Hearthpwn

R u guys joking, control meta is so much harder to ladder in. Control Meta consists of lots of Druids which in my mind r as bad if not worse than hunter and 30 minute warrior games. Aggro meta it is easy to build ur decks to counter the meta. Control meta takes more time to climb and requires much more though and deck building skills. Btw playing aggro is not bad, strife cro and kolento play facehunter time to time, does that maKe em bad players Who sell their morals, I think not.

Quote from Oozesnoozelose »

waaaaaah face hunter waaaah...

My deck doesn't start until turn 5 and all I want is to put legendaries on board so FU Blizzard for making classes that have a 50/50 chance at beating my greedy deck.

If there's one thing worse than having lethal on board vs face hunter while they have an explosive trap up and you're at 2 HP it's all the "skillful control" players who whine about face hunter. If you can't see why these type of decks are good for the game then you're the problem in the community, not face hunter.

It will always be hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that skill in this game is supposed to only be using your hero power on turn 10+ to armor up or heal and passing your turn. We've all seen priests and warriors (two of the most control classes) do this sometimes in successive turns and that's supposed to be the pride of winning. At least hunters and other aggro decks actually play cards on 99% of their turns.

Just because their decks have board wipes, cheap removals, and card draw mechanics, they assume that they are the only people in HS who understands card advantage and card value. So they see a facehunter that has none of those stuff and straight away assume that the pilot don't understand any of those things. And when their decision to have too many reactive and passive "value cards" comes back and bite them in their hairy behind, they blame the game.

They score full points for understanding nothing about card advantage, despite piloting a deck that has tons of value cards.

Quote from Seagull0 »

Quote from Banquetto »

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?

That's exactly my point, many people, such as yourself, prefer success over fun,  why play hearthstone if all you want to do is to have a "Vee" on the accomplishment: Achieve legend?

I haven't got the faintest idea how you interpreted my "I don't want any one playstyle to dominate the meta" as "I prefer success over fun". That's just such a colossal failure of reading comprehension that I can't even begin to respond to it.

I want to see a variety of opponents - aggro, combo and control - because that's fun. Stripping aggro out of the game because it makes some people salty would make the game less fun.

I vote "No" solely for the fact that Facehunter pisses you off. That's one more player that is not willing to play intelligently, and allows emotion to drive action. 

You think Facehunter is problematic? You haven't seen what it is like for a type 2 with Arcbound Ravager and Disciple of the Vault era. Every deck you see are the same. SAME. Are you seeing EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in the world playing Facehunter? No? Well then I guess the problem isn't as severe as you might think.

They already nerfed face hunter by realeasing Zombie Chow and Antique Healbot. Not to mention the nerfs they've given to the rest of the hunter class.

Quote from Mechwarper »

Quote from Mesmerizeer »

I vote "No" solely for the fact that Facehunter pisses you off. That's one more player that is not willing to play intelligently, and allows emotion to drive action. 

You think Facehunter is problematic? You haven't seen what it is like for a type 2 with Arcbound Ravager and Disciple of the Vault era. Every deck you see are the same. SAME. Are you seeing EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in the world playing Facehunter? No? Well then I guess the problem isn't as severe as you might think.

This guy should get a taste of flashhulk :) Now that was fucking obnoxious

By that you mean the turn 0 winning deck? That is beautiful. "I win before the battle starts" is one of my holy mantra. Not really describing the turn 0 deck per say, but it sorta fits. 

Heavy control is nastier than aggro. At least you can find an answer for aggro (AOE), where control you can't as easily. In a control vs control match up once you begin to lose, its generally over. The same can't be said for aggro which can be swung with a well placed AOE/heal.

If the game wasn't F2P you'd be seeing a lot more control. Even in magic the gathering aggro was the major meta. Its cheap, its fast and itll win you games at the same rate as the guy who spent 300$ on his.

Quote from Mesmerizeer »

You think Facehunter is problematic? You haven't seen what it is like for a type 2 with Arcbound Ravager and Disciple of the Vault era. Every deck you see are the same. SAME. Are you seeing EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in the world playing Facehunter? No? Well then I guess the problem isn't as severe as you might think.

Oh god yes, I remember Mirrodin block and T2 constructed.  That block saved me thousands of dollars as it got me out of Magic.