I am enjoying the meta, too, but the fundamental problem from Blizz' perspective in its current state has to be two things: Lifesteal DH (Mage to smaller degree) and the redundancy of cards above 6 mana.
The first is the king of solitaire. At least other decks have to interact with the board at least a tiny little bit (arguments can be made that Mage is very close to solitaire, too, as it can freeze its own minions and complete the quest that way). DH doesn't have to do that AT ALL - just draw cards, multiply Mo'args and discount them to vomit all of the combo pieces in one go hitting for 30+. That's a problem.
Second, the meta is just too fast. It needs to be 2-3 rounds slower across the whole board. My suggestion of increasing the health to 40 will obviously not be taken seriously, but if we are to keep the power level of cards intact and slow the game down it could help without changing much else. Another step would be slowing down the quests; that must be done and I say it as a Zoolock Quest player. But, everything else needs to come in line as well, namely Shaman and Hunter, two best decks atm, with Paladin not too far behind. So nerfs across the board. Somehow, I don't see that happening because it would be almost like admitting that the whole design was a failure and no company will do that. Slow only quests down and top performers will become even stronger.
So what I think they will do is touch up the quests to slow them down, nerf Battlemaster, which in its current guise I'd put in nearly every deck it is that good, maybe (hopefully) kill Il'ginoth DH and that will be it. Even that reads like a lot of changes in one go and where's the aggro? Waiting to see what they do with anticipation.
I don't know about you, but for me control is not really about healing and removing until the opponent is bored to death (that's how most people perceive control), but rather about playing expensive cards for 8-10 mana, managing my limited(!) resources, planning my moves in advance and predicting what my opponent can and cannot do in the following turns. The key thing though is to stay alive long enough. It doesn't matter to me how I achieve this, by healing and removing (like Priest or Walorck) or by playing minions (like Paladin or Warrior), I just want to be able to defend myself until I meet my late game win conditions.
You know what my favorite non-control deck was, that gave me almost all of these? Old Quest Druid with Untapped Potential! Deck had control-ish playstyle in early turns (using Wrath, BEEEES!!!, Swipe or Starfall) and minion based win condition (Oasis Surger, Cenarius, Hidden Oasis, Ysera, Unleashed), so it couldn't just exhaust opponent's resources, but had to fight for the board constantly. It was also pretty fast in winning and losing, so matches weren't 15 minutes long.
Maybe that's the right direction for future "control" decks?
Pretty sure he didnt want control to be dead. Hé only stated that the decks that has no wincon and only want to control the board till fatigue shouldnt be promoted.
So hé wants control be able to control the early and mid game so the decks can outvalue with their high costed win conditions.
Good example is rattlegore. If a control warrior can safely play the card he probaly outvalued the aggro/ midrange player anyway so there is no point to try to outvalue the opponent into fatigue.
Another example is lord jaraxus and the priest quest.
So in short, they dont want control to be dead. Only the fatigue type of decks.
The funny thing is in Quest lock we've got a fatigue deck, just one that can do it in less than 10 turns.
I don't know about you, but for me control is not really about healing and removing until the opponent is bored to death (that's how most people perceive control), but rather about playing expensive cards for 8-10 mana, managing my limited(!) resources, planning my moves in advance and predicting what my opponent can and cannot do in the following turns. The key thing though is to stay alive long enough. It doesn't matter to me how I achieve this, by healing and removing (like Priest or Walorck) or by playing minions (like Paladin or Warrior), I just want to be able to defend myself until I meet my late game win conditions.
You know what my favorite non-control deck was, that gave me almost all of these? Old Quest Druid with Untapped Potential! Deck had control-ish playstyle in early turns (using Wrath, BEEEES!!!, Swipe or Starfall) and minion based win condition (Oasis Surger, Cenarius, Hidden Oasis, Ysera, Unleashed), so it couldn't just exhaust opponent's resources, but had to fight for the board constantly. It was also pretty fast in winning and losing, so matches weren't 15 minutes long.
Maybe that's the right direction for future "control" decks?
I believe so! I rly liked the Control Warrior I took to legend last month, which also felt in line with their new view on the archetype: you play as pure control only against aggro decks, but play as combo against other control decks (in this case it was Silas otk).
Control is now about surviving only until you reach a power spike later in the game (which doesnt necessarily mean otk), they just want to give control a way to finish games faster in the mirror matchups, something I appreciate. The problem is giving it the means to prolong the game past turn 10, which is impossible rn.
I've seen numerous takes in this thread, but 1 time of argument that I couldn't stand is using early RoS meta as "proof" that fatigue games are frustrating so I'm simply here to remind people: THAT WAS AN EXEPTION DUE TO THE FACT THATArchivist Elysiana(one of the biggest desing mistakes of this game, together with any card that allows to increase deck size by more than 4/5 cards)WAS THE ONLY REASON THEMETA WAS BAD AS THAT CARD ALLOWED GAMES TO IGNORE FATIGUE FORCING THE INFAMOUS 40 MINUTES SHITFESTS.
As for an actual answer to the OP... I enjoy exactly the type of decks the OP described as "pure control", exausting my opponent of all of his resources is HANDS DOWN my favourite playstyle and (despite what some people here said) HS is basically the only game that allows such a playstyle to exist as: 1)card design has (more or less, the current situation was the last straw for this) allowed such a thing to exist, unlike e.g. LoR where ALL lategame wincons are unreactable (to those that know what I'm talking about..you can't deny that Aurelion/Lissandra/Maokai/(sometimes)Nautilus's LvL up effects may as well be "the opponent surrenders"...and I could go on...similar concepts stand for MtG) 2)fatigue is a unique mechanic...the only one that allows TRUE reactive decks to exist.
In conclusion I feel that ignoring such an advantage is 1 of the biggest mistakes this game can make.
(as a sidenote/conclusion...to whoever wrote "Learn to spell the word "philosophy" correctly and your argument will have more merit."...fk off, form is beyond meaningless and the only truly important part of a discussion is getting your arguments across in a clear and non offensive way)
I've seen numerous takes in this thread, but 1 time of argument that I couldn't stand is using early RoS meta as "proof" that fatigue games are frustrating so I'm simply here to remind people: THAT WAS AN EXEPTION DUE TO THE FACT THATArchivist Elysiana(one of the biggest desing mistakes of this game, together with any card that allows to increase deck size by more than 4/5 cards)WAS THE ONLY REASON THEMETA WAS BAD AS THAT CARD ALLOWED GAMES TO IGNORE FATIGUE FORCING THE INFAMOUS 40 MINUTES SHITFESTS.
As for an actual answer to the OP... I enjoy exactly the type of decks the OP described as "pure control", exausting my opponent of all of his resources is HANDS DOWN my favourite playstyle and (despite what some people here said) HS is basically the only game that allows such a playstyle to exist as: 1)card design has (more or less, the current situation was the last straw for this) allowed such a thing to exist, unlike e.g. LoR where ALL lategame wincons are unreactable (to those that know what I'm talking about..you can't deny that Aurelion/Lissandra/Maokai/(sometimes)Nautilus's LvL up effects may as well be "the opponent surrenders"...and I could go on...similar concepts stand for MtG) 2)fatigue is a unique mechanic...the only one that allows TRUE reactive decks to exist.
In conclusion I feel that ignoring such an advantage is 1 of the biggest mistakes this game can make.
(as a sidenote/conclusion...to whoever wrote "Learn to spell the word "philosophy" correctly and your argument will have more merit."...fk off, form is beyond meaningless and the only truly important part of a discussion is getting your arguments across in a clear and non offensive way)
LOL just ignore the trolls, not worth the effort :D.
Thats the thing, they are not ignoring fatigue, just giving us new, faster ways to interact with it (questlock being the best example). They will probably give us more ways to use fatigue to our advantage in the future, ways that dont include just surviving until the opponent decks out by him/herself.
I am not really sure what "pure control" even means anymore. There have been so many styles called "control" now:
Warrior: Value running more high-end. First by running more big threats, later including C'THUN and Dr. Boom hero
-Fatigue: Usually running Elysiana, but also coldlights and Deathlords.
-Big, cheating out big minions ahead of curve, but other classes do this better.
Druid: Big/taunt/clown
Jades: Will always outvalue you, but is slow, and it can still lose to tech cards or more explosive "control" decks.
Mage: Highlander. This is probably the purest control deck in the current Wild meta, but it requires smart teaching to have a chance in some matchups without hurting others too much.
Mill/Grinder: Were a thing a few times, but probably won't ever be viable again.
Priest: Big. This is actually a real control deck, and if you don't hit a nuts opening or your respool gets messed up it is very clear that it is one. However, this deck is also FASTER than most midrange decks, and aggro needs to kill this before turn 6 despite healing and removal.
Removal/healing/discover control. These decks were super reactive and designed to win with fatigue or slowly hitting face with whichever leftover minions they had when the opponent was out of resources.
Warlock: Handlock would probably barely be in the "explosive control" as it is usually defending against decks like classic druids, but Evenlock is midrange imo.
-Renolock is a control deck similar to Reno mage, running a lot of the same cards and requiring careful tech and play.
Control paladin and shaman were only niche decks a long time ago, and all other slow decks are combo or midrange imo.
So, what is "pure control" and how many of the old archetypes really go in this category? I would expect mostly priest and warrior decks ...
I am not really sure what "pure control" even means anymore. There have been so many styles called "control" now:
Warrior: Value running more high-end. First by running more big threats, later including C'THUN and Dr. Boom hero
-Fatigue: Usually running Elysiana, but also coldlights and Deathlords.
-Big, cheating out big minions ahead of curve, but other classes do this better.
Druid: Big/taunt/clown
Jades: Will always outvalue you, but is slow, and it can still lose to tech cards or more explosive "control" decks.
Mage: Highlander. This is probably the purest control deck in the current Wild meta, but it requires smart teaching to have a chance in some matchups without hurting others too much.
Mill/Grinder: Were a thing a few times, but probably won't ever be viable again.
Priest: Big. This is actually a real control deck, and if you don't hit a nuts opening or your respool gets messed up it is very clear that it is one. However, this deck is also FASTER than most midrange decks, and aggro needs to kill this before turn 6 despite healing and removal.
Removal/healing/discover control. These decks were super reactive and designed to win with fatigue or slowly hitting face with whichever leftover minions they had when the opponent was out of resources.
Warlock: Handlock would probably barely be in the "explosive control" as it is usually defending against decks like classic druids, but Evenlock is midrange imo.
-Renolock is a control deck similar to Reno mage, running a lot of the same cards and requiring careful tech and play.
Control paladin and shaman were only niche decks a long time ago, and all other slow decks are combo or midrange imo.
So, what is "pure control" and how many of the old archetypes really go in this category? I would expect mostly priest and warrior decks ...
Tried to make it implicit, but english isnt my first language so pardon me.
By "Pure Control" I meant decks whose primary wincon is to just outlast the opponent's wincon, completely reactive gameplay. CW and Control Priest are classic examples. Those will probably disappear for good, considering what we know so far. All other forms of control that include some form of proactive wincon should still be around.
I am not really sure what "pure control" even means anymore. There have been so many styles called "control" now:
Warrior: Value running more high-end. First by running more big threats, later including C'THUN and Dr. Boom hero
-Fatigue: Usually running Elysiana, but also coldlights and Deathlords.
-Big, cheating out big minions ahead of curve, but other classes do this better.
Druid: Big/taunt/clown
Jades: Will always outvalue you, but is slow, and it can still lose to tech cards or more explosive "control" decks.
Mage: Highlander. This is probably the purest control deck in the current Wild meta, but it requires smart teaching to have a chance in some matchups without hurting others too much.
Mill/Grinder: Were a thing a few times, but probably won't ever be viable again.
Priest: Big. This is actually a real control deck, and if you don't hit a nuts opening or your respool gets messed up it is very clear that it is one. However, this deck is also FASTER than most midrange decks, and aggro needs to kill this before turn 6 despite healing and removal.
Removal/healing/discover control. These decks were super reactive and designed to win with fatigue or slowly hitting face with whichever leftover minions they had when the opponent was out of resources.
Warlock: Handlock would probably barely be in the "explosive control" as it is usually defending against decks like classic druids, but Evenlock is midrange imo.
-Renolock is a control deck similar to Reno mage, running a lot of the same cards and requiring careful tech and play.
Control paladin and shaman were only niche decks a long time ago, and all other slow decks are combo or midrange imo.
So, what is "pure control" and how many of the old archetypes really go in this category? I would expect mostly priest and warrior decks ...
Tried to make it implicit, but english isnt my first language so pardon me.
By "Pure Control" I meant decks whose primary wincon is to just outlast the opponent's wincon, completely reactive gameplay. CW and Control Priest are classic examples. Those will probably disappear for good, considering what we know so far. All other forms of control that include some form of proactive wincon should still be around.
CW has traditionally run topend minions. Wallet warrior?? As for priest, it's traditionally run some topend too. No wincon fatigue decks are a more recent idea.
The actual fatigue decks have mostly been a symptom of aggro killing everything else with time (my experience at least). In the classic days, CW would win through big drops accompanied with cheap removal. My last real fatigue deck was during the early darkmoon meta where aggro demon hunter ruled, but for a long time these decks where pretty shite, since non aggro decks were too efficient. IMO we have too much draw for outplaying anything but face decks and we don't have THAT much to tank with atm.
CW has traditionally run topend minions. Wallet warrior?? As for priest, it's traditionally run some topend too. No wincon fatigue decks are a more recent idea.
These decks win the moment they get out of reach of the opponents wincon (usually aggro) or get ahead in the resource management (control mirrors). Nothing stops them from running big minions. Maybe a better way to picture it is, they very rarely destroy the enemy hero themselves, they prolong the game until the opponent concedes.
Questlock is the definition of "ignore fatigue", if possible in an even more toxic way than the other cards I mentioned as it instasbeats anything that focuses on fatigue as a wincon (ik that's not its main problem in terms of balance as of right now, still that's its problem in terms of design)
We really need a bit less of "deal X damage" and a little more minion combat. Honestly, isn't that truly what Hearthstone was built on?
At least minions damage can be counter played, too. But dealing damage from hand, or worse yet simply by fatiguing yourself does not leave much options to win except for racing to deal damage. And that's not really fun.
I mean, playing a big/sticky minion can end games just as fast if I don't have an answer to it, so why not at least give me a chance to counter it? Instead the win cons are just racing...
This is prolly a result of all the people whining on here about created cards and priest card generation. Thanks!
It's unfair to blame ALL of it on that. As others have mentioned, the Control Warrior with Dr. Boom that lead to 1 hour or more mirror matches was just as bad.
I think this is an attempt to reign in those kinds of excesses. The Control Warrior and Control Priest matches that went on forever cause their game plan was just to drain you of any possiblities to still win, instead of having an actual game plan to win themselves.
Time spent playing a game shouldn't be a measuring stick for how good it was.
You can have an interesting game AND be done in 10 min. They are not mutually exclusive.
It's always kind of fun to see people use words without really giving 2 seconds of thought about the meaning of said words. What would be consideredpure control? I'd say something that was born literally along with the game, such as "pure" zoo, "pure" miracle and what have you (idiotic definitions but hey, apparently there's a need to use them). And, pray tell, what's the pure control that was basically the only deck known as "control" back in 2014? Why yes, it was control warrior. And do you know what control warrior had? An endgame. What Iksar doesn't like (and let's be clear, the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't like it either, that's pretty much obvious) are control decks that do absolutely nothing but remove remove remove and just wait for their opponent to get bored to death, basically. While I personally don't mind playing against those deck as they're hilariously easy to farm, I can definitely see why control decks having an actual win condition other than their opponent being sleep-deprived would be prefereable to the alternative. How many control decks in the history of hearthstone had that "just bore your opponent to death" strategy? I can recall some kinds of odd warrior (those without the quest, clearly), dr boom warrior and last expansion's control priest, of those that were either good or viable. Even old tank up warrior during LoE had an actual plan since it ran Elise.
But yeah, there's nothing pure about your idea of control. If anything it's a bastardised definition that you call pure just because you like it and for no other reason. In addition to that, from what I recall Iksar said they'd be fine with such a deck existing so long as it wasn't good/popular (so basically, otk dh since its inception, a tier 3/4 deck until recently). The odds of such a deck existing now are 0 with the current state of hearthstone but that doesn't mean such a deck won't exist in the future, especially if their plans of a massive lowering of the power-level will become a thing.
But yeah, if the only archetype you like playing is the ResidentSleeper control type, you better get used to the idea of only playing tier 3 decks if you're lucky, because you're unlikely to get anything better than that. Cheers.
It's always kind of fun to see people use words without really giving 2 seconds of thought about the meaning of said words. What would be consideredpure control? I'd say something that was born literally along with the game, such as "pure" zoo, "pure" miracle and what have you (idiotic definitions but hey, apparently there's a need to use them). And, pray tell, what's the pure control that was basically the only deck known as "control" back in 2014? Why yes, it was control warrior. And do you know what control warrior had? An endgame. What Iksar doesn't like (and let's be clear, the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't like it either, that's pretty much obvious) are control decks that do absolutely nothing but remove remove remove and just wait for their opponent to get bored to death, basically. While I personally don't mind playing against those deck as they're hilariously easy to farm, I can definitely see why control decks having an actual win condition other than their opponent being sleep-deprived would be prefereable to the alternative. How many control decks in the history of hearthstone had that "just bore your opponent to death" strategy? I can recall some kinds of odd warrior (those without the quest, clearly), dr boom warrior and last expansion's control priest, of those that were either good or viable. Even old tank up warrior during LoE had an actual plan since it ran Elise.
But yeah, there's nothing pure about your idea of control. If anything it's a bastardised definition that you call pure just because you like it and for no other reason. In addition to that, from what I recall Iksar said they'd be fine with such a deck existing so long as it wasn't good/popular (so basically, otk dh since its inception, a tier 3/4 deck until recently). The odds of such a deck existing now are 0 with the current state of hearthstone but that doesn't mean such a deck won't exist in the future, especially if their plans of a massive lowering of the power-level will become a thing.
But yeah, if the only archetype you like playing is the ResidentSleeper control type, you better get used to the idea of only playing tier 3 decks if you're lucky, because you're unlikely to get anything better than that. Cheers.
If you had pulled your head out of your ass for 2 seconds, you'd have realized your question was answered already, and that you basically just repeated everything that was said (though in a very douchebaggy way).
I said "pure", not "classic control". I named "pure" the control decks that only care about controlling the board, surviving and nothing else, in your words, the ResidentSleeper ones. If you dont like my definition, well.. ok buddy?
What "control" actually means -- where the name "control" actually comes from -- is a deck that controls the game, and it comes from MtG. The original control deck used mechanisms in that game that don't even exist in Hearthstone, so anyone who thinks "pure" control exists in Hearthstone is misinformed.
There has been a lot of confusion over the years caused by people not really recognizing what control is about. It's not just a slow deck with expensive cards at the top of its curve. A lot of people have complained that their "control deck" can't beat aggro, when what they have actually built is a just slow, value-oriented midrange deck.
In Hearthstone, the primary meaning of control is a deck that's designed to survive aggressive decks and win with bigger payoff cards after having stabilized. This is usually achieved through some combination of removal and healing. Many Warlock decks of today are great examples of control. One problem Priest has run up against is that its best healing and removal have rotated out or been nerfed. What's left is situational or inconsistent, and that makes it really hard to build a decent control deck. Warlock has much better tools in both areas. Warrior, similarly, has never been lacking in either department. Armor gain was a bit sketchy before Stormwind, but it's better now.
So, going by the basic definition of "control," the most important question is: Can you build a deck that consistently beats normal aggro? The answer is yes. Several classes have archetypes that do exactly that. The problem is that a lot of the present-day aggro isn't "normal aggro."
Combo decks stand outside the traditional aggro-control speed spectrum. They are usually slower (control-combo) because it usually takes a long time to put the combo pieces together. But Stormwind has introduced several quick, aggressive combo archetypes (aggro-combo and midrange-combo) that can OTK a control deck before it has a chance to react.
But it's important to remember that combo usually beats control anyway, no matter how fast or slow the combo deck is. So while you would normally expect control to beat aggro, it cannot beat aggro-combo. In Stormwind, control loses a lot of games it feels like it should win -- it's normally unheard of for control to lose on turn 6, because combo usually can't get up to speed so quickly. Now it can, hence the frustration.
Then there is the other natural enemy of control: midrange. Midrange doesn't beat control as consistently as combo, but a well-built midrange deck should still have the advantage. The prevalence of Handbuff Paladin, a midrange deck with snowballing tempo, makes life extremely difficult for control. Handbuff is both the strongest deck and the most-played (as the two so often go hand in hand).
Control would normally do fine farming wins against aggro, even if it loses regularly to the midrange decks of the meta. But now both of its major weaknesses (combo and midrange) are all over the place. Normal aggro is still present to an extent, but not enough to give control a positive win rate. So while control isn't technically "dead," it's also not really worth playing at the moment.
Nerfing Handbuff Paladin would be the biggest help it might bring down the population a bit AND give control a chance to win more games against it. Nerfing the questlines, on the other hand, while probably good for the meta overall, isn't going to help control all that much. Control will still lose the vast majority of the time against any kind of combo strategy.
What "control" actually means -- where the name "control" actually comes from -- is a deck that controls the game, and it comes from MtG. The original control deck used mechanisms in that game that don't even exist in Hearthstone, so anyone who thinks "pure" control exists in Hearthstone is misinformed.
There has been a lot of confusion over the years caused by people not really recognizing what control is about. It's not just a slow deck with expensive cards at the top of its curve. A lot of people have complained that their "control deck" can't beat aggro, when what they have actually built is a just slow, value-oriented midrange deck.
In Hearthstone, the primary meaning of control is a deck that's designed to survive aggressive decks and win with bigger payoff cards after having stabilized. This is usually achieved through some combination of removal and healing. Many Warlock decks of today are great examples of control. One problem Priest has run up against is that its best healing and removal have rotated out or been nerfed. What's left is situational or inconsistent, and that makes it really hard to build a decent control deck. Warlock has much better tools in both areas. Warrior, similarly, has never been lacking in either department. Armor gain was a bit sketchy before Stormwind, but it's better now.
So, going by the basic definition of "control," the most important question is: Can you build a deck that consistently beats normal aggro? The answer is yes. Several classes have archetypes that do exactly that. The problem is that a lot of the present-day aggro isn't "normal aggro."
Combo decks stand outside the traditional aggro-control speed spectrum. They are usually slower (control-combo) because it usually takes a long time to put the combo pieces together. But Stormwind has introduced several quick, aggressive combo archetypes (aggro-combo and midrange-combo) that can OTK a control deck before it has a chance to react.
But it's important to remember that combo usually beats control anyway, no matter how fast or slow the combo deck is. So while you would normally expect control to beat aggro, it cannot beat aggro-combo. In Stormwind, control loses a lot of games it feels like it should win -- it's normally unheard of for control to lose on turn 6, because combo usually can't get up to speed so quickly. Now it can, hence the frustration.
Then there is the other natural enemy of control: midrange. Midrange doesn't beat control as consistently as combo, but a well-built midrange deck should still have the advantage. The prevalence of Handbuff Paladin, a midrange deck with snowballing tempo, makes life extremely difficult for control. Handbuff is both the strongest deck and the most-played (as the two so often go hand in hand).
Control would normally do fine farming wins against aggro, even if it loses regularly to the midrange decks of the meta. But now both of its major weaknesses (combo and midrange) are all over the place. Normal aggro is still present to an extent, but not enough to give control a positive win rate. So while control isn't technically "dead," it's also not really worth playing at the moment.
Nerfing Handbuff Paladin would be the biggest help it might bring down the population a bit AND give control a chance to win more games against it. Nerfing the questlines, on the other hand, while probably good for the meta overall, isn't going to help control all that much. Control will still lose the vast majority of the time against any kind of combo strategy.
You cant completely apply those definitions to HS control cuz of fatigue, a feature unique to this game. Simply surviving and outlasting your opponent could never be a primary wincon in MtG, but in HS, fatigue made it possible. I didnt find any consensus on what this decks definition is, so I just invented one for it :).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am enjoying the meta, too, but the fundamental problem from Blizz' perspective in its current state has to be two things: Lifesteal DH (Mage to smaller degree) and the redundancy of cards above 6 mana.
The first is the king of solitaire. At least other decks have to interact with the board at least a tiny little bit (arguments can be made that Mage is very close to solitaire, too, as it can freeze its own minions and complete the quest that way). DH doesn't have to do that AT ALL - just draw cards, multiply Mo'args and discount them to vomit all of the combo pieces in one go hitting for 30+. That's a problem.
Second, the meta is just too fast. It needs to be 2-3 rounds slower across the whole board. My suggestion of increasing the health to 40 will obviously not be taken seriously, but if we are to keep the power level of cards intact and slow the game down it could help without changing much else. Another step would be slowing down the quests; that must be done and I say it as a Zoolock Quest player. But, everything else needs to come in line as well, namely Shaman and Hunter, two best decks atm, with Paladin not too far behind. So nerfs across the board. Somehow, I don't see that happening because it would be almost like admitting that the whole design was a failure and no company will do that. Slow only quests down and top performers will become even stronger.
So what I think they will do is touch up the quests to slow them down, nerf Battlemaster, which in its current guise I'd put in nearly every deck it is that good, maybe (hopefully) kill Il'ginoth DH and that will be it. Even that reads like a lot of changes in one go and where's the aggro? Waiting to see what they do with anticipation.
I don't know about you, but for me control is not really about healing and removing until the opponent is bored to death (that's how most people perceive control), but rather about playing expensive cards for 8-10 mana, managing my limited(!) resources, planning my moves in advance and predicting what my opponent can and cannot do in the following turns. The key thing though is to stay alive long enough. It doesn't matter to me how I achieve this, by healing and removing (like Priest or Walorck) or by playing minions (like Paladin or Warrior), I just want to be able to defend myself until I meet my late game win conditions.
You know what my favorite non-control deck was, that gave me almost all of these? Old Quest Druid with Untapped Potential! Deck had control-ish playstyle in early turns (using Wrath, BEEEES!!!, Swipe or Starfall) and minion based win condition (Oasis Surger, Cenarius, Hidden Oasis, Ysera, Unleashed), so it couldn't just exhaust opponent's resources, but had to fight for the board constantly. It was also pretty fast in winning and losing, so matches weren't 15 minutes long.
Maybe that's the right direction for future "control" decks?
The funny thing is in Quest lock we've got a fatigue deck, just one that can do it in less than 10 turns.
I love control. But extreme discover control. No way.
I spend all my playtime in wild casual, where all the control decks hang out now.
I believe so! I rly liked the Control Warrior I took to legend last month, which also felt in line with their new view on the archetype: you play as pure control only against aggro decks, but play as combo against other control decks (in this case it was Silas otk).
Control is now about surviving only until you reach a power spike later in the game (which doesnt necessarily mean otk), they just want to give control a way to finish games faster in the mirror matchups, something I appreciate. The problem is giving it the means to prolong the game past turn 10, which is impossible rn.
I've seen numerous takes in this thread, but 1 time of argument that I couldn't stand is using early RoS meta as "proof" that fatigue games are frustrating so I'm simply here to remind people: THAT WAS AN EXEPTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT Archivist Elysiana (one of the biggest desing mistakes of this game, together with any card that allows to increase deck size by more than 4/5 cards) WAS THE ONLY REASON THE META WAS BAD AS THAT CARD ALLOWED GAMES TO IGNORE FATIGUE FORCING THE INFAMOUS 40 MINUTES SHITFESTS.
As for an actual answer to the OP...
I enjoy exactly the type of decks the OP described as "pure control", exausting my opponent of all of his resources is HANDS DOWN my favourite playstyle and (despite what some people here said) HS is basically the only game that allows such a playstyle to exist as:
1)card design has (more or less, the current situation was the last straw for this) allowed such a thing to exist, unlike e.g. LoR where ALL lategame wincons are unreactable (to those that know what I'm talking about..you can't deny that Aurelion/Lissandra/Maokai/(sometimes)Nautilus's LvL up effects may as well be "the opponent surrenders"...and I could go on...similar concepts stand for MtG)
2)fatigue is a unique mechanic...the only one that allows TRUE reactive decks to exist.
In conclusion I feel that ignoring such an advantage is 1 of the biggest mistakes this game can make.
(as a sidenote/conclusion...to whoever wrote "Learn to spell the word "philosophy" correctly and your argument will have more merit."...fk off, form is beyond meaningless and the only truly important part of a discussion is getting your arguments across in a clear and non offensive way)
LOL just ignore the trolls, not worth the effort :D.
Thats the thing, they are not ignoring fatigue, just giving us new, faster ways to interact with it (questlock being the best example). They will probably give us more ways to use fatigue to our advantage in the future, ways that dont include just surviving until the opponent decks out by him/herself.
I am not really sure what "pure control" even means anymore. There have been so many styles called "control" now:
Warrior: Value running more high-end. First by running more big threats, later including C'THUN and Dr. Boom hero
-Fatigue: Usually running Elysiana, but also coldlights and Deathlords.
-Big, cheating out big minions ahead of curve, but other classes do this better.
Druid: Big/taunt/clown
Jades: Will always outvalue you, but is slow, and it can still lose to tech cards or more explosive "control" decks.
Mage: Highlander. This is probably the purest control deck in the current Wild meta, but it requires smart teaching to have a chance in some matchups without hurting others too much.
Mill/Grinder: Were a thing a few times, but probably won't ever be viable again.
Priest: Big. This is actually a real control deck, and if you don't hit a nuts opening or your respool gets messed up it is very clear that it is one. However, this deck is also FASTER than most midrange decks, and aggro needs to kill this before turn 6 despite healing and removal.
Removal/healing/discover control. These decks were super reactive and designed to win with fatigue or slowly hitting face with whichever leftover minions they had when the opponent was out of resources.
Warlock: Handlock would probably barely be in the "explosive control" as it is usually defending against decks like classic druids, but Evenlock is midrange imo.
-Renolock is a control deck similar to Reno mage, running a lot of the same cards and requiring careful tech and play.
Control paladin and shaman were only niche decks a long time ago, and all other slow decks are combo or midrange imo.
So, what is "pure control" and how many of the old archetypes really go in this category? I would expect mostly priest and warrior decks ...
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Tried to make it implicit, but english isnt my first language so pardon me.
By "Pure Control" I meant decks whose primary wincon is to just outlast the opponent's wincon, completely reactive gameplay. CW and Control Priest are classic examples. Those will probably disappear for good, considering what we know so far. All other forms of control that include some form of proactive wincon should still be around.
CW has traditionally run topend minions. Wallet warrior?? As for priest, it's traditionally run some topend too. No wincon fatigue decks are a more recent idea.
The actual fatigue decks have mostly been a symptom of aggro killing everything else with time (my experience at least). In the classic days, CW would win through big drops accompanied with cheap removal. My last real fatigue deck was during the early darkmoon meta where aggro demon hunter ruled, but for a long time these decks where pretty shite, since non aggro decks were too efficient. IMO we have too much draw for outplaying anything but face decks and we don't have THAT much to tank with atm.
These decks win the moment they get out of reach of the opponents wincon (usually aggro) or get ahead in the resource management (control mirrors). Nothing stops them from running big minions. Maybe a better way to picture it is, they very rarely destroy the enemy hero themselves, they prolong the game until the opponent concedes.
Questlock is the definition of "ignore fatigue", if possible in an even more toxic way than the other cards I mentioned as it instasbeats anything that focuses on fatigue as a wincon (ik that's not its main problem in terms of balance as of right now, still that's its problem in terms of design)
We really need a bit less of "deal X damage" and a little more minion combat. Honestly, isn't that truly what Hearthstone was built on?
At least minions damage can be counter played, too. But dealing damage from hand, or worse yet simply by fatiguing yourself does not leave much options to win except for racing to deal damage. And that's not really fun.
I mean, playing a big/sticky minion can end games just as fast if I don't have an answer to it, so why not at least give me a chance to counter it? Instead the win cons are just racing...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's always kind of fun to see people use words without really giving 2 seconds of thought about the meaning of said words. What would be consideredpure control? I'd say something that was born literally along with the game, such as "pure" zoo, "pure" miracle and what have you (idiotic definitions but hey, apparently there's a need to use them). And, pray tell, what's the pure control that was basically the only deck known as "control" back in 2014? Why yes, it was control warrior. And do you know what control warrior had? An endgame. What Iksar doesn't like (and let's be clear, the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't like it either, that's pretty much obvious) are control decks that do absolutely nothing but remove remove remove and just wait for their opponent to get bored to death, basically. While I personally don't mind playing against those deck as they're hilariously easy to farm, I can definitely see why control decks having an actual win condition other than their opponent being sleep-deprived would be prefereable to the alternative. How many control decks in the history of hearthstone had that "just bore your opponent to death" strategy? I can recall some kinds of odd warrior (those without the quest, clearly), dr boom warrior and last expansion's control priest, of those that were either good or viable. Even old tank up warrior during LoE had an actual plan since it ran Elise.
But yeah, there's nothing pure about your idea of control. If anything it's a bastardised definition that you call pure just because you like it and for no other reason. In addition to that, from what I recall Iksar said they'd be fine with such a deck existing so long as it wasn't good/popular (so basically, otk dh since its inception, a tier 3/4 deck until recently). The odds of such a deck existing now are 0 with the current state of hearthstone but that doesn't mean such a deck won't exist in the future, especially if their plans of a massive lowering of the power-level will become a thing.
But yeah, if the only archetype you like playing is the ResidentSleeper control type, you better get used to the idea of only playing tier 3 decks if you're lucky, because you're unlikely to get anything better than that. Cheers.
If you had pulled your head out of your ass for 2 seconds, you'd have realized your question was answered already, and that you basically just repeated everything that was said (though in a very douchebaggy way).
I said "pure", not "classic control". I named "pure" the control decks that only care about controlling the board, surviving and nothing else, in your words, the ResidentSleeper ones. If you dont like my definition, well.. ok buddy?
What "control" actually means -- where the name "control" actually comes from -- is a deck that controls the game, and it comes from MtG. The original control deck used mechanisms in that game that don't even exist in Hearthstone, so anyone who thinks "pure" control exists in Hearthstone is misinformed.
There has been a lot of confusion over the years caused by people not really recognizing what control is about. It's not just a slow deck with expensive cards at the top of its curve. A lot of people have complained that their "control deck" can't beat aggro, when what they have actually built is a just slow, value-oriented midrange deck.
In Hearthstone, the primary meaning of control is a deck that's designed to survive aggressive decks and win with bigger payoff cards after having stabilized. This is usually achieved through some combination of removal and healing. Many Warlock decks of today are great examples of control. One problem Priest has run up against is that its best healing and removal have rotated out or been nerfed. What's left is situational or inconsistent, and that makes it really hard to build a decent control deck. Warlock has much better tools in both areas. Warrior, similarly, has never been lacking in either department. Armor gain was a bit sketchy before Stormwind, but it's better now.
So, going by the basic definition of "control," the most important question is: Can you build a deck that consistently beats normal aggro? The answer is yes. Several classes have archetypes that do exactly that. The problem is that a lot of the present-day aggro isn't "normal aggro."
Combo decks stand outside the traditional aggro-control speed spectrum. They are usually slower (control-combo) because it usually takes a long time to put the combo pieces together. But Stormwind has introduced several quick, aggressive combo archetypes (aggro-combo and midrange-combo) that can OTK a control deck before it has a chance to react.
But it's important to remember that combo usually beats control anyway, no matter how fast or slow the combo deck is. So while you would normally expect control to beat aggro, it cannot beat aggro-combo. In Stormwind, control loses a lot of games it feels like it should win -- it's normally unheard of for control to lose on turn 6, because combo usually can't get up to speed so quickly. Now it can, hence the frustration.
Then there is the other natural enemy of control: midrange. Midrange doesn't beat control as consistently as combo, but a well-built midrange deck should still have the advantage. The prevalence of Handbuff Paladin, a midrange deck with snowballing tempo, makes life extremely difficult for control. Handbuff is both the strongest deck and the most-played (as the two so often go hand in hand).
Control would normally do fine farming wins against aggro, even if it loses regularly to the midrange decks of the meta. But now both of its major weaknesses (combo and midrange) are all over the place. Normal aggro is still present to an extent, but not enough to give control a positive win rate. So while control isn't technically "dead," it's also not really worth playing at the moment.
Nerfing Handbuff Paladin would be the biggest help it might bring down the population a bit AND give control a chance to win more games against it. Nerfing the questlines, on the other hand, while probably good for the meta overall, isn't going to help control all that much. Control will still lose the vast majority of the time against any kind of combo strategy.
"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
Theres a recent post on HS reddit about them, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/p5al6c/fyi_an_easy_guide_to_deck_archetypes_because_they/
You cant completely apply those definitions to HS control cuz of fatigue, a feature unique to this game. Simply surviving and outlasting your opponent could never be a primary wincon in MtG, but in HS, fatigue made it possible. I didnt find any consensus on what this decks definition is, so I just invented one for it :).