Just out of curiosity, why is it a problem that control decks aren't high on the meta? I understand that all classes should be viable for the fun factor but why a certain deck make up?
Why does Garrosh have a Hitler mustache?
Thank you! I'm still learning deck craft.
Still waiting for the next hero portraits to be released or even presented.
This "problem" presupposes that control decks have an equal right to dominance with other deck archetypes -- a faulty supposition. A "healthy meta" shouldn't necessarily be neatly split -- some deck archetypes are inherently unfun and bad for the game, as any Magic player can attest: Mill Decks are set up to play around what your opponent is trying to do, rather than against it, and setup a win condition that punishes opponents for drawing cards and against which there is no effective defense. Hearthstone has enabled mill decks, but at such a handicap that they must reckon with board state -- they must play against their opponent.Combo Decks thrive on getting by until a rapid succession of plays makes the board state irredeemable. Experientially, the opponent goes from winning to lost in the space of one turn, with scarcely any ability to respond. In the case of Patron Warrior, this feel-bad loss was compounded in that a winning board state often strengthened the combo. This no-right-answer situation is the goal of a combo deck as it nears perfection, and was rightly disassembled, as no one wants to be in the situation where a combo deck is making their shiny new deck idea extinct (Flame On!).Combos are what drive CCG collections and deck design, and need to be the core of the competitive scene in order for there to be variety. When a combo deck eliminates interaction or undermines effective counterplay, it needs to be put down.Control Decks are swell in that they can efficiently answer a variety of threats with flexibility and from a position of apparent weakness; this is why Blue is so dominant. They are less swell when they cross that threshold into cancelling the whole breadth of what your opponent can do with greater stamina than them, or without a commensurate reduction in threat output. No one is itching to be in fatigue against an opponent at full life and with full board control knowing full well that there isn't anything you could have done differently to have changed the outcome. That is the effect of strengthening control, and is most assuredly bad for the game.
One issue I have with the video is that it seems to come from the assumption that there ought to be a "control" option for each of the nine hero classes. Every class is different, and will lend itself to a few specific deck types. Yes, you can play a control-oriented deck in pretty much any class, but they're not going to all be equally viable. I've personally had good results from a control hunter (utilizing cards like , , and the new , for instance), but each class will play differently, and so different archetypes will work better in some than in others.
if the video would explain card advantage with regards to agro, midrange, and control decks it might help people understand why there should be more than just agro and midrange decks.