How to balance decent early game & OP aggro decks?

[Pantalaimon]

Exactly what the title says. What do you think is a good meeting point for these two things in HS?

As we all know most aggro decks very much depend on a good curve to win & dominate a meta, starting with that first play. However, other decks also depended on having decent first turn plays even if they weren't always going for aggro (e.g. Webspinner for Midrange Hunter, Mana Wyrm to build tempo in tempo mage, or Northshire Cleric in priest depending on what the match up was).

With the exception of aggro shaman and zoolock the meta has slowed down a lot more so this thread is a little late, but I think is always good for the community to come back to once in a while as the meta changes.

My own opinion about how Blizzard could continue to try and strike the balance between the early game & aggro decks is by providing classes with more good one mana plays that provide a wider versatility of control elements to it, and not simply introducing yet another glass cannon style minion every other expansion/adventure. Imo Northshire Cleric or Zombie Chow are some okay examples of how to bring more early game without also making the card a class/neutral staple for another aggro deck. You have to deal with them early on, but they're not going to come close to singlehandedly winning you the game (most of the time).

What are your guys' thoughts?

[Mormolyce]

Delete Hunters :P

Seriously though, the nerfs helped a lot but IMO there's still many early game cards that could use attention.

Also, if it was my game I'd make it so damage spells only affected minions and not face by default, and only a select few spells had that dual functionality. Eg, Pyroblast can go face but Fireball and Frost Bolt/Ice Lance can't. No Hunter spell would be face-enabled (they have that hero power, they absolutely do NOT need more easy unpreventable face damage). Most cheap spells are priced low because they're intended for use as removal, the fact you can close out a game with cheap spell damage is an invitation to game devolution IMO.

[Raugnaut]

Delete Hunters :P

Seriously though, the nerfs helped a lot but IMO there's still many early game cards that could use attention.

Also, if it was my game I'd make it so damage spells only affected minions and not face by default, and only a select few spells had that dual functionality. Eg, Pyroblast can go face but Fireball and Frost Bolt/Ice Lance can't. No Hunter spell would be face-enabled (they have that hero power, they absolutely do NOT need more easy unpreventable face damage). Most cheap spells are priced low because they're intended for use as removal, the fact you can close out a game with cheap spell damage is an invitation to game devolution IMO.

As if nerfing hunters ability to damage face would nerf Aggro. The main way to counter Aggro would be to implement stronger healing options

- - - Updated - - -

Good early game helps to exhaust opponents options to deal with late game threats. Aggro attempts to defeat the opponent BEFORE they can draw said options. An example of an aggro counter card would be a 4 cost 2/1 that heals yourself for 5 and draws a card.

I personally think upping the card limit in a deck would help to put a stop to Aggro - There are currently SO many options to deal with Aggro that you do not have the deck space for all the options, despite having the ability to draw heavily. Aggro, however, does NOT care about the maximum number of cards in their deck, thus upping the deck limit would not help Aggro. It would also help Combo, Control, and Miracle, but nerf Mill.

[Mormolyce]

As if nerfing hunters ability to damage face would nerf Aggro. The main way to counter Aggro would be to implement stronger healing options

They would have to be ridiculously strong. It's quite easy to build a board that can do more that any healing spell short of Reno, and the board's still there once your healing spell is done ready to keep doing that damage to you every turn. For healing to be a viable solution to aggro you'd have to implement some insane healing cards or totally redesign the game.

[Sarevokcz]

they would need either stop making 1 and 2 drops synergise extremely well with some class spells (no chance happening) or they would need to actually make those 1 and 2 drops properly budgeted. people cry bloody murder when some bigger card gets slightly overbudget, like flamewreathed being one stat over boulderfist, but it has become basically a norm for 1 and 2 and some 3drops to have extremely good effects for little to no reduction in stats and thats the entire reason, why aggro is so good in HS, cheap single target removal tools together with cheap overbudgeted cards AND for some classes cheap and very effective draw engines... while there are very little counters, we dont really get more aoes and those we have are often ineffective and you HAVE to draw them early otherwise its game over...

[Raiju]

As if nerfing hunters ability to damage face would nerf Aggro. The main way to counter Aggro would be to implement stronger healing options

There has never been a reason for kill command to target face and was an ideal way to nerf face hunters without nerfing hunters generally.

@Sarevokcz Overloads have a dual issue in that they were fixed in 2 places at once. First of all we get better overload tradeoffs (golem, flamewreathed, arguably crackle although its out of standard) that make an overload worth at least 1 mana crystal when compared to older cards. Second we get effective mana unlocks such as the sentinel effectively making overloads far cheaper than they were previously considered.

[Deleted]

Better healing options and better taunt minions. Also, stop giving OP 1 mana minions like Tunnel Trogg or Mana Wyrm that can get out of hand quickly and decide games by themselves.

[Ravex]

There has never been a reason for kill command to target face and was an ideal way to nerf face hunters without nerfing hunters generally.

@Sarevokcz Overloads have a dual issue in that they were fixed in 2 places at once. First of all we get better overload tradeoffs (golem, flamewreathed, arguably crackle although its out of standard) that make an overload worth at least 1 mana crystal when compared to older cards. Second we get effective mana unlocks such as the sentinel effectively making overloads far cheaper than they were previously considered.

Eh unless your on the side of crackle, fireball, and frost bolt as well as others being minion only also it is pretty in line with everything else.

[Raiju]

Eh unless your on the side of crackle, fireball, and frost bolt as well as others being minion only also it is pretty in line with everything else.

mage damage spells are generally stronger than nearly every other class, so not really comparable.

[PPN]

Somehow you need to counter the way aggro works, or opposite nerf cards from agro classes that make an agro deck versatile.

As an example this new card which heals you for every enemy minion is a nice approach against zoo. The problem is only that the healing effect is not really sufficient. But its cool to dealy a round and destroy the board one turn later with aoe. Only problem here is the doomguard.

For hunter this is missing. I mean, when you dont play stuff you get fucked up by lol face...and if you play stuff you get fucked by lol hounds...so yeah thats pretty whack.

So the conclusion is...charge minions win games for no brainer aggro decks

On the other hand, as dumb as those decks are, they are needed more then ever so all the C'thun decks get kept in control. Imagine if you wouldnt have agrro decks you would meet like 100% C'thun decks instead the 80% which we have now

[FobManX]

There are a few fixes...

1. Increase player health. 30 HP just isn't a lot. If you think about it, a 3 attack minion(which the average 2 drop has)hits you for 10% of your health. If an aggro deck coins out a 2 drop into another 2 drop, that's 20% of your HP they can deal every turn before you can even get going. Buff player HP to 40, maybe even 50, so if an aggro deck gets the ultimate nut curve first 3 turns you're not already halfway to dead. Remember the tavern brawls where you play as the bosses from the adventure wings(i.e. Rag vs. Nef)? Those were fun because you could actually make late game heavy decks and not worry about taking damage early because of the high HP pools. I'm not saying player HP should be that high, just 40-50 would be fine.

2. Make removal spells more efficient. As it stands most early game removal spells are 2 mana, so you're spending 2 mana to defeat a 2 mana minion. That's actually not that good because you're still giving up initiative on turn 3. Also you have to take into account that aggro decks will run a lot more minions then you'll have removals. The odds will always be in the aggro player's favor. I'd make more removal spells cheaper, or allow you to play 3 spells in your deck so control decks can choose to run more removals if they so choose.

3. Nerf more early drop minions. It's silly how so often HS games are decided in the first couple turns because the aggro player gets amazing opening curve with synergy(i.e. Shaman getting Trogg with overloads, Mage getting Mana Wyrm with spells, etc.). 1 mana minions shouldn't have more then 3 total stats. 2 mana shouldn't have more then 4. That kinda thing. As it stands, there isn't enough of a difference between early game and mid to late game minions, early minions are just more efficient when you can factor in how much earlier they get on the board.

[Deleted]

Aggro decks work because early game cards are extremely powerful for their mana cost. 2-drops and especially 1-drops.
Go figure, a card like Tunnel Trogg is completely overpowered. If you extrapolate it to be a 4-drop minion, you'd end up with an 4/12 (Ysera stats) that gets +4/+4 with every overloaded mana crystal. That's extremely strong.

The high power of early game cards, and relatively high cost of board clears (such as holy nova, consec, flamestrike) makes aggro decks work. Technically board clears are designed to counter aggro zooey decks that play a lot of low-cost cards, but they're just far too expensive. You're dead or nearly dead by the time you can play a boardclear. And this zoolock will just drop more stuff on the board again even if you do.

Meanwhile I wouldn't want every game lasting like 25 turns and ending in fatigue damage. Aggro needs to exist and be balanced with control and midrange. In GVG and TGT it was more dominant than other archetypes, this slightly changed in this expac.

[Mormolyce]

Eh unless your on the side of crackle, fireball, and frost bolt as well as others being minion only also it is pretty in line with everything else.

I actually think many of those should be non-face, but even so by virtue of their hero power Hunters especially do not need access to cheap near-unpreventable face damage. Hunters can close just fine without it.

[Mahmeya]

I'd say make more spells able to hit only minions. Ice lance (because 2x lance 2x frostbolt for 2 mana total after Emperor is definitely balanced), Lava burst, maybe the torch token.
And make C'thun able to hit friendlies as well, he's too focused and not insane enough for an old god...

[Raiju]

Making c'thun total random would make him pretty much completely unviable I think. The main issue anyway is the minions and if you want a buff effect - maybe c'thun worshippers could buff both players c'thuns.

Now that'd get some good c'thun drops in c'thun vs c'thun.

[Deleted]

... maybe c'thun worshippers could buff both players c'thuns.

Now that'd get some good c'thun drops in c'thun vs c'thun.

I can only imagine that would make C'thun even more of a coin flip than it already is.

[Pantalaimon]

I actually think many of those should be non-face, but even so by virtue of their hero power Hunters especially do not need access to cheap near-unpreventable face damage. Hunters can close just fine without it.

I don't think the game could afford to make them minion-only right now though. I like to think of my experiences trying to ladder with tempo mage during earlier seasons. Sure if I established tempo properly early on then using removal on their minions instead of face often worked out pretty good, but sometimes I would need the spells to hit face in order to win matchups like zoo or others with stupidly profitable draw engines. You can frostbolt one of zoo's minions, but if they have a decent one in their hand next turn & can tap to fill out their curve you accomplished nothing with your minion removal & might have been better using it for face if you're nearing lethal & they don't have reno or another heal. Allowing those spells to hit face prevents your opponent's class from simply outvaluing your removal by going overboard with draw engines & dropping smaller minions the turn after you play said removal.

I like to look at it this way: taunts counter charge minions, draw mechanics counter minion only removal that tries to give card advantage, & heals counter spell face damage (with Freeze Mage being a notable exception occassionally). I feel that spells should be an option for lethal because it then requires more thoughtful consideration for including heals in your deck. A taunt can win a game if the opposing player doesn't have removal so I think it is appropriate for a well used spell to also win a game if the opponent does not have a healing answer.

- - - Updated - - -

There are a few fixes...

1. Increase player health. 30 HP just isn't a lot. If you think about it, a 3 attack minion(which the average 2 drop has)hits you for 10% of your health. If an aggro deck coins out a 2 drop into another 2 drop, that's 20% of your HP they can deal every turn before you can even get going. Buff player HP to 40, maybe even 50, so if an aggro deck gets the ultimate nut curve first 3 turns you're not already halfway to dead. Remember the tavern brawls where you play as the bosses from the adventure wings(i.e. Rag vs. Nef)? Those were fun because you could actually make late game heavy decks and not worry about taking damage early because of the high HP pools. I'm not saying player HP should be that high, just 40-50 would be fine.

2. Make removal spells more efficient. As it stands most early game removal spells are 2 mana, so you're spending 2 mana to defeat a 2 mana minion. That's actually not that good because you're still giving up initiative on turn 3. Also you have to take into account that aggro decks will run a lot more minions then you'll have removals. The odds will always be in the aggro player's favor. I'd make more removal spells cheaper, or allow you to play 3 spells in your deck so control decks can choose to run more removals if they so choose.

3. Nerf more early drop minions. It's silly how so often HS games are decided in the first couple turns because the aggro player gets amazing opening curve with synergy(i.e. Shaman getting Trogg with overloads, Mage getting Mana Wyrm with spells, etc.). 1 mana minions shouldn't have more then 3 total stats. 2 mana shouldn't have more then 4. That kinda thing. As it stands, there isn't enough of a difference between early game and mid to late game minions, early minions are just more efficient when you can factor in how much earlier they get on the board.

I think it might be an okay idea to experiment with increasing player health a little (maybe to 35), but I'm also concerned that if such a change was implemented it would make long fatigue games like C'Thun/Fatigue warrior more of a nightmare with how long games could go with more health.

Reducing the cost of removal just might be the answer HS needs imo. Imagine how much easier it would be to come back from the opponent's early game onslaught if we had 1 mana cost frostbolts/dark bombs/etc (maybe if such duplicates were created then maybe these ones would be minion only removal).

To your third point what would count as an appriopriate 1 mana minion effect?

[Mormolyce]

I don't think the game could afford to make them minion-only right now though. I like to think of my experiences trying to ladder with tempo mage during earlier seasons. Sure if I established tempo properly early on then using removal on their minions instead of face often worked out pretty good, but sometimes I would need the spells to hit face in order to win matchups like zoo or others with stupidly profitable draw engines. You can frostbolt one of zoo's minions, but if they have a decent one in their hand next turn & can tap to fill out their curve you accomplished nothing with your minion removal & might have been better using it for face if you're nearing lethal & they don't have reno or another heal. Allowing those spells to hit face prevents your opponent's class from simply outvaluing your removal by going overboard with draw engines & dropping smaller minions the turn after you play said removal.

I like to look at it this way: taunts counter charge minions, draw mechanics counter minion only removal that tries to give card advantage, & heals counter spell face damage (with Freeze Mage being a notable exception occassionally). I feel that spells should be an option for lethal because it then requires more thoughtful consideration for including heals in your deck. A taunt can win a game if the opposing player doesn't have removal so I think it is appropriate for a well used spell to also win a game if the opponent does not have a healing answer.

Well I think if you made that change it would simply make "always face" Hunter no longer viable, and other deck styles would replace it.

The problem is, heals and taunts are grossly insufficient to stop face decks. They cheese through your first taunt or two and by the time you recover and wipe out their inefficient minions, it's too late, you're on your last legs and they just need to draw one more spell to finish you off. That's what I think should die. If you fill your deck with cheap face damage, and the enemy manages to out-value you and wipe you off the board, that should be it: you lose. The hero power is bad enough on its own, hell even an 8HP heal which is almost a third of your life total is only 4 turns of hero power. They really don't need that much added reach. It encourages degenerate decks that ignore the board because they can.

[Rennadrel]

Better healing but a lot of spell cards need to have their abilities tweaked, particularly cheap attack spells, require them to be used on minions. Also removing Steady Shot from hitting face would help put Hunters down a peg.

[Faltemer]

As it stands, most of the changes mentioned here would make the game incredibly boring and stale. Without Aggro, control is the only viable deck.

Aggro>Control>midrange>Aggro. The control deck one not built specifically vs aggro. This is how the game functions now and there doesn’t end up with 2 decks. Because if control was the only real choice about 2 would emerge as clear cut undeniable favorites.

Really if Blizzard cared about creating a more balanced Meta they would simply nerf/buff cards when necessary. Hell, they wouldn’t create so many useless cards if they really cared. But they've said often they won’t be doing this except in extremely rare cases. Aggresive decks themselves aren’t the problem. You can’t just put an aggro warrior now and have it be viable consistently. So the problem are classes, and furthermore the cards in the classes. Tunnel trogg only gaining 1 attack for each overload card vs its current state is something they should do/look into IF they felt aggro shaman was a problem.