I think allot of people prefer to lose their own moral principles, and by that I mean, the type of decks they truly enjoy playing, for the soul reason of being more successful at hearthstone. People with strong principles are a dying breed at hearthstone, everyone prefer success, over the bitterness of losing all the time. I've never played an agro deck in my entire hearthstone playing time and yes, it is very difficult to rank up, it is very difficult to win, most of the times I don't. But I won't sell my principles just to be successful shamefully.
"Our glory does not reside in succeeding, but in rising up every time we fall"
Maybe I'm over reacting, you can say that, but I think hunter is called "huntard" for a reason. I think we all would prefer a more versatile, controlish meta.
How do you feel about the meta's current course? Do you want to change it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Aggro will never die out because it's the only archetype that can hit legend without 10k dust. Sure we all like playing control better but it's no fun to play a 30 minute game and then die to a stable of legendaries. Once that happens once or twice I can't really blame new players for choosing Face Hunter and Mech Mage.
Plus, it's a game. If you aren't having fun then do whatever will make it fun for you. This is all a little bit too dramatic.
I think allot of people prefer to lose their own moral principles, and by that I mean, the type of decks they truly enjoy playing, for the soul reason of being more successful at hearthstone. People with strong principles are a dying breed at hearthstone, everyone prefer success, over the bitterness of losing all the time. I've never played an agro deck in my entire hearthstone playing time and yes, it is very difficult to rank up, it is very difficult to win, most of the times I don't. But I won't sell my principles just to be successful shamefully.
"Our glory does not reside in succeeding, but in rising up every time we fall"
Maybe I'm over reacting, you can say that, but I think hunter is called "huntard" for a reason. I think we all would prefer a more versatile, controlish meta.
How do you feel about the meta's current course? Do you want to change it?
Considering the meta's headed toward more control/combo decks, I doubt many on this site would like to change it. And I think your criticism of aggro decks is a bit much. They're not the most skillful decks, but there's certainly some skill involved.
Poll should really have a third option for Combo, if you want the classic card game trinity, and really should have a fourth option for not wanting it "dominated" by any of the above.
Given the incredibly limited options, I picked Aggro. Why? Well, if the meta must be dominated by one deck style, at least let it be one that leads to quick games. If most of your games cause you to sigh "oh god, not xyz again!", do you want those games to be half an hour long?
I don't wish to spoil your sole reason of consolation, but the whole matter of principles have been created and used by some players to ease the magnitude of losing due to not being able to properly compete.
The players who win through aggro/face archetypes do not hack or crack their opponent's game, they simply use existing cards to create strong decks and battle with them. It becomes their opponent's part to either forge a deck to counter them if they are prevalent (like control Priest and Warrior for example) or play a deck that can have better momentum over them (some Rogue variations for example).
I said it many times before and I will always say it: If aggro is brainless, then the brainfull control should be able to find a solution, or else, they don't have the right to talk down to whom used a way to efficiently surpass them.
You can't harass members who play Face Hunter, nor are they compelled to make preemptive apologies or justifications for playing it. They don't hack or crack their opponents' game, they simply play existing cards that form a specific deck. If you suck at countering Face Hunter, you should blame the designers, not the community.
i dont mind aggro at all except face hunter. maybe face hunter brings a short of balance and punishes greedy decks but a concept where you just put minions on the board hit face and still win is unacceptable for me in a balanced card game. MTG had the red deck which reminds of face hunter. rush minions and direct damage but it was always gimmicky, face hunter should also exist but be gimmicky. instead of blizzard ackowledging it as a deck archtype and even support it with cards like quick shot i think they should do something so this thing will never be viable again. zoo is also fast if you want fast games but the difference between zoo and face hunter is that face hunter doesnt care about their minions board presence or anything like that. if you aoe zoo effectively you pretty much won the game. on the other hand even if you aoe face hunter it doesnt make a difference at all. zoo is the healthy aggro while face hunter is just an abuse of a hero power + bursting tools. people where complaining about undertaker snowballing and they were right cause they were losing the game from turn 1-2. now that they lose the game from mulligan why no one complains? seriously if you face a face hunter and your mulligan is kinda bad you lost right there before even the game starts. how is that healthy for the game?
I voted Control because I love my paladin decks but at the end of the day not everyone will be truly happy with what ever deck style is currently dominating.
Truthfully I would love if they got rid of "Casual" as it is now and maybe at some point turn that play option into something more interesting. If Wizards of the Coast can come up with interesting match types in Magic I'm sure Blizzard could do the same for Hearthstone.
It's interesting to see a post that so blatantly assigns some kind of moral virtue to not playing aggressive decks, since that's very obviously what you're talking about. The idea that there are "principles" involved in the game related to what deck you play strikes me as rather ludicrous. It's a strategy people use to console themselves when they lose. "Well, I might have lost, but let me make up a reason why I'm still better than them to make myself feel better." That's all that's really being done here.
If you want to stick to your guns that's great, and I commend you for it, but it would be nice if you didn't pretend that somehow made you more virtuous than other people.
There's no such thing as principles, especially stupid principles like "i refuse to play an aggro deck". It's like participating in the Olympic track and field event with the "principle" of not wearing any branded athletic shoes. Just absurd.
In a CCG or TCG, the best players are able to pilot ALL decks to their optimum potential. Player A scores 80 points piloting an aggro deck, 50 points piloting a midrange, and 50 points piloting a control deck. Player B scores 100 points piloting a control deck, 50 points for a midrange, and has never played an aggro deck due to "principles". Guess who is the better HS player?
The game is about having fun and/or winning, which is hardly related to something as serious as "principles".
i dont mind aggro at all except face hunter. maybe face hunter brings a short of balance and punishes greedy decks but a concept where you just put minions on the board hit face and still win is unacceptable for me in a balanced card game. MTG had the red deck which reminds of face hunter. rush minions and direct damage but it was always gimmicky, face hunter should also exist but be gimmicky. instead of blizzard ackowledging it as a deck archtype and even support it with cards like quick shot i think they should do something so this thing will never be viable again. zoo is also fast if you want fast games but the difference between zoo and face hunter is that face hunter doesnt care about their minions board presence or anything like that. if you aoe zoo effectively you pretty much won the game. on the other hand even if you aoe face hunter it doesnt make a difference at all. zoo is the healthy aggro while face hunter is just an abuse of a hero power + bursting tools. people where complaining about undertaker snowballing and they were right cause they were losing the game from turn 1-2. now that they lose the game from mulligan why no one complains? seriously if you face a face hunter and your mulligan is kinda bad you lost right there before even the game starts. how is that healthy for the game?
I'm pretty sure everyone complains. Have you not been reading the things people say about face hunter?
Also, as a quick point of clarification, the red aggressive decks in MTG were and are the opposite of gimmicky. The whole point of them is that they are brutally consistent and full of redundancy. All their cards do basically the same thing. There's no gimmick involved, it just kills you dead. That's the whole point of playing them, and face hunter does essentially the same thing. It's cards are all pretty much the same and serve the same purpose.
The only reason Face hunter is hated so much is because it's really the only deck of it's kind. Sure other classes have aggro decks but not as direct as face hunter. MTG has several years under it's belt and just about every variety of color combo has pretty aggressive decks, give HS a couple more expacs and I'm sure other classes will come in screaming "FAAAAAACE"
The only reason Face hunter is hated so much is because it's really the only deck of it's kind. Sure other classes have aggro decks but not as direct as face hunter. MTG has several years under it's belt and just about every variety of color combo has pretty aggressive decks, give HS a couple more expacs and I'm sure other classes will come in screaming "FAAAAAACE"
The hate for face hunter has been around for about as long as HS has been out of beta, if not longer. The same hate went to zoo, which wasn't even a face deck, and mech mage.
So yeah, you are correct except that it's already happened. If it's an aggro deck that's viable, it's hated.
Though honestly, ANY viable deck gets absolute hate from a good portioni of the community. You can basically tell when a new deck has hit viability by when the rage posts start to show for it.
Why the fuck are you trying to put morals towards people's play styles? Are you fucking kidding me? What a joke. Can i report this thread for stupidity please? There is nothing moral about people's play styles, it doesn't matter at all. People play what they like. SMH the stupid is real.
It's interesting to see a post that so blatantly assigns some kind of moral virtue to not playing aggressive decks, since that's very obviously what you're talking about. The idea that there are "principles" involved in the game related to what deck you play strikes me as rather ludicrous. It's a strategy people use to console themselves when they lose. "Well, I might have lost, but let me make up a reason why I'm still better than them to make myself feel better." That's all that's really being done here.
If you want to stick to your guns that's great, and I commend you for it, but it would be nice if you didn't pretend that somehow made you more virtuous than other people.
I don't see people selling their souls playing Facehunter. If you see it that way, well... maybe you should try to consult a doctor or something? This is by no means an insult or slight, but truly a concern on your psychological health. You take this game too seriously, mon. If everything that happen in this game have something to do like "glory" or "shame", you should not worry about control or aggro dominating the meta, you should worry about taking better care of yourself.
Do you know what the origin of "Huntard" is? I assume you do. For those that don't, huntard originates from the massively popular MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) called World of Warcraft. In World of Warcraft (in short, "WoW". Notice the double capitalized "W"), there are several classes you can choose from when you start playing the game, and Hunter happens to be one of them. In this amazing game, you will venture into dark alcoves, endless halls and possibly even glorious temples to slay countless foes to protect Azeroth, one of the world set in WoW. These glorious encounters are called "Dungeon" or "Raid" depending on the number of role-players, a.k.a adventurers, in your group. In these encounters, hunter players had been notoriously named "Huntard", because a lot of hunter players are not quite familiar with their class, and made some serious mistakes that would jeopardize the success of a group. For example, when someone turns a foe into a sheep, a hunter will use his range weapon to spray multiple projectiles (either arrows or bullets) and hit the sheep in the process. This results in the sheep transforming back into its original shape, wreak havoc on the groups, and most likely, killing the healer in the process (a healer is very important to the group for maintaining longevity so that the group may continue to battle vicious foes). There are other more severe mistakes including using melee weapons when they are supposed to use bows and guns, taking away gear that is of no use to them, or some such. This caused Hunter class to have a really bad name. To make things worse, the simplicity of leveling with a hunter (by interaction of pet + auto attacking with range weapons) results in a lot of hunter players not having the chance to learn what they are supposed to do or how their class should function.
I am sure I have missed quite a few things about how hunter got this bad name "huntard", but the above should give anyone who does not have a clue why hunter is called "huntard" a better idea as to what really happened. Of course I know that the OP has a very clear idea of what this is about, but I feel obligated to explain to those who truly did not have a clue.
I am very sure that the OP must be jesting when the OP wrote "versatile, controlish meta" because the last time I played a control-ish meta in one of the card games that exists in the world, it is just a string of cards countering each other, making the counter cards mandatory and forcing all the deck to look like the same. Maybe the "versatile" is a typo? Or maybe the OP missed some words after "versatile, controlish meta". With my definitely inaccurate speculation, these words may range from "...versatile, controlish meta I myself enjoy" or "...versatile, controlish meta so that I can win with my beloved deck" to "...versatile, controlish meta in my own way". But these, as I have mentioned, are just guesstimation and speculation, and as such, are not to be relied on.
My condolences to those (including the OP, if he/she is one of them) who are not having fun in the current meta, with midrange paladins, fatigue druids, facehunters, midrange mechmages, Oil rogues, Ramp druids, Grim Patron Warriors, mill rogues, and a whole lot other decks running around in the ladder. I could definitely see the benefit of having a more "versatile" meta. I should continue to have fun with my Arcane Golem in my (gasp) combo warlock deck. (wink-wink-nudge-nudge-saynomore)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
I am sure I have missed quite a few things about how hunter got this bad name "huntard", but the above should give anyone who does not have a clue why hunter is called "huntard" a better idea as to what really happened.
Mainly just the fact that after doing something to earn the name "huntard" (like breaking sheep and getting the healer killed), the Hunter would generally Feign Death and thus survive and avoid a repair bill, while the rest of the party wiped. :-)
I've never played an agro deck in my entire hearthstone playing time and yes, it is very difficult to rank up, it is very difficult to win, most of the times I don't. But I won't sell my principles just to be successful shamefully.
"Our glory does not reside in succeeding, but in rising up every time we fall"
This is the ultimate scrub mentality. You're imposing arbitrary rules on yourself that are holding you back from becoming a better player. "All is fair in love and war." There's no honor to be had in not playing a card or a strategy because you think it is "cheap," it's an insult to your opponent, as well as a waste of your time, to handicap yourself in this way.
What's more, having never played an aggro deck yourself, how can you even know how to play against an aggro deck? Even if you play enough games to see what works for you and your decks, how can you understand what thoughts are going through your aggro opponent's mind? What his plays mean he has kept in hand?
-----
On topic though, most experienced players tend toward control because the games go longer, meaning decisions are spread out over more turns, and this gives at least the illusion of more skill, even if it's the same skill that would be condensed into 7 turns for an aggro deck. There's also the satisfaction of playing with powerful cards from a full collection - name me a player here that doesn't enjoy slamming down Ysera on a favorable board to close out the game, so this poll is inevitably going to come up supporting your "cause."
It's ultimately a matter of personality though. Take Craig Wescoe, a man who has built up a huge reputation for loving "white weanie" decks in MTG. He loves aggro and plays it at the top of the world, sometimes in the face of the meta, to great results.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basically, face/agro VS everything else.
I think allot of people prefer to lose their own moral principles, and by that I mean, the type of decks they truly enjoy playing, for the soul reason of being more successful at hearthstone. People with strong principles are a dying breed at hearthstone, everyone prefer success, over the bitterness of losing all the time. I've never played an agro deck in my entire hearthstone playing time and yes, it is very difficult to rank up, it is very difficult to win, most of the times I don't. But I won't sell my principles just to be successful shamefully.
"Our glory does not reside in succeeding, but in rising up every time we fall"
Maybe I'm over reacting, you can say that, but I think hunter is called "huntard" for a reason. I think we all would prefer a more versatile, controlish meta.
How do you feel about the meta's current course? Do you want to change it?
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Aggro will never die out because it's the only archetype that can hit legend without 10k dust. Sure we all like playing control better but it's no fun to play a 30 minute game and then die to a stable of legendaries. Once that happens once or twice I can't really blame new players for choosing Face Hunter and Mech Mage.
Plus, it's a game. If you aren't having fun then do whatever will make it fun for you. This is all a little bit too dramatic.
Have a great deck that's really, really cheap? Help the new players out
Considering the meta's headed toward more control/combo decks, I doubt many on this site would like to change it. And I think your criticism of aggro decks is a bit much. They're not the most skillful decks, but there's certainly some skill involved.
Poll should really have a third option for Combo, if you want the classic card game trinity, and really should have a fourth option for not wanting it "dominated" by any of the above.
Given the incredibly limited options, I picked Aggro. Why? Well, if the meta must be dominated by one deck style, at least let it be one that leads to quick games. If most of your games cause you to sigh "oh god, not xyz again!", do you want those games to be half an hour long?
I don't wish to spoil your sole reason of consolation, but the whole matter of principles have been created and used by some players to ease the magnitude of losing due to not being able to properly compete.
The players who win through aggro/face archetypes do not hack or crack their opponent's game, they simply use existing cards to create strong decks and battle with them. It becomes their opponent's part to either forge a deck to counter them if they are prevalent (like control Priest and Warrior for example) or play a deck that can have better momentum over them (some Rogue variations for example).
I said it many times before and I will always say it: If aggro is brainless, then the brainfull control should be able to find a solution, or else, they don't have the right to talk down to whom used a way to efficiently surpass them.
You can't harass members who play Face Hunter, nor are they compelled to make preemptive apologies or justifications for playing it. They don't hack or crack their opponents' game, they simply play existing cards that form a specific deck. If you suck at countering Face Hunter, you should blame the designers, not the community.
^I agree with you, but I had to laugh when I saw your favorite class is hunter ;)
Have a great deck that's really, really cheap? Help the new players out
i dont mind aggro at all except face hunter. maybe face hunter brings a short of balance and punishes greedy decks but a concept where you just put minions on the board hit face and still win is unacceptable for me in a balanced card game. MTG had the red deck which reminds of face hunter. rush minions and direct damage but it was always gimmicky, face hunter should also exist but be gimmicky. instead of blizzard ackowledging it as a deck archtype and even support it with cards like quick shot i think they should do something so this thing will never be viable again. zoo is also fast if you want fast games but the difference between zoo and face hunter is that face hunter doesnt care about their minions board presence or anything like that. if you aoe zoo effectively you pretty much won the game. on the other hand even if you aoe face hunter it doesnt make a difference at all. zoo is the healthy aggro while face hunter is just an abuse of a hero power + bursting tools. people where complaining about undertaker snowballing and they were right cause they were losing the game from turn 1-2. now that they lose the game from mulligan why no one complains? seriously if you face a face hunter and your mulligan is kinda bad you lost right there before even the game starts. how is that healthy for the game?
I voted Control because I love my paladin decks but at the end of the day not everyone will be truly happy with what ever deck style is currently dominating.
Truthfully I would love if they got rid of "Casual" as it is now and maybe at some point turn that play option into something more interesting. If Wizards of the Coast can come up with interesting match types in Magic I'm sure Blizzard could do the same for Hearthstone.
It's interesting to see a post that so blatantly assigns some kind of moral virtue to not playing aggressive decks, since that's very obviously what you're talking about. The idea that there are "principles" involved in the game related to what deck you play strikes me as rather ludicrous. It's a strategy people use to console themselves when they lose. "Well, I might have lost, but let me make up a reason why I'm still better than them to make myself feel better." That's all that's really being done here.
If you want to stick to your guns that's great, and I commend you for it, but it would be nice if you didn't pretend that somehow made you more virtuous than other people.
Nothing doing, traveler.
I'd love it if the meta had a bit more midrange in it.
There's no such thing as principles, especially stupid principles like "i refuse to play an aggro deck". It's like participating in the Olympic track and field event with the "principle" of not wearing any branded athletic shoes. Just absurd.
In a CCG or TCG, the best players are able to pilot ALL decks to their optimum potential. Player A scores 80 points piloting an aggro deck, 50 points piloting a midrange, and 50 points piloting a control deck. Player B scores 100 points piloting a control deck, 50 points for a midrange, and has never played an aggro deck due to "principles". Guess who is the better HS player?
The game is about having fun and/or winning, which is hardly related to something as serious as "principles".
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
I'm pretty sure everyone complains. Have you not been reading the things people say about face hunter?
Also, as a quick point of clarification, the red aggressive decks in MTG were and are the opposite of gimmicky. The whole point of them is that they are brutally consistent and full of redundancy. All their cards do basically the same thing. There's no gimmick involved, it just kills you dead. That's the whole point of playing them, and face hunter does essentially the same thing. It's cards are all pretty much the same and serve the same purpose.
Nothing doing, traveler.
The only reason Face hunter is hated so much is because it's really the only deck of it's kind. Sure other classes have aggro decks but not as direct as face hunter. MTG has several years under it's belt and just about every variety of color combo has pretty aggressive decks, give HS a couple more expacs and I'm sure other classes will come in screaming "FAAAAAACE"
The hate for face hunter has been around for about as long as HS has been out of beta, if not longer. The same hate went to zoo, which wasn't even a face deck, and mech mage.
So yeah, you are correct except that it's already happened. If it's an aggro deck that's viable, it's hated.
Though honestly, ANY viable deck gets absolute hate from a good portioni of the community. You can basically tell when a new deck has hit viability by when the rage posts start to show for it.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Why the fuck are you trying to put morals towards people's play styles? Are you fucking kidding me? What a joke. Can i report this thread for stupidity please? There is nothing moral about people's play styles, it doesn't matter at all. People play what they like. SMH the stupid is real.
TGT Deck Updates Are (Finally) Out!
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/194068-forecasts-priest-tgt-update
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/212671-forecasts-basic-priest
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/193196-hunter-rush-tgt
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/201238-definitely-not-tirion-dnt
I agree.
TGT Deck Updates Are (Finally) Out!
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/194068-forecasts-priest-tgt-update
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/212671-forecasts-basic-priest
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/193196-hunter-rush-tgt
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/201238-definitely-not-tirion-dnt
Huh... really?
I don't see people selling their souls playing Facehunter. If you see it that way, well... maybe you should try to consult a doctor or something? This is by no means an insult or slight, but truly a concern on your psychological health. You take this game too seriously, mon. If everything that happen in this game have something to do like "glory" or "shame", you should not worry about control or aggro dominating the meta, you should worry about taking better care of yourself.
Do you know what the origin of "Huntard" is? I assume you do. For those that don't, huntard originates from the massively popular MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) called World of Warcraft. In World of Warcraft (in short, "WoW". Notice the double capitalized "W"), there are several classes you can choose from when you start playing the game, and Hunter happens to be one of them. In this amazing game, you will venture into dark alcoves, endless halls and possibly even glorious temples to slay countless foes to protect Azeroth, one of the world set in WoW. These glorious encounters are called "Dungeon" or "Raid" depending on the number of role-players, a.k.a adventurers, in your group. In these encounters, hunter players had been notoriously named "Huntard", because a lot of hunter players are not quite familiar with their class, and made some serious mistakes that would jeopardize the success of a group. For example, when someone turns a foe into a sheep, a hunter will use his range weapon to spray multiple projectiles (either arrows or bullets) and hit the sheep in the process. This results in the sheep transforming back into its original shape, wreak havoc on the groups, and most likely, killing the healer in the process (a healer is very important to the group for maintaining longevity so that the group may continue to battle vicious foes). There are other more severe mistakes including using melee weapons when they are supposed to use bows and guns, taking away gear that is of no use to them, or some such. This caused Hunter class to have a really bad name. To make things worse, the simplicity of leveling with a hunter (by interaction of pet + auto attacking with range weapons) results in a lot of hunter players not having the chance to learn what they are supposed to do or how their class should function.
I am sure I have missed quite a few things about how hunter got this bad name "huntard", but the above should give anyone who does not have a clue why hunter is called "huntard" a better idea as to what really happened. Of course I know that the OP has a very clear idea of what this is about, but I feel obligated to explain to those who truly did not have a clue.
I am very sure that the OP must be jesting when the OP wrote "versatile, controlish meta" because the last time I played a control-ish meta in one of the card games that exists in the world, it is just a string of cards countering each other, making the counter cards mandatory and forcing all the deck to look like the same. Maybe the "versatile" is a typo? Or maybe the OP missed some words after "versatile, controlish meta". With my definitely inaccurate speculation, these words may range from "...versatile, controlish meta I myself enjoy" or "...versatile, controlish meta so that I can win with my beloved deck" to "...versatile, controlish meta in my own way". But these, as I have mentioned, are just guesstimation and speculation, and as such, are not to be relied on.
My condolences to those (including the OP, if he/she is one of them) who are not having fun in the current meta, with midrange paladins, fatigue druids, facehunters, midrange mechmages, Oil rogues, Ramp druids, Grim Patron Warriors, mill rogues, and a whole lot other decks running around in the ladder. I could definitely see the benefit of having a more "versatile" meta. I should continue to have fun with my Arcane Golem in my (gasp) combo warlock deck. (wink-wink-nudge-nudge-saynomore)
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
I don't even care, but if I had to choose let it be aggro dominate so I can easily counter it and rack up tons of quick wins.
Mainly just the fact that after doing something to earn the name "huntard" (like breaking sheep and getting the healer killed), the Hunter would generally Feign Death and thus survive and avoid a repair bill, while the rest of the party wiped. :-)
This is the ultimate scrub mentality. You're imposing arbitrary rules on yourself that are holding you back from becoming a better player. "All is fair in love and war." There's no honor to be had in not playing a card or a strategy because you think it is "cheap," it's an insult to your opponent, as well as a waste of your time, to handicap yourself in this way.
What's more, having never played an aggro deck yourself, how can you even know how to play against an aggro deck?
Even if you play enough games to see what works for you and your decks, how can you understand what thoughts are going through your aggro opponent's mind? What his plays mean he has kept in hand?
-----
On topic though, most experienced players tend toward control because the games go longer, meaning decisions are spread out over more turns, and this gives at least the illusion of more skill, even if it's the same skill that would be condensed into 7 turns for an aggro deck. There's also the satisfaction of playing with powerful cards from a full collection - name me a player here that doesn't enjoy slamming down Ysera on a favorable board to close out the game, so this poll is inevitably going to come up supporting your "cause."
It's ultimately a matter of personality though. Take Craig Wescoe, a man who has built up a huge reputation for loving "white weanie" decks in MTG. He loves aggro and plays it at the top of the world, sometimes in the face of the meta, to great results.