. 

But, the overall points here are great, all decks take skill to play well. There are a few rare decks that are straight up tricky to win with, but most are pretty close in skill level.

Quote from Spiderhaz >>

Aggro is very easy to play. Of course, you need to know when to trade and when not to trade, but compared to other decks Zoo Lock, Tempo Rogue, Old Kingsbane, Old Pirate Warrior, etc... don't take have a lot of decisions making. It's either go face or trade, play a minion or dont. Whereas control and combo have to focus on drawing out cards, keeping card advantage and managing resources. Also as an aggro player you almost never look at your hp, only your opponents.

 I dont read anything more dumb then this for quite some time.

Quote from scorpyon>>

Quote from Kaladin>>

You guys realize that  "Control is harder because aggro = just vomit your hand and go face" is the exact same argument as  "Aggro is harder because control = hero power pass" right?  You're not magically special or "more knowledgeable" about the game because you think Control is easy in the opening turns. 

 So you're saying that your argument for why you think Aggro is easier / less skill ful to play than control holds exactly the same amount of worth as that of the other way around, so both prove nothing other than the fact that both aggro and control (and any other deck FWIW) require pretty much the same amount of skill, brain power and effort? Sounds good to me. Got it...

I worry what you just heard was, "Aggro is easier because you just vomit your hand and go face." What I said was, "Aggro is easier because you have fewer decisions.".ronswanson.jpg By the very nature of the deck construction, it's easier for an Aggro deck to have the questions than it is for Control to have the answers.  And therefore, the decisions you're making with an Aggro deck are fewer and simpler than those made in a Control deck.  Given unlimited dust, which do you think is going give a brand new player a better chance of hitting Rank 15, 10, 5, and Legend, an Aggro deck or a Control deck?

Quote from scorpyon >>

This seems like a rather irrelevant point at best, and entirely subjective at worst. It shouldn't matter what deck I think is going to serve a new player better, because any new player will have different skills, different deck preferences, different playstyles, etc etc. 
The point here, though is that the idea that the number of decisions you're making with an aggro deck being somehow less than a control deck is rather naive, or in the least, intellectually dishonest. As my point above proves by the very nature of how those decks work.

 when I say 'new player' I mean someone who has never played any competitive card game before.  Give them unlimited dust (so they can craft anything).  What will be the better choice in order for them to attain a high rank in as few games as possible?  Assume their playing time is unlimited, we're merely considering the number of games (so that you cannot argue that aggro is preferable due to games typically being shorter, and we're merely looking at the expected winrate).  

If you could provide some example games or situations where an aggro deck had complex decisions to be made in the early game I would appreciate it and it would definitely help me to see aggro decks in a new light.  Until then, I don't see how "should I play minions on curve" is complex. 

WHO GIVES A FUCK?!?!?!

Agro is very easy to play with decent result (any card on curve, go face), but may require effort to get higher winrate in certain circumstances.

Any control deck (even bomb warrior) requires more effort to play with same result.

Quote from scorpyon >>

In that case, then my previous point covers this. This is not a viable question since it cannot be answered. I could simply say "Control decks would give him the best chance to get easy wins." Without any data, you couldn't argue that point, nor could I prove it. It's a stalemate position which doesn't provide any tenable proof to either side of the discussion. Also, win-rate isn't something you can use either, since the win rate for every deck for this brand new player is now 0%, since there ano previous games played by him. Any existing meta winrates are biased and skewed based on the meta and what decks are popular. 

 I'm sorry if what I said was still too confusing.  Let's keep things simpler with these parameters:

• New account, player has never played any competitive card game before
• Unlimited dust
• Knowledge of what the top netdecks are

Given a limit of 100 games, what archetype would yield the best result (highest ladder finish) for this player?

Quote from scorpyon >>

Simple enough.
Take Carpet Zoolock's first 4-8 turns or so. There are plenty of complex decisions needing to be made in that deck. Do you flood the board early and empty your hand? Do you try and get the Carpet down on turn 3 and risk losing it? Do you make awkward trades to keep the tempo, or try to outflood the opponent. Is the opponent likely to have an early board clear, or are they going to try and challenge the board instead? Do you buff your minions and get the early damage in or hold on to the buff cards to deal with taunts or bigger minions etc that might appear. Do you have a way to deal with a giant from a Mage on turn 3? Or to deal with the tempo from Rogue that will likely keep your board cleared? Do you play your Flame Imp on turn 1, or your Voidwalker to protect it from the Southsea Deckhand the opponent just played?

Now compare that to (for example) Chef Nomi Priest. Turns 1-4:
Do you heal your face for 2, or do you pretend to heal the opponent's face for 2 to make fun of him?

(That second paragraph is obviously tongue in cheek humour - with a touch of truth - of course, but the first paragraph is a serious example of just a handful of the decisions required in just the first few turns of the game for that deck)

 Questions without context aren't meaningful questions, and also that's not a good question to be posting for Nomi Priest.  A better set of questions is, "Do I drop Cleric on 1?  Do I drop Wild Pyro on 2 in order to contest the board or do I save it for a swing turn with spells + Cleric and Circle?  Do I coin Acolyte or save coin for later?"

Because, even though they have decision making of their own, they have typically either less of far less of it than most other deck archetypes.

Another aggro takes skill thread...Ok i'll bite :p

Look aggro has low skill floor and generally low skill ceiling, the gap between a scrub and a pro is the lowest when both playing smorc decks.If you want proof about this then simply see bots.All bots are and have been using smorc decks.

Another fact is that aggro players constandly try to prove that are "skilled" and their decks are not braindead. I play aggro many times, should i try to convice others that my deck isn't braindead?Hell no!I have reached top 150 once, top 300 a couple of times with my own decks and finished at the top 100 in the ladder in other ccgs like elderscrools , gwent and my all time favourite mtga.I do not care what my opponent or anyone else thinks about me or my deck because i know that i am an good player.If you are a good player, you can climb with anything and you do not care about what other people say.If you are a scrub that can climb only with smorc though... 

 

Well, some of us still have nightmares from 2016.

https://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/216803-the-most-skilled-deck-of-hearthstone-face-hunter

(note:  Leper Gnome, Abusive Sergeant, Knife Juggler, Ironbeak Owl and Arcane Golem were all nerfed)

Not every aggro deck is brainless, but it didn't take much of an algorithm to run that deck.  And it was a terror to play against.  I remember holding a Sludge Belcher in my mulligan to try and survive only to be dead on turn 4.

So, it was a very frustrating time.  Not much different than when Patches was leading warrior to a bunch of easy wins.

Aggro cards have been toned down over time though.  Now they usually feel more midrange/tokenesque.  Used to be you'd try to run aggo out of steam as they didn't have draw.  Now they have seemingly endless refill.  But the decks ARE slower and less brainless.  But, I think the whole face hunter era really put a reputation on aggro that just won't die.

 

 

 

Quote from jazzfan27 >>

Well, some of us still have nightmares from 2016.

https://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/216803-the-most-skilled-deck-of-hearthstone-face-hunter

(note:  Leper Gnome, Abusive Sergeant, Knife Juggler, Ironbeak Owl and Arcane Golem were all nerfed)

Not every aggro deck is brainless, but it didn't take much of an algorithm to run that deck.  And it was a terror to play against.  I remember holding a Sludge Belcher in my mulligan to try and survive only to be dead on turn 4.

So, it was a very frustrating time.  Not much different than when Patches was leading warrior to a bunch of easy wins.

Aggro cards have been toned down over time though.  Now they usually feel more midrange/tokenesque.  Used to be you'd try to run aggo out of steam as they didn't have draw.  Now they have seemingly endless refill.  But the decks ARE slower and less brainless.  But, I think the whole face hunter era really put a reputation on aggro that just won't die.

 

 

 

 why you go hurting my feelings of the days of old when these felt good, when buzzard in hunter is actually card advantage lol 

But you are right though I feel the pushed aggro into more zoostyle way of playing is making efficient trades, go face, hold and plan out your attack vs. slap face till its dead.

making smart choices implies having choices. Having an average of 1 card in your hand meand you dont have options to choose from. Therefore i conclude:

No options->no choices->no skill

Sorry for not reading the millionth Hearthpwn thread on this subject, but the answer is:

Only bad players say aggro takes less skill than other archetypes.

Aggro is constantly boiled down to the basic plan all aggro decks employ, and it's hilariously one-sided.

"Aggro goes face."

So let's boil control down to its basic plan: "Control reacts to the board state."

Aggro has its own challenges, being the proactive end of the board. Control exists as the reactive element. These two are excellent counters to each other when balanced and played right.

Aggro is easy to understand, control is much more heady. Both are a puzzle because both counteract each other when at their peak potential. Neither is easy to master. One has the puzzle of "How fast can I end this?" and the other is "How do I shut them down?"

As long as options appear before a crowd, there will always be those that believe they've chosen the supreme/better/smarter option, and that's fine. I frequently beat those people in fatigue with midrange hunter.

Quote from Synthetikmisery >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Why would you ever give someone on a forum a single tiny bit of credit for knowing what a good player is?

 

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Why would you ever give someone on a forum a single tiny bit of credit for knowing what a good player is?

 

Cause there are people who pay attention and actually can see when someone is a good player going by how they play and the decisions they make. Doesn't have anything to do with tournaments or streamers or who people say are good players.
Going by your statement and you yourself being on a forum would mean that whatever you say is total nonsense as well.

Good players can play aggro well and good players can pilot a control deck well. Bad players can take any deck and play it badly. 
There are good players. There are bad players. There are mediocre players as there are in every single game out there.

BUT aggro is easier to play and can be self piloting. Get minion, play minion. Fill board with low cost minions and go face. It is easier to pilot than a control deck is as you do need to make decisions in a control as to when to remove minions or play removal spells. You need some experience in Hearthstone to play it effectively where an aggro deck can be played day one.. not played well but played to get wins at times.

I can't fix the double quote so have to live with it.

 I'm not suggesting there aren't huge skill gaps among players; there certainly are.

Also, you are correct to say that just because someone wins a tournament, they aren't necessarily one of the best players.

However, my original point was that at least a tournament win or, arguably, consistent VERY high ladder finishes provide greater than zero evidence of some level of skill.  Honestly, I'm not even particularly comfortable regarding the ladder as evidence, since the counter pick phenomenon at the highest levels of ladder is probably more important in deciding win rates.

There is no reason to believe that someone pontificating on this forum about the skill requirements of aggro or control have any basis for claiming this knowledge.  And I very clearly included myself in that statement, so I'm not sure what the revelation was there.

It is exactly my point that this whole thread is nonsense.  Unless Hunterace is posting on his Kaladin account, it is likely that none of us are in the top echelon of players, or at the very least, shouldn't be so confident in our own unfounded discernment that we are willing to state foundational generalizations about different deck interactions.

The other point was that the subjective nature of this question is irrelevant.  Unless you have a better definition of difficulty than what I put forward, "difficulty" is a quantifiable value.

I'm not sure where the self-agrandizing was located in this post (referring to another response).  I guess it was the legend finishes, but as far as I am concerned, that doesn't represent much of an accomplishment.  Some people on this forum are interested in credentials, and those are mine.  No more, no less.