I am an aggro player mostly in wild. generally my favorite deck is pirate warrior with burn shaman as a close second. The current disco lock and mech hunter are also in my top fun decks.
I finally realized why this is the case. The aggro v aggro mirror is so fast, so intense, and so skill testing it just does not get any better. You have to identify every turn if you are the control or the beat down and it switches multiple times per game, you have to identify what the opponent is trying to set up for on a turn by turn basis and then set up to counter it. I just lost a close match against odd demon hunter followed by a win in a close match against mech hunter. both games were incredibly exciting and interesting and almost every turn had 5 or 6 major decision points. (Games were at Diamond 6 btw)
Well, my favorite matchup ever was control warrior vs. control warrior. This was several years ago.
You knew every card in each player's deck from the getgo. You had to plan ahead for every card in each player's deck and try out outvalue your opponent. I found it very skill testing. And very mentally engaging. You really had to think ahead.
I've never found aggro to have many decision points myself. You just look for a card with the mana cost of your available mana and play that, and send everything face unless you have something in the way you can't leave up. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Aggro vs aggro is much more like who win the bingo of best starting hand than anything else.
Midrange vs midrange deserve a lot more respect than the braindead aggro matchup but...
Nothing get close to the absolute intelectual and skill patamar of two glorious control master race titans fighting each other, the mental challenge, preparation, adapt capabilities and vastly superior strategy is something far beyond what a feeble mind of a dirty aggro peasant can understand.
Aggro vs aggro is much more like who win the bingo of best starting hand than anything else.
Midrange vs midrange deserve a lot more respect than the braindead aggro matchup but...
Nothing get close to the absolute intelectual and skill patamar of two glorious control master race titans fighting each other, the mental challenge, preparation, adapt capabilities and vastly superior strategy is something far beyond what a feeble mind of a dirty aggro peasant can understand.
Agree to some extent thou in my case theres nothing that feels better then dissolving control based decks or deck that people spendt a LOT of dust in with a power of RNG Rogue. :)
Hillander has a point, but control vs control is not as glorious as it used to be, thanks to many random card generations and discovers. I still enjoy a lot more the control mirrors, but I think aggro mirrors have more impactful decision makings. You need to calculate if its wiser to trade or going face, and the ability to do so could make you a good or bad aggro player.
BTW, I miss the good old days, when control vs control was about maximizing every single bit of value and playing around what the opponent has, but now its all about generated cards and random value, so quite often its more about randomness than strategy.
I think that Aggro v Aggro matchups are extremely skill testing. It’s pretty similar to control v control matchups as well, in that management of resources determines the outcome of the game. It’s sad that the game has become so swingy lately. It takes all the skill out of it, but admittedly, swingy cards are fun to play with.
I've been playing control mage vs aggro too much lately and actually have a 100% winrate over 15 games because aggro players are just so damn retarded that they play minions before attacking into a flametrap.
I hope in diamond these matchups are better and honestly believe you'd not make the stupid mistakes they did and beat me (gold 10 btw, so pretty low).
But I've lost all faith in any aggro players myself and actually abuse how stupid they are tbh, it's so easy to punish/play against them the moment you see a DH, warrior or hunter by just making the right muligan
Aggro V Aggro is the same as Control V Control. You're still using similarly valued cards to achieve a similar goal. Using information of the meta to best use the cards in your hand and hopefully outplay your opponent.
RNG is heavy in both games as well. the coin flip and starting hand/mulligan for aggro, and RNG value generators and other effects in control matchups.
I enjoy all of Hearthstone, and I generally play tier 4 and below decks because I play to have what I consider fun and use uncommon cards to unexpectedly beat opponents or pull off crazy board creating turns. (i like Necrium Apothecary and Anubisath Warbringer in Rogue right now)
Just like in a shooting game, do you like to bring a shotgun and shoot your shot, die and come back guns blazing? maybe you like to use a sniper and be unseen, trying to take out the shotgun monkeys before they even see you.
Driving, relationships, entertainment . . . it's all a matter of preference and nothing any one person says can change what tastes you've acquired over the years.
I never felt like control had any decision points it always felt like did they draw the removal if yes they win if no they lose. The control v aggro match ups mostly feel like pure rng. Except for some edge cases. But the control v control match ups also always felt like only 1 or two decisions actually mattered
If you don't mind the extremely important factor of whether you go first or second and how determining that is. Also the extremely impactful factor of the opening help on deciding who wins. Does that not change the mind.
Its important, and some games you just high roll or get high rolled. If I am honest only 1 in 5 games are actually interesting because either I high roll or the opponent high rolls. I think that is the case with all meta decks though and being able to get to that 1 in 5 game is probably also why I prefer aggro over control
Aggro vs aggro is much more like who win the bingo of best starting hand than anything else.
Midrange vs midrange deserve a lot more respect than the braindead aggro matchup but...
Nothing get close to the absolute intelectual and skill patamar of two glorious control master race titans fighting each other, the mental challenge, preparation, adapt capabilities and vastly superior strategy is something far beyond what a feeble mind of a dirty aggro peasant can understand.
I think yog box and dragon queen would like to have a word with u
I am an aggro player. I enjoy aggro; I like pushing damage and winning quickly. In mirrors, I enjoy having to make decisions about board control and balancing face damage and playing around my opponent's resources to ensure I don't lose tempo on the opponent's turn. I think control is really boring; I want to kill my opponent, not have them kill themselves after they exhaust their resources. I dislike the argument that control decks are more interactive than aggro decks because I believe slamming board clears and taunts are just as non-interactive and one-dimensional as me going face.
On the other hand, I have a friend who's a control player. He enjoys playing control; he likes using his resources to stabilise a game and snowball it into his favour. In mirrors, he enjoys having to make decisions about rationing resources and having to adapt a gameplan based on the knowledge of the opponent's hand. He thinks aggro is really boring; he wants to stall the game and constrain his opponents, not burn everything into the opponent's face and win before they stabilise. He dislikes the argument that aggro decks are more fun because he believes knowing how to spend resources effectively makes the game more engaging than the one-dimensional gameplan of going face.
The point I'm trying to get at here is that everyone enjoys different things. This is a video game, not a math test; people are allowed to like what they want to like and we can't impose on people what they should enjoy.
However, as I am a proud member of the elite master race of aggro players, I may be slightly biased towards the truly skill-testing playstyle of the aggro mirrors, where two truly great players claw their way to victory in a back-and-forth struggle involving adaptation to the circumstances and an ingenious level of resource manipulation. Us aggro players endure these mirrors so that control players don't have to. /s
I find Aggro vs Aggro dull, with the first player to put a minion on the board holding an overwhelming advantage, because from that point on they dictate trades. The other player needs to have at least two 2-for-1 cards within the next few turns or they are swarmed.
It depends on how you value the differing factors of value weighing vs. RNG.
In English, the aggro vs. aggro matchup is the less likely to involve cards like Puzzle Box of k Saron or Dragon Queen Alexstraza and her ensuing brood. So the aggro deck knows exactly what it has and the RNG factors are limited to the order of the deck (as always) and things like which beast is hit by Scavenger's Ingenuity or perhaps what creature is the Rot Drake's battlecry. So some would suggest that less RNG = more skill. On the other hand, the more random generation effects involved, the larger the amount of threats and potential answers you'll be exposed to. Having the higher variance and needing to adapt to all that could be considered a harder test of skill.
I will say, the aggro v aggro is certainly a lot more entertaining than control v control. I remember playing Big Mage two years ago when Frost Lich Jaina was still in standard. The first deciding factor in that mirror matchup is whether or not both players drew Jaina. If one had her on the bottom of the deck, that was often an auto-loss. After both players had their endless supply of water elementals, the games were so close and so even in deck value, the win or loss would often come down to whether someone had gotten both of their Dragon's Fury to resolve before they ran out of spells in their decks. What cards were randomly generated from The Lich King also frequently decided games.
Now, we have stuff like Puzzle Box and the Dragon Queen to add to the variance of control and midrange matchups. And we've all seen both of those cards be complete duds or in Puzzle Box's case, even straight merc its caster. In any case, it's an age old question, but it is heartening to note that the old thought of "no skill aggro" is starting to fall by the wayside finally.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
ppl call aggro players Somorcy boys but they dont in order to be a good aggro player you must be a good control player to understand their curves and play makings. with brain dead aggro no one reaches high legend
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am an aggro player mostly in wild. generally my favorite deck is pirate warrior with burn shaman as a close second. The current disco lock and mech hunter are also in my top fun decks.
I finally realized why this is the case. The aggro v aggro mirror is so fast, so intense, and so skill testing it just does not get any better. You have to identify every turn if you are the control or the beat down and it switches multiple times per game, you have to identify what the opponent is trying to set up for on a turn by turn basis and then set up to counter it. I just lost a close match against odd demon hunter followed by a win in a close match against mech hunter. both games were incredibly exciting and interesting and almost every turn had 5 or 6 major decision points. (Games were at Diamond 6 btw)
What, in your opinion, would change your mind on that issue?
Because the rest of the game is full of RNG bs, I cannot say you are wrong. At least there is a modicum of skill involved.
Well, my favorite matchup ever was control warrior vs. control warrior. This was several years ago.
You knew every card in each player's deck from the getgo. You had to plan ahead for every card in each player's deck and try out outvalue your opponent. I found it very skill testing. And very mentally engaging. You really had to think ahead.
I've never found aggro to have many decision points myself. You just look for a card with the mana cost of your available mana and play that, and send everything face unless you have something in the way you can't leave up. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Galavant Animation
Aggro vs aggro is much more like who win the bingo of best starting hand than anything else.
Midrange vs midrange deserve a lot more respect than the braindead aggro matchup but...
Nothing get close to the absolute intelectual and skill patamar of two glorious control master race titans fighting each other, the mental challenge, preparation, adapt capabilities and vastly superior strategy is something far beyond what a feeble mind of a dirty aggro peasant can understand.
Agree to some extent thou in my case theres nothing that feels better then dissolving control based decks or deck that people spendt a LOT of dust in with a power of RNG Rogue. :)
TL;DR We get off on a different things .
Hillander has a point, but control vs control is not as glorious as it used to be, thanks to many random card generations and discovers. I still enjoy a lot more the control mirrors, but I think aggro mirrors have more impactful decision makings. You need to calculate if its wiser to trade or going face, and the ability to do so could make you a good or bad aggro player.
BTW, I miss the good old days, when control vs control was about maximizing every single bit of value and playing around what the opponent has, but now its all about generated cards and random value, so quite often its more about randomness than strategy.
I think that Aggro v Aggro matchups are extremely skill testing. It’s pretty similar to control v control matchups as well, in that management of resources determines the outcome of the game. It’s sad that the game has become so swingy lately. It takes all the skill out of it, but admittedly, swingy cards are fun to play with.
control vs control no longer exists, it is like playing slot machines against someone else.
I've been playing control mage vs aggro too much lately and actually have a 100% winrate over 15 games because aggro players are just so damn retarded that they play minions before attacking into a flametrap.
I hope in diamond these matchups are better and honestly believe you'd not make the stupid mistakes they did and beat me (gold 10 btw, so pretty low).
But I've lost all faith in any aggro players myself and actually abuse how stupid they are tbh, it's so easy to punish/play against them the moment you see a DH, warrior or hunter by just making the right muligan
Aggro V Aggro is the same as Control V Control. You're still using similarly valued cards to achieve a similar goal. Using information of the meta to best use the cards in your hand and hopefully outplay your opponent.
RNG is heavy in both games as well. the coin flip and starting hand/mulligan for aggro, and RNG value generators and other effects in control matchups.
I enjoy all of Hearthstone, and I generally play tier 4 and below decks because I play to have what I consider fun and use uncommon cards to unexpectedly beat opponents or pull off crazy board creating turns. (i like Necrium Apothecary and Anubisath Warbringer in Rogue right now)
Just like in a shooting game, do you like to bring a shotgun and shoot your shot, die and come back guns blazing? maybe you like to use a sniper and be unseen, trying to take out the shotgun monkeys before they even see you.
Driving, relationships, entertainment . . . it's all a matter of preference and nothing any one person says can change what tastes you've acquired over the years.
This space is intentionally blank.
I never felt like control had any decision points it always felt like did they draw the removal if yes they win if no they lose. The control v aggro match ups mostly feel like pure rng. Except for some edge cases. But the control v control match ups also always felt like only 1 or two decisions actually mattered
Its important, and some games you just high roll or get high rolled. If I am honest only 1 in 5 games are actually interesting because either I high roll or the opponent high rolls. I think that is the case with all meta decks though and being able to get to that 1 in 5 game is probably also why I prefer aggro over control
They don't make stupid mistakes once you get out of gold lol
I think yog box and dragon queen would like to have a word with u
I am an aggro player. I enjoy aggro; I like pushing damage and winning quickly. In mirrors, I enjoy having to make decisions about board control and balancing face damage and playing around my opponent's resources to ensure I don't lose tempo on the opponent's turn. I think control is really boring; I want to kill my opponent, not have them kill themselves after they exhaust their resources. I dislike the argument that control decks are more interactive than aggro decks because I believe slamming board clears and taunts are just as non-interactive and one-dimensional as me going face.
On the other hand, I have a friend who's a control player. He enjoys playing control; he likes using his resources to stabilise a game and snowball it into his favour. In mirrors, he enjoys having to make decisions about rationing resources and having to adapt a gameplan based on the knowledge of the opponent's hand. He thinks aggro is really boring; he wants to stall the game and constrain his opponents, not burn everything into the opponent's face and win before they stabilise. He dislikes the argument that aggro decks are more fun because he believes knowing how to spend resources effectively makes the game more engaging than the one-dimensional gameplan of going face.
The point I'm trying to get at here is that everyone enjoys different things. This is a video game, not a math test; people are allowed to like what they want to like and we can't impose on people what they should enjoy.
However, as I am a proud member of the elite master race of aggro players, I may be slightly biased towards the truly skill-testing playstyle of the aggro mirrors, where two truly great players claw their way to victory in a back-and-forth struggle involving adaptation to the circumstances and an ingenious level of resource manipulation. Us aggro players endure these mirrors so that control players don't have to. /s
I find Aggro vs Aggro dull, with the first player to put a minion on the board holding an overwhelming advantage, because from that point on they dictate trades. The other player needs to have at least two 2-for-1 cards within the next few turns or they are swarmed.
It depends on how you value the differing factors of value weighing vs. RNG.
In English, the aggro vs. aggro matchup is the less likely to involve cards like Puzzle Box of k Saron or Dragon Queen Alexstraza and her ensuing brood. So the aggro deck knows exactly what it has and the RNG factors are limited to the order of the deck (as always) and things like which beast is hit by Scavenger's Ingenuity or perhaps what creature is the Rot Drake's battlecry. So some would suggest that less RNG = more skill. On the other hand, the more random generation effects involved, the larger the amount of threats and potential answers you'll be exposed to. Having the higher variance and needing to adapt to all that could be considered a harder test of skill.
I will say, the aggro v aggro is certainly a lot more entertaining than control v control. I remember playing Big Mage two years ago when Frost Lich Jaina was still in standard. The first deciding factor in that mirror matchup is whether or not both players drew Jaina. If one had her on the bottom of the deck, that was often an auto-loss. After both players had their endless supply of water elementals, the games were so close and so even in deck value, the win or loss would often come down to whether someone had gotten both of their Dragon's Fury to resolve before they ran out of spells in their decks. What cards were randomly generated from The Lich King also frequently decided games.
Now, we have stuff like Puzzle Box and the Dragon Queen to add to the variance of control and midrange matchups. And we've all seen both of those cards be complete duds or in Puzzle Box's case, even straight merc its caster. In any case, it's an age old question, but it is heartening to note that the old thought of "no skill aggro" is starting to fall by the wayside finally.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
ppl call aggro players Somorcy boys but they dont in order to be a good aggro player you must be a good control player to understand their curves and play makings. with brain dead aggro no one reaches high legend