Has Aggro Become Too Strong?

Ok, to preface, I haven't been playing Hearthstone more than about a year. I started shortly after Boomsday released so I'm not familiar with a lot of the older broken and ridiculous decks that have come and gone. That being said, I really feel like the meta over the last several sets has increasingly given Aggro more and more tools whiles starving Control decks for answers to those tools. When I first started, I stuck with the Mage deck after the tutorial. I played other classes, but Mage became my favorite. And of course, Big Spell Mage was a powerful force at that time. It was a fun and interesting deck that I really enjoyed as it challenged me to find answers to my opponents' board state, but also contained enough tools to handle most anything. The two areas it faltered, was of course, OTK's and extremely aggressive decks when you had poor draw.

So I really, really like Control decks. I like to run more than half my deck and hell, I'm all for going to fatigue. I want to spend time playing a game. I want to feel like the moves I make, the timing in which I play my cards is critical to whether I win or lose. Forgetting Shaman for the moment, the last couple of expansions has seemed to give Aggro decks so many tools for summoning wide and/or tall boards that there are almost no control decks that can keep up any more. Hunter in particular has been one of those. The current iteration of Quest Hunter basically punishes any deck that either can't beat them down fast, or clear a board full of small minions ever single turn. Paladin has been that way too. They snowball so fast, that you really have little option in terms of counters if they have a decent draw. Rush Warrior has been crazy with all the  rush minions, and Pirate Warrior looks to be so much worse. Rogue has always excelled at keeping their hand filled, and going face again and again while controlling the board with spells and minion effects. Warlock is the traditional board flood/zoo class, and even they are having a hard time keeping up with all the minion generating and Mana cheating effects given to other classes of late. 

I'm just at the point I'm tired of so many of my games being decided by turn four or five. I'm tired of broken decks with little or no interaction. I want to feel like I actually have a chance when I queue up with a slower deck. Maybe I'm just not that good a player, but I'd like to think as much time and money as I've invested into Hearthstone that I'm at least halfway decent.

Anyway, end of rant. What are your thoughts? Does control have any real chance in the current state of the game? Or is Aggro the only real way to go any more? (Shaman not withstanding.)

I totally agree and relate with you. I hate aggro so much and I despise how classes like mage and rogue just have such a disadvantage because the class literally has no good heal outside of zilliax. It’s crazy how those two classes can get rushed down so much just because it’s part of the class ‘identity’ not to have taunt or heal.

I can sympathise with what you are saying, but the fact is that Rogue has historically had some of the best early game tools at its disposal that can fend off all but the most brutally aggressive starts. Most Rogue builds these days focus on value generation and combos rather than building an early game board- few classes can compete with the tempo that rogue can generate with backstab/ si/ dagger/ vendetta/ edwin etc. Rogue and mage (along with priest) are my most played classes, and I completely understand why they are so limited with healing/taunt. A rogue with access to healing tailored to the class identity would be pretty terrifying. Think about the nightmare that was the prenerf leeching poison/ kingsbane combo. Every class needs to be vulnerable in certain areas while excelling in others.

I’d say that there are way too many ways for aggro decks to refill the board now. After the first wave, cards like Faceless Hoerupptor immediately create large tempo swings while leaving behind big bodies. Our good removals usually come at turns 7/8 and if you somehow reach that stage, well good luck dealing with 4 8/8 rush dudes after expiring all your removal..

I definitely think that aggro has become stronger over the time. The overall power level of cards has risen throughout the expansions, I feel that not only the early game and aggressive cards got stronger, but also the late game value cards(like dq alex), but since they didn't really print strong early game aoe recently(miss you defile) and you still start with 30health, it is way harder to keep up if you want to survive and reach the late game.

When I first saw that new hellfire-drake for warlock I thought surely this will help controllock have a comeback, and sure a couple of expansions ago hellfire on a stick would have been nuts. But what could is 3dmg aoe if you're opponent plays 10/8 rush or 10/12 taunt or 11/11 chargers on turn 5 or 6? I feel there is just too many ways to create crazy boards in the early or mid game or alternatively, like in token or questhunter, to many ways to create small boards throughout the whole game.

The bad news is, that in my opinion the design team wants it this way. It is in the way the game is made, since you can't block you attackers(only indirectly by playing taunts) the aggressor will always be in favor in hearthstone since they control the action. Plus in metas when we actually had valuable control decks, people complain alot about how boring the game had become, how they don't want to play 8hour control mirrors etc. I think most players prefer a quick 5 minute game on the toilet to a intense 20 minute resource battle between two control decks.

So in conclusion I totally agree with op and I don't see much hope in the future. I mean control decks are still kind of viable, as long as you have crazy big swing turns available (like most of the highlander decks do), but classic control like in the old days might be dead(for now at least). 

How quickly people forget that we had a Dr. Boom, Mad Genius meta earlier this year. Where aggro decks basically pressed the concede button the second they saw that their opponent was Magni/Garrosh.

The meta always gravitates towards more aggressive decks because those are far more efficient at laddering. That's just how the system works. That doesn't mean control is in a bad spot.

Hell, if Necrium Apothecary gets nerfed as well with the upcoming update, I'm pretty sure highlander mage (a control deck through and through) will become one of the top dogs.

Card Generation, Undercosted Rush, and Archivist Elysiana killed the Control Archetype.

Control is Giga-dead. Control Players love for Control Decks is not though.

Good job losing players Blizzard, they will slowly drift to MTG Arena or Legends of Runeterra.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "aggro", but I would argue that true aggro has been very weak for most of the past year. Other than divine spirit inner fire priest, most of the top aggressive decks have slow starts and crazy power spikes in mid and late game(Conjurer mage, Galakrond/quest shaman, Beast hunter, etc.). For a large part of last year, the only deck running one-drops was Control Warrior. DoD has enabled/revived some of the more aggressive archetypes but I'd still say midrange decks that can generate oodles of value are dominating the meta, not aggro.

Usually, at this point of the year, Control gets their hot decks. Aggro should be the strongest during the first expansion each year as it is much harder for other decks to keep the board in check. (Boardclears are only getting added step by step)

However as other people already pointed out: There are way to many pseudo-infinite value generators at the moment plus several viable midrangey decks (I'd count Shaman for this purpose) to keep Control in check. Hence Aggro *could* still play to their hearts content.

Just wait for the next cycle and then feel free to complain about a true aggro meta. ^^

You can think from another point of view 

The rush minions and other endless sources of value stuff can be used as a control tool!

The good old days of just removing your opponent board until they give up on fatigue is just gone, man... we have to deal with it. I like control decks too, but I have adapted in this way above. It feels better. 

Also, you still have small chances of these archetypes to emerge when the sets rotate (like when we has control warrior in the beginning of this year).

And if you like playing wild, like me, this is even worse. I mean, your control deck MUST have some sort of wanna-be combo finisher, otherwise, you'll eventually die. Forget about Jaina DK, dead man's hand, etc...

Thing is, most people don't like long matches... they play on mobile and like to solve the battle in a few minutes (I'm not complaining, just guessing what the reason might be).

Well, historically only few classes are actually capable of building solid Control decks.

So you can't expect Hunter or Rogue to build Control decks: it's going to be Midrange at best.

Other classes have Control builds on cyclical terms, like Mage and Warlock.

So, if you are not playing them, you are bound to build Tempo decks that attempt to fight toe-to-toe against Aggro, without expecting to sit on a big hand while clearing the board every turn.

But it's always been this way (or worse, with unnerfed PW and Face Hunter). On the other hand, the nerf to CW is pretty recent still.

Finally, Control decks are the hardest to refine after an expansion release. Even moreso if given expansion includes broken stuff to be nerfed 1 week from release...

aggro hasn't even been a thing for the last few expansions. Sure, we got some tempo decks that tried to outpace you and shut you down before you got going, but true aggro? no.

Right now we actually have a resurgence with Face Hunter, which is an actual old school aggro deck that avoids trading as much as possible and just punches you in the face repeatedly.

Control has actually been pretty damn good in the last year. Control Warrior dominated an entire meta and stuff like Highlander Mage and Quest Druid (which is at least a slow deck) were also present.

In fact, I'd say the past meta was way too slow and is only now picking up the pace (as seen by the fact that Quest Druid is almost unplayable now).

I agree that the meta is very Aggro-focused now, but we've had impactful Control decks like Control Warrior and Highlander Mage and Combo decks like Murlocadin and Holy Wrath Paladin just this year.

Before nerfs and rotation, we had broken Control and Combo Odd and Even decks, Druidstone with Mecha'thun Druid, Taunt Druid, and Ramp Druid, and even a surprise surge of Kingsbane Rogue and old Quest Rogue.

After nerfs, Midrange Hunter was a top deck.

The meta evolves with what cards are introduced and which ones are nerfed. I've been playing since the start of Kobolds and Catacombs and Control and Combo decks like Cubelock and Razakus Priest were as oppresive as Shaman is today. Because of the grindy nature of laddering, people might want to rank up as fast as they can and Aggro decks are the best way to do that. Hopefully the 35 cards they're releasing with the solo adventures will give Control and Combo decks a spotlight in the current meta as well.

Aggro decks are defined by their speed not by being all about the face... In the last meta rogue and rush warrior were definetly aggro decks as well as any zoo deck they are aggro.. 

The fact that people associate aggro as going face all the time is misleading. 

Much like a lot of people in this thread already, I heavily disagree with the OP. Aggressive decks have, if anything, been on the weak side for some considerable time now. They are, as iWatchUSleep correctly notes, favoured on ladder because faster games means faster ranking. Despite that, we're only really seeing an aggressive meta now, after several late-game-centric expansions, because Galakrond Shaman (which I personally would class a midrange deck) is eating the Control players. 

And realistically, that's all aggressive decks are doing right now - countering Shaman. They're not really any stronger now than they were last expansion (relative to their competition), they're just in a more favourable position in the metagame. 

A further note, though, on the few people who have posted saying they 'hate aggro'. I don't want to be mean here, but I think it needs to be said - you are wrong. Yes, I'm aware it's an opinion. It's still wrong. Aggressive decks exist to keep players honest. As soon as they're not a part of the meta, the game becomes a dull, irritating stalemate of value generation after value generation, wherein both players spend 20 turns playing cards but don't actually progress the gamestate at all (see: Dr Boom meta recently). 

If you're playing control and regularly losing to aggro, you're either building or playing control badly. Under normal conditions, aggro decks are a gift to Control - your entire deck revolves around shutting down boardstates, and that's where aggressive decks in Hearthstone get their damage from (notwithstanding rare exceptions like the Pirate Warrior days). There's an article series on here (I forget the name) looking at various deck archetypes and, while a simplification, it does note the general tendency for deck winrates - Aggro > Midrange > Control > Aggro.  Control loses to tempo, not aggression.

[ Generalisation]People who say they hate aggro are the same people who complain about netdecking. People who don't actually understand, or care about, a strong or healthy meta. They want to be left alone to play solitaire to do whatever weird thing they decided to make a deck to do, and are upset that they can't do so because hey, their opponent is trying to actually win. And while I have no issue with people wanting to build weird decks and have fun with them, I do take issue when those people complain that they can't do that in high-level ranked ladder. [ /Generalisation]

Sorry for the rant, but yeah. It's one of those comments that gets sprayed a lot by people who don't really know what they're asking for, and who'd complain a lot if they ever actually got their wish.

I usually feel a little bothered when its said aggro provides little to no interaction while ignoring that some control decks are the slow version of supposed little to no interaction in their own class. What is the difference between being a slow deck and losing quickly against an overtuned aggressive deck and being a 'weaker' control deck against a better one that has more removal, more threats, and more overall value engines? Either way you're facing a deck that feels like an uphill battle.

In your OP you mention that you felt the game failed when it came to OTKs and hyper aggressive decks existing. The fact of the matter is that HS is not only about control archtypes where you min max value minion trades and endless removal. Other games like MtG and Yu-Gi-Oh both have valid strategies that don't just removal around this grindy control style to varying degrees so why shouldn't HS also have these, especially this 'late' into the game's life?

It should also be noted that the entire concept of T5 trying to pigeonhole the classes into "themed" (restricted) strategies and cards it means that if you punish aggro too much it leaves a good third of other classes without valid control options each meta for the very fact that T5 intentionally does not give certain classes control tools all that often. What ends up happening then is you get classes like rogue and hunter that aren't given control tools each meta and then their only option (usually aggro/midrange/tempo) just continually gets nerfed because people feel aggro should not have as strong of a place in the game as control. So basically the T5 established control classes don't usually get nerfed because they are not often based around aggro, while the non-control classes do get nerfed more often, not always because aggro has become too strong but because the vocal minority simply doesn't like aggro and complain to get it nerfed as the non-legitimate strat in their eyes.

Ok, despite several suggestions to the contrary, I do not hate aggro. It is not my favorite archetype, but I do on occasion play an aggro deck and do enjoy it. My original post wasn't a cry to do away with or nerf aggro into oblivion, I was merely pointing out that the tools that aggro has received over the past couple of expansions seemed to make it possible for an aggro deck to consistently overpower most control decks. I'm well aware that the meta is delicately balanced between the three pillars of aggro, OTK, and control. It is basically a rock/paper/scissors system with RNG and player ability keeping it from being as cut and dried as that. The problem as I was seeing it, was that rock was suddenly beating paper more often than not. That creates an imbalance in the whole system and naturally everyone begins playing the archetype that is experiencing the power boost. 

Now, I will be the first to admit that I probably jumped the gun a bit. My attempts at deck building were doubtless poorly refined and the meta had shifted strong aggro to counter Galakrond Shaman. Despite my attempts to fashion a control deck capable of dealing with the sudden burst of aggro and hold its own against Galakrond Shaman, I was failing miserably on both parts. The takeaway being that Shaman was just too powerful at the time and my attempts to run control against it were futile, and trying to split my focus gave me a poorer matchup against aggro. I can see that now that the nerfs have hit and the meta has settled down. I was mostly just frustrated at the time because none of the games I was facing were going in my favor despite my best attempts.

I still think, however, that aggro is a bit too strong. There are several Aggro, Mid-range and Tempo decks being run now, but there is very little in the way of either Control or OTK in the current meta because they lack the tools to hold out against all the  strong board-centric and face decks being run. Sorry for the long post, but my ultimate point is this; true control and OTK decks have largely been pushed out of the meta by the strength of more aggressive decks.

Aggro decks going tall and wide is usually how they play. Without this, then its a face deck, trying to outlast your enemy instead of gaining tempo.

I don't think there's an influx of cards that gives more tools to aggro decks while giving control the cold shoulder. Its a pretty mixed bag, that really depends on how you build your deck against certain archetypes and in some cases, specific decks.

Control is not being poorly represented in the meta right now. Quest priest is in the 1-2 tiers right now, and its a control deck through and through. Control warrior still beats most aggro decks (but losses to highlanders, and thats high up the meta currently). The problem is that not every class can play control, so it gives an illusion that not enough cards are printed to support control decks.

 I made a thread related to this one but more about general tempo but I feel the answer is the same. Imo The tempo of the game has increased to better suit the mobile market.

The tempo increase  is mainly found through synergies and auto construct decks and one card game winners. A few examples of those cards maybe zephyrs and chef nomi. I hate super slow metas but until they reduce the tempo Eso is taking all my money instead