aggro decks are just no brain

[Deleted]

i was just playing an hearthstone deck and i faced an aggro/secret hunter, i didn't get any hard aoe removal and was crushed in a few turns.
playing this kind of deck is sad because playing aggro stuff doesn't require much attention, you just vomit the board with random cards and crush your opponent with a few removals.
control and midrange decks are fine and funny to play with and against but aggro... they are too easy to be part of a game that want to be competitive in any enviroment.
so, any thought from the community? xcept the usuals "learn to play against them" i already know how to counter them with the right decks but somehow i feel like those kind of no brain deck limits the potential ideas of the community about the cards that can be used in a deck^^

[Blueobelisk]

Aggro will always be popular. Always. They're the cheapest decks to make. Not everyone can afford wallet warrior.

Sounds like the decks you have ideas about need to work against the meta better.

[Mormolyce]

Aggro decks have the innate advantage of running faster games: if you had to pick between an aggro and a control deck with the exact same winrate, you'd always be incentivised to pick the aggro deck as it results in more games/hr and therefore you'll rank faster.

They are also intrinsically more consistent as you'll rarely have the problem of drawing all your high cost cards in your opening hand. Because you have few if any high cost cards.

They're also easier to play, and thanks to the way Blizzard uses card quality, typically cheaper too.

Frankly I think that to deal with the aggro problem properly Blizzard would need to look at either a massive suite of nerfs or some serious changes to the way they design the game.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

I couldn't disagree more.

[PPN]

Aggro decks are just a normal part of the game to make the meta somehow balanced or interesting. But its for sure that they are attractive to zero skillers. Its also obvious when you see how much aggro players use the emote system to piss you off.

[Pantalaimon]

Aggro decks are just a normal part of the game to make the meta somehow balanced or interesting. But its for sure that they are attractive to zero skillers. Its also obvious when you see how much aggro players use the emote system to piss you off.

Eh, I see almost as many control priests and warriors emote spam as well. It is more of a player mindset in general than one that is specifically tied to aggro players. For example, chances are very high you are going to get a spammed with a "Thank You" when a priest entombs something good of yours.

OP you also need to consider how the existence of at least some consistent aggro decks is also needed for the game. Way too many people have this odd perspective where they think that aggro does nothing but hurt the game, stagnating it even, but don't even look at what would happen to the game if it was more or less just populated with control. The best 2, maybe 3, control decks would simply fill the late game role that aggro does now. Those players who could afford the most expenesive and effective control decks would have more turns that gave the player easier and cheaper answers to control the game, and there certainly would be no brain-turns. Take warrior for an example, if you are using some variant of N'Zoth control deck and you are facing a warrior then the no brain turn for the warrior is to simply sit on Brawl until you have board flooded. Even though Priest isn't fairing so well it even still has no brain-turns. A priest that is going against a control or midrange paladin or a control warrior will most likely sit on both Entombs for a no brain-target (ie Rag(s), Syl, Tyrion, maybe Grom). Control has its own brain dead plays & if Blizzard got rid of aggro you would simply see the game shift from a game centered on brain dead games based on BiS turn 1-4 plays & instead see BiS turn 6-10 plays with the same few decks. In the end very little would change.

Aggro at least somewhat differentiates the game pool by segmenting potential opponents into 'overused aggro decks' and 'overused control/midrange decks' because it forces some of your games to be decided quickly. Without them you would just get what I mentioned above.

[Mormolyce]

I think the current problem is that when Blizzard makes a spell card, it's priced for minion removal but by default it can go face, unless they specifically make it otherwise (like Flame Lance). So it's very easy to tip aggro decks over into OP territory when you can fill your deck with 30 or more nigh-unpreventable face damage from basic cards alone. Eg Frost Bolt, Lightning Bolt and Quick Shot are amazing cards for minion control, and are appropriately priced as such, why the hell do they need to be able to go face? They're great early game cards, the fact that they double as a way to close in the late game makes them auto-includes in almost every deck.

If basic minion removal spells were minion-only then something like aggro Shaman would never have gotten so out of control. Similarly Kill Command's egregious ability to hit face (on a class with a million ways to go face) is one of the reasons face Hunter can never truly die out.

Some spells should still go face as it's clearly part of their intended function, eg Pyroblast (which is appropriately priced for face damage). But IMO, by default direct damage spells should only affect minions and the ability to go face should be the exception rather than the rule.

[Mahourai]

If you don't like aggressive, minion-focused decks I would recommend not playing Hearthstone. Playing guys and attacking with them is quite literally the point of Hearthstone.

[Racthoh]

not all aggro decks are auto pilot, but hunter is probably the best example of dropping your curve while the deck plays itself.

[Pantalaimon]

If you don't like aggressive, minion-focused decks I would recommend not playing Hearthstone. Playing guys and attacking with them is quite literally the point of Hearthstone.

That point can be flipped on its head though. Control and midrange decks are also often about minions attacking, the difference being you are actually engaging in minion trading when attacking instead of ignoring that aspect of the game almost exclusively by going face. If anything mindrange and control decks are closer to what the initial design of HS was all about, having a mini army of minions battling it out under the 'commander' being your hero, while the occasional minion attack/spell/weapon breaches that line of minions to go face. I have a strong feeling aggro decks weren't meant to be the central core of the game in the original design, otherwise it was mostly meaningless to have mana limits and deck sizes as big as they are (ie 10 mana & 30 cards respectively).

[Mahourai]

Many of the aggro decks people complain about are "midrange", though. Face hunter hasn't been good in about a year, the hunter builds are very much midrange and dependent on lategame spells like Call of the Wild. Aggro shaman is less popular than the midrange variant. Zoo Warlock has never been a pure face deck and finds board control to be quite important. Dragon Warrior - which has quite a high end curve even for a "midrange" deck - is much more powerful and popular than pure face lists.

[Pantalaimon]

I think the current problem is that when Blizzard makes a spell card, it's priced for minion removal but by default it can go face, unless they specifically make it otherwise (like Flame Lance). So it's very easy to tip aggro decks over into OP territory when you can fill your deck with 30 or more nigh-unpreventable face damage from basic cards alone. Eg Frost Bolt, Lightning Bolt and Quick Shot are amazing cards for minion control, and are appropriately priced as such, why the hell do they need to be able to go face? They're great early game cards, the fact that they double as a way to close in the late game makes them auto-includes in almost every deck.

If basic minion removal spells were minion-only then something like aggro Shaman would never have gotten so out of control. Similarly Kill Command's egregious ability to hit face (on a class with a million ways to go face) is one of the reasons face Hunter can never truly die out.

Some spells should still go face as it's clearly part of their intended function, eg Pyroblast (which is appropriately priced for face damage). But IMO, by default direct damage spells should only affect minions and the ability to go face should be the exception rather than the rule.

I think spells being able to go face has a purpose, though I do agree in their current form it is rediculous. Imo that purpose lies in being able to pressure a player in a while that isn't solely focused on who wins the efficient minion trading & board control game. Let's be honest, if we suddenly made everything like Frostbolt/Fireball/Kill Command/etc not be able to go face you would see a large portion of competitive heroes simply drop off the map because without the ability to pressure the face with smaller minions & spells the decks would absolutely fail the opposition that decks like Warrior, Zoo, and even Paladin have. I feel that without those types of spells the game would quickly turn into one of those games that is won almost as soon as you win the board and/or set up a taunt wall. Expecting mages and other heroes to not be able to hit face until a turn 10 Pyroblast equivalent after having already lost the board for 4+ turns ususally wouldn't be enough to win the game even with that single 10 damage face hit.

I think a more reasonable option would be to either increase spells that act both as removal & face damage by one mana generally (thus slowing down the rate at which games can be closed from hand-to-face playstyles), or make spells that act as removal & face damage do their normal damage to minions, but decrease the face damage most of them do by one damage. That way the removal component of spells stays the same but it nerfs the aggro aspect of it without removing it or making it be a completely unviable strategy. Either way it still allows players to catch up and win games in a method other than controlling the board everytime while still slowing the face assault down.

[Mormolyce]

I think spells being able to go face has a purpose, though I do agree in their current form it is rediculous. Imo that purpose lies in being able to pressure a player in a while that isn't solely focused on who wins the efficient minion trading & board control game. Let's be honest, if we suddenly made everything like Frostbolt/Fireball/Kill Command/etc not be able to go face you would see a large portion of competitive heroes simply drop off the map because without the ability to pressure the face with smaller minions & spells the decks would absolutely fail the opposition that decks like Warrior, Zoo, and even Paladin have. I feel that without those types of spells the game would quickly turn into one of those games that is won almost as soon as you win the board and/or set up a taunt wall. Expecting mages and other heroes to not be able to hit face until a turn 10 Pyroblast equivalent after having already lost the board for 4+ turns ususally wouldn't be enough to win the game even with that single 10 damage face hit.

I think a more reasonable option would be to either increase spells that act both as removal & face damage by one mana generally (thus slowing down the rate at which games can be closed from hand-to-face playstyles), or make spells that act as removal & face damage do their normal damage to minions, but decrease the face damage most of them do by one damage. That way the removal component of spells stays the same but it nerfs the aggro aspect of it without removing it or making it be a completely unviable strategy. Either way it still allows players to catch up and win games in a method other than controlling the board everytime while still slowing the face assault down.

I dunno about that, I think if they made many spells unable to hit face they could actually safely buff some of the removal cards should big boards become a problem. Also, the decks that would become unviable are for the most part the highly aggressive decks that suppress the viability of many experimental decks, so if they're out of the meta IMO more decks would step in than step out, increasing overall diversity.

I actually think that would be more effective than increasing the price on removal cards. I think a 3 mana frostbolt would actually make Mages super vulnerable to aggressive board presence decks, for example - those cards are necessary to slow down the early game which is why they never really get nerfed and are so problematic.

Face will always have a place, it's just intrinsically so good that even if its win rate was sub-meta levels it'd likely still be played. Sometimes you just get such a strong opener the opponent can't recover regardless of how good their deck is.

Another thing is that a lot of the main offenders are in the basic set. If they were minion only, Blizzard could choose to add face-possible equivalents (or near equivalents) in expansions, where their ability to distort game balance is limited. For example if Frostbolt and Fireball couldn't go face, Forgotten Torch would've been a lot less ridiculous (I have absolutely no idea what they were thinking with that card).

[minteK917]

Just need to have the roll out soon so shaman can just die. Problem with people and their definition in heartstone is that at this point every mid range deck is what magic would consider a zoo deck and a rush deck. Brainless minion spam that plays itself out. The next expansions just needs to not power creep stupid stuff like inspire thunderbluff valiant and stupid shit like that to fills your board with threats you never had to play to begin with. Instead just work off the core set and give stuff to the classes that were lacking before.

Discover, inspire minions like tb valiant, etc just needs to not exist. Over budget cards like 4 mana 7/7. Stupid stuff like Trogg + totem golem. Things from bellow.

[Pantalaimon]

Just need to have the roll out soon so shaman can just die. Problem with people and their definition in heartstone is that at this point every mid range deck is what magic would consider a zoo deck and a rush deck. Brainless minion spam that plays itself out. The next expansions just needs to not power creep stupid stuff like inspire thunderbluff valiant and stupid shit like that to fills your board with threats you never had to play to begin with. Instead just work off the core set and give stuff to the classes that were lacking before.

Discover, inspire minions like tb valiant, etc just needs to not exist. Over budget cards like 4 mana 7/7. Stupid stuff like Trogg + totem golem. Things from bellow.

Not all of those cards are broken or even OP though. You need to have board control to even make TB Valiant work beyond one turn & it can't even be used until the late mid game. The purpose isn't to kill the entire class, but to curb the effectiveness and overabundance of aggro shaman.

I also think getting rid of discovery mechanics to be naive and limiting as to what the game can do. If you never allow any curve balls to be thrown with any given card (such as what discover can do) then you're just stuck with a game where everyone knows 25+ of the cards their opponent is using. That is an extremely limited and bland way to play the game.

Personally I think you're just hating on all of the cards or mechanics that personally have screwed you over. I admit that things like Faceless are big value plays that shouldn't be repeated often, but as I mentioned above many of the other cards aren't awful by themselves. Either tone down aggro a little or just allow us to have Belcher/Healbot like cards again so classes like rogue, warlock, and hunter can actually have a better chance to respond to aggressive plays outside of Reno or simply killing the other dude faster.

[minteK917]

I also think getting rid of discovery mechanics to be naive and limiting as to what the game can do. If you never allow any curve balls to be thrown with any given card (such as what discover can do) then you're just stuck with a game where everyone knows 25+ of the cards their opponent is using. That is an extremely limited and bland way to play the game.

No thats just because they lack actual idea to make more cards with more different mechanics. So instead of making new interesting cards, they make stupid mechanic that gives you random cards that already exist so your oppenent can not know if he instantly lost the game based on what you randomly picked up. Discover should have only been in your own deck period. It was a stupid idea, just like yogg is a stupid idea. If they dont want you to know whats in every deck you play against, make more different archetypes of all class actually good so that not 1/3 out of a ladder of 9 class are all shamans or all warrior or all paladins at any given time with the exact same copy pasta deck. Discover, minion portal, is the most retarded idea of a band aid fix for shit balance.

[Pantalaimon]

No thats just because they lack actual idea to make more cards with more different mechanics. So instead of making new interesting cards, they make stupid mechanic that gives you random cards that already exist so your oppenent can not know if he instantly lost the game based on what you randomly picked up. Discover should have only been in your own deck period. It was a stupid idea, just like yogg is a stupid idea. If they dont want you to know whats in every deck you play against, make more different archetypes of all class actually good so that not 1/3 out of a ladder of 9 class are all shamans or all warrior or all paladins at any given time with the exact same copy pasta deck. Discover, minion portal, is the most retarded idea of a band aid fix for shit balance.

And yet strangely, discover isn't what makes any of those decks good. In all reality discover will rarely be the deciding factor of a deck consistently winning. Hitting random mechanics or less complained about cards isn't going to 'fix' HS balance.

And Blizzard doesn't want to make a ton of mechanics because atm their philosophy is that they don't want the game to feel overwhelming for new players, so making more mechanics to fix things is temporarily off the table. If they changed discover (which honestly doesn't need any change) to only choose from your deck there would still be people like you who complain about it. If it simply sniped for cards in your deck people would whine, if it added a copy of a card only found in your deck people would complain about good cards going beyond the 1-2 card limit meant to be in that deck.

[FobManX]

The core mechanics of Hearthstone just favor aggro decks too much. Its a numbers game. Aggro decks are more likely to curve out then a non aggro(aka control) deck will. Also, there are a lot more minions than removal spells, and removal spells for the most part are less efficient. For example I play a 2 drop, you spend 2 mana to remove it, I still have board initiative.

I personally find aggro decks to be boring as hell and only play them if I want to quickly knock out a daily quest or two. I don't mind them being a factor in low ranked play but the fact that people can just run Zoo or Aggro Hunter/Mage/Warrior to high Legend is pretty frustrating. You end up not even playing a game as its just autoplaying and if you curve out 1-2-3 you win 90% of the time.

[patseguin]

I know what the OP means. I really despise constantly facing that same low cost warlock deck that just drops any random minion(s) in their hand and just go face with no strategy whatsoever.

[Mormolyce]

I know what the OP means. I really despise constantly facing that same low cost warlock deck that just drops any random minion(s) in their hand and just go face with no strategy whatsoever.

Zoo decks? If they go face then they aren't playing properly. Zoo is about board control first and foremost.

Frankly zoo lock will always be around, but it'd be a bit less egregious if Blizzard would finally do something about the excessive power of a lot of cheap cards.