The game needs a higher health pool already

[Deztru]

Agro decks deal 30 before the half of the game
Face decks deal 30 before the half of the game
Mid-Range decks deal 30 at the half of the game
Control decks deal 30 in one turn
Combo decks deal 30 in one turn

Every turn I play this game these days 30 health doesn't mean shit, midrange shaman? 30 is nothing. The fucking braindead pirate warrior? 30 is nothing. The new Kazakus "control" Reno decks? 30 is fucking absolutely nothing.

They really need to increase the base health pool already.

[caractacus]

What about armour? I know its not available as readily to all classes but if you want a bigger health total its pretty easy to get. Also while healing can't take your health total over 30 it still make a big difference to your health total against anything that isn't otk

[Deztru]

What about armour? I know its not available as readily to all classes but if you want a bigger health total its pretty easy to get. Also while healing can't take your health total over 30 it still make a big difference to your health total against anything that isn't otk

You can tech healing against control and some against midrange sure, but any healing that you have time to play against Agro/Face is not enough and leaves you vulnerable to their onslaught.

[Blueobelisk]

I don't think the the heroes need more health, I think they need to change the cards so games don't go as quickly or turns can't swing so widely.

It's a balance issue. But, at the current state, if I had to say what a good Hp would be to make things more pleasant, it would probably be something like 33.5 Hp. Maybe 32.5.

[FobManX]

I agree. Cards are getting more powerful and decks are getting faster yet player HP has remained the same. They really should up it to like 40 or 45. It isn't fun when you've lost half your health pool before turn 5.

[Gorgodeus]

The entire premise of the game since its' inception was quick games, hence the only having 30 health, and being unable to perform actions during the opponents turn.

[Pantalaimon]

Or just nerf aggro so that you don't need to have an HP increase...

However, on that note, the point of buffing HP wouldn't be to outright kill aggro in all things competitive. The archtype is needed in some aspects and it serves a purpose. You kill aggro with too much HP so that they can't realistically or consistently win some matchups and you're going to gradually see very bad 'cancer' slow ass decks popping up that will eventually replace the frustration aggro caused, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

[Deztru]

Or just nerf aggro so that you don't need to have an HP increase...

However, on that note, the point of buffing HP wouldn't be to outright kill aggro in all things competitive. The archtype is needed in some aspects and it serves a purpose. You kill aggro with too much HP so that they can't realistically or consistently win some matchups and you're going to gradually see very bad 'cancer' slow ass decks popping up that will eventually replace the frustration aggro caused, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

With every new expansion we get a new braindead face deck, quite apparently nerfing face/agro is not on their list.

[Arachnofiend]

Or just nerf aggro so that you don't need to have an HP increase...

However, on that note, the point of buffing HP wouldn't be to outright kill aggro in all things competitive. The archtype is needed in some aspects and it serves a purpose. You kill aggro with too much HP so that they can't realistically or consistently win some matchups and you're going to gradually see very bad 'cancer' slow ass decks popping up that will eventually replace the frustration aggro caused, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Think of it this way: the only thing keeping Jade Druid in check right now is the glut of Aggro decks.

[Deztru]

Think of it this way: the only thing keeping Jade Druid in check right now is the glut of Aggro decks.

I can rush a Jade Druid with midrange, I have to get insanely lucky against agro/face as midrange.

[shammypie]

I don't think the the heroes need more health, I think they need to change the cards so games don't go as quickly or turns can't swing so widely.

It's a balance issue. But, at the current state, if I had to say what a good Hp would be to make things more pleasant, it would probably be something like 33.5 Hp. Maybe 32.5.

nah defeats the whole purpose of power creep. Honestly an extra 5-10 health would change the game so dramatically that aggro would need even more powerful cards to be able to compete.

- - - Updated - - -

Or just nerf aggro so that you don't need to have an HP increase...

However, on that note, the point of buffing HP wouldn't be to outright kill aggro in all things competitive. The archtype is needed in some aspects and it serves a purpose. You kill aggro with too much HP so that they can't realistically or consistently win some matchups and you're going to gradually see very bad 'cancer' slow ass decks popping up that will eventually replace the frustration aggro caused, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

pretty much this. without aggro the game becomes stale. However if aggro is too strong, the game is boring.

[Eats Compost]

Aggro has always been a bit of a problem. Not sure how they'd fix it though, because it feeds off some pretty deliberately-designed parts of the game.

[FobManX]

The thing is, aggro just isn't fun at all. There is absolutely no skill or thought process required to play it. You're just playing on curve and going face.

The most fun HS games are when you're battling for board, making swing turns, thinking about each turn, etc. I remember watching Ostkaka vs. Thijs in the 2015 Blizzcon semifinal and it was an absolutely amazing game, freeze mage mirror, the amount of tough decisions made were ridiculous. THAT is when HS is at its most fun. But you don't see that much on ladder because everyone and their momma is playing pirate warrior and beating you down by turn 5.

[AeneasBK]

More anti-aggro cards. Ancient Watcher-style cards with taunt baked in. Useless in most match ups but puts a big obstacle in the path of aggro.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is, aggro just isn't fun at all. There is absolutely no skill or thought process required to play it. You're just playing on curve and going face.

The most fun HS games are when you're battling for board, making swing turns, thinking about each turn, etc. I remember watching Ostkaka vs. Thijs in the 2015 Blizzcon semifinal and it was an absolutely amazing game, freeze mage mirror, the amount of tough decisions made were ridiculous. THAT is when HS is at its most fun. But you don't see that much on ladder because everyone and their momma is playing pirate warrior and beating you down by turn 5.

I'm not for a moment trying to tell you your opinion is wrong but of all match ups I find freeze mage pretty dull to watch; and freeze mirror even more so. The most interesting games I saw were zoo-lock. Go figure

[Faldric]

The problem is high mana cards have far too many drawbacks. An Aggro deck will always have something in the hand they can play while control might as well lose the game on the mulligan. And even if you get to the later stages: We reached the point were battlecrys are so powerful, that 2 low mana minions with battlecrys can kill the expensive minion and probably keep one of the two low mana minions on the field for next turn. Maybe its time to adjust the card budget curve to nerf low mana cards across the board.

[Holofernes]

Perhaps slower games are boring to you, but the reality is that the faster the games go - and the more that "going face" is encouraged - the less decisions either player ends up making and the more the games basically just turn into pure coin flips.

I mean, it's already a card game, so games are decided by the draw the majority of the time as it is. But removing ALL decisions and just turning into a coin flip based on the opening draw of one of the players is even worse.

i personally feel that the fast games with aggro are boring as fuck. It is purely decided by starting hand and what you draw. if i draw good on my pirate warrior / aggro mage, i win. no matter what. the other guy can reno have a million taunts and defensive spells, i just kill him at turn 6. If i dont have good draw i still dont auto loose, because he can have bad draw too. The only way to loose with current pirate warrior is the opponent having the perfect draw.

Now, my beloved control mage reno nzoth deck: (my standard deck in the last 3 years)

Long, thrilling battles, 20 minute games with fatigue ticking in, against cthun warriors / priests, wonderful to play vs control warrior /outlasting all those 30+ dmg cthun guys/ having a blast in matching with those dragon / nzoth palys, hoping to get the resources needed to survive the miracle rogue onslaught and than watch him dying to fatigue, auto win against freeze mage. Awesome games, often other controlish guys ask me for decklist after game.

on the other side: my deck vs zoolock, dead at turn 12 after iceblock, reno, nova, blizzard, flamestrike. If i dont draw this stuff, dead at turn 6.

I think this game would be so much better if they made aggro a nonfactor, its just not fun and it all becomes a gamble. Many other games of this kind dont allow facedmg as long as a minion is on board, and i think that would be a cool thing to think about in hearthstone too.

[AeneasBK]

Perhaps slower games are boring to you, but the reality is that the faster the games go - and the more that "going face" is encouraged - the less decisions either player ends up making and the more the games basically just turn into pure coin flips.

I won't deny that more turns roughly equates to more decisions. I just found that with the tools available to zoolock (as opposed to freeze mage) the decisions were more important. Freeze mage (as I've seen it played), you *almost* know what card you're playing the next turn before you see what you're opponent has done, because its just following the forumla. With zoo there was the balance between controlling the board cheap while building it up; sometimes you could break for face very early; othertimes you wouldn't get to start on face until you've almost drawn your entire deck.

Is it fair to make a distinction between zoo and aggro; or do people read them as the same thing.

[Krazzorx]

My personal opinion of fun is anything that involves a fair amount of minion trading.

I don't like face decks at all because it feels to much like "did you draw right?" But I also don't like heavy control/fatigue warrior or freeze Mage which either goes too long or is just generally frustrating to play against.

Fatigue is too long and freeze Mage in a sense feels like face decks. Unless you tech specifically against it, there are far too many turns where there is not a single thing you can do on too many turns. Ice block being the biggest culprit. Knowing multiple turns out you cannot win is just extraordinarily unfun. It's just too non-interactive of a deck.

- - - Updated - - -

I won't deny that more turns roughly equates to more decisions. I just found that with the tools available to zoolock (as opposed to freeze mage) the decisions were more important. Freeze mage (as I've seen it played), you *almost* know what card you're playing the next turn before you see what you're opponent has done, because its just following the forumla. With zoo there was the balance between controlling the board cheap while building it up; sometimes you could break for face very early; othertimes you wouldn't get to start on face until you've almost drawn your entire deck.

Is it fair to make a distinction between zoo and aggro; or do people read them as the same thing.

Yes there's a difference and idk why people think they are the same. Zoo is about keeping the board at all times and minion trading. Aggro is just everything to the face, with maybe 1 or 2 trades.

Best example I think that really shows the difference is zoo runs jaraxus and aggro rarely runs anything over 5 mana. So clearly different gameplan.

Zoo can maintain itself endgame because of lock hero power while aggro runs out of steam at like turn 6.

[AeneasBK]

Well yes, because at it's heart Zoo was/is a "board control" style. Aggro is simply vomiting your hand as fast as possible, closing your eyes, and dragging your mouse over your opponents portrait over and over until they're dead or you're out of cards and just concede.

Right .

[Blueobelisk]

Yes there's a difference [between aggro and zoo] and idk why people think they are the same. Zoo is about keeping the board at all times and minion trading. Aggro is just everything to the face, with maybe 1 or 2 trades.

What? Whattttttttt?

Zoo and aggro have the exact same playstyles: make favorite minion trades so you can maximize damage to the face. That's the playstyle for literally all non-combo decks.

It might look different because Warlocks can last a few extra turns because of the way their hero power works and how their cards are good at efficient minion trades/redrawing, but that doesn't make them non-aggro.

zoo runs jaraxus

I really really don't think you know what Zoo is.