Anyone else think that warlock is op at rush?

Posts: 7
My deck that im using is pretty much a rush deck, it takes down taunts and other minions quick with spells and buffed minions and just rush the hell out of whoever im facing and beat them down before they can get too many op cards out. So far ive played 14 games with this tactic and have only lost 2. anyone else agree that warlock is a good at strait up rushing?
Reply Quote
Posts: 255
Yeap! You can see my success story with a low mana rush deck over here: http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/10262106758

Made it to 1-start Master and going on!
Reply Quote
Posts: 38
Agree, but I'm ok with that, I mean, locks sacrifce pets and health to keep in battle. If they don't rush, warlock's playstyle is meaningless. I'm playing Priest right now, and don't hace problems with locks, of course is a luck thing too.

Regards,
Reply Quote
Posts: 654
I don't rush at all. I use a ton of taunt cards to stall and delay until I can build up enough mana to throw out Ysera. Then it's GG from there.
Reply Quote
Posts: 16
http://www.hearthpwn.com/deckbuilder/warlock#42:2;74:1;85:2;122:2;157:1;170:1;196:2;208:2;213:2;326:1;327:1;340:2;422:1;434:2;452:2;463:2;507:2;529:2;

Master 3 star warlock aggro.The discarding doesn't matter earlygame, and later on you can order your cards so that you don't actually have to discard for them.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1
Warlock rush are for noobs, sorry to say but its true. Im playing warlock rush, and im rank 12. With no skillz at all.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,352
06/06/2014 09:34 AMPosted by RasmusG
Warlock rush are for noobs, sorry to say but its true. Im playing warlock rush, and im rank 12. With no skillz at all.


Rank 12 is nothing to brag about...
Reply Quote
Posts: 17
Constructed Win Rates
Not only are Warlocks winning the game as far as the winrate is concerned, but they have almost double the representation of the next highest amount of games logged, Druids, with almost 136,000 games! Everyone just loves visiting the Zoo.

Constructed Win Rates
Warlock 52.57% 135901 Games
Shaman 51.10% 63749 Games
Warrior 50.93% 53725 Games
Druid 50.86% 83112 Games
Rogue 49.43% 71183 Games
Hunter 48.58% 60657 Games
Paladin 48.41% 44588 Games
Mage 47.64% 55230 Games
Priest 44.89% 44599 Games

took this Hearthpwn.com, I think it;s pretty much self explanatory.
makes me sick to my stomach
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,628
Submitted stats are submitted from a biased group (people registered to that particular website). It's enough that Blizzard should/is/already has look into it, but it's not conclusive, nor is the stats listed limited to Aggro or Zoo in the first place.
Edited by Tsenzei on 6/7/2014 3:19 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 17
Sure you can say it's biased due to only registered players data.
But doesn't that kind of says that one kind of person who tends to play a certain class has a higher chance of contributing to that website?

Which is the parallel you are saying it is, and I have yet to come up for a reason which could explain that.

Quite certain locks will be nerfed one way or another. And then all the mages who rerolled to hunter- all the hunters rerolled to zoo locks will have to find something new.

I guess they have a harsh environment in which they need to play 2 win. Sadly in my humble reasoning it's ruining the game.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,993
06/07/2014 03:18 AMPosted by Tsenzei
Submitted stats are submitted from a biased group (people registered to that particular website). It's enough that Blizzard should/is/already has look into it, but it's not conclusive, nor is the stats listed limited to Aggro or Zoo in the first place.


Not sure what the point of this is. The game has a clearly defined win and lose. The game is played to win.

Your chances of winning are much better as a warlock, then any other class, they have nearly every advantage. A wide array of very effective, strong and differing decks (Makes correct mulliganing for them nearly impossible. For zoolock, you need aoes, for handlock, hard removal, for rushlock, taunt, heal, pyro). No other hero type has the sheer options of a warlock, that all rank at the very top tier, and that alone is enough to put them in a substantial lead.

600k games is quite a sizable sample size and shows the trend that almost everyone else in the game is feeling, which is the warlock meta. To say or disregard the stats, citing them as biased, comes off as a large attempt to justify denial as to warlocks sheer popularity and superiority.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,628
06/07/2014 11:55 AMPosted by iAmE
06/07/2014 03:18 AMPosted by Tsenzei
Submitted stats are submitted from a biased group (people registered to that particular website). It's enough that Blizzard should/is/already has look into it, but it's not conclusive, nor is the stats listed limited to Aggro or Zoo in the first place.


Not sure what the point of this is. The game has a clearly defined win and lose. The game is played to win.


The point was responding to someone stating that these stats prove Zoo, specifically, is overpowered... but since it doesn't actually specify which decks are winning and losing (not a fault of the data gatherers, as that would be difficult to parse properly as others mentioned before) you can't come to a solid conclusion about that. It could be Warlock Aggro, or Control that's getting the best winrates overall.

You can speculate, yeah, but speculation is not the same thing as reaching a solid conclusion.

Your chances of winning are much better as a warlock, then any other class


According to a selective sample base. Again, it's enough to look into the actual stats, but it's not conclusive. It's not a "fact" but rather a strong possibility. And even if they ARE currently "better" it might be within an acceptable range (within Blizzard's eyes).

they have nearly every advantage. A wide array of very effective, strong and differing decks (Makes correct mulliganing for them nearly impossible. For zoolock, you need aoes, for handlock, hard removal, for rushlock, taunt, heal, pyro). No other hero type has the sheer options of a warlock, that all rank at the very top tier, and that alone is enough to put them in a substantial lead.


Warlock Rush isn't that good, in my opinion. Zoo is strong, but I do think that Handlock is probably the strongest. Of course this changes and shifts depending on what's popularly used. Certainly, if they all are consistently top tier, that's an issue, and should be addressed. In fact, if any single one is consistently top tier, that's an issue, and should be addressed. Depending on the severity of the issue, it could mean immediate action, or it could mean designing cards for other classes to compensate for the strengths of whatever deck/card seems to be causing the issue.

That said, I think that Rogue has as many good options (keeping in mind I don't think Rush is top tier), as does Warrior, Druid might have more options, etc. Now, those decks MIGHT not be as good as the Warlock decks (certainly Rogue has made a poor showing within this recent sample set). But that doesn't dispel the idea that Warlocks have an "unfair" advantage by having different viable deck-types that encourage different mulligans compared with many other classes.

600k games is quite a sizable sample size and shows the trend that almost everyone else in the game is feeling, which is the warlock meta. To say or disregard the stats, citing them as biased, comes off as a large attempt to justify denial as to warlocks sheer popularity and superiority.


I understand this reaction, and I am sorry if what I stated came out that way. I don't disregard the stats. I do, however, dislike attempts to interpret the stats to support a specific conclusion that isn't actually shown by those stats. "Zoo is overpowered." But it only shows Locks in general, not decks or sub-decks. "Life Tap is overpowered." But it shows a huge disparity between Constructed and Arena.

Saying that the data is conclusive also sounds like one coming off as trying to justify their feelings regarding something, when there is some room for error in the stats. Bias can be as important as sample size in determining things. It's why you, for example, can go to a poll posted on Fox News' website and get one result, and go to a poll with the exact same wording on MSNBC's website and get a completely different result, even if in both cases a large number of people responded.

Obviously, the bias for these stats is not as pronounced as that example. But it can potentially impact certain things, so there is some as yet unquantified "margin of error" to consider. I personally feel that Priest stats are low enough that a given "margin of error" would likely not erase their apparent weakness. Warlocks are getting there as well on the other end, but it still doesn't support a specific conclusion. The problem could be worse, or non-existant other than popularity concerns (less variety from people playing the same class).

For example, in the class match-ups, all of Warlock's matchups are over 50%. This is certainly concerning, but the only ones with particularly high % are Mage, Priest, and Shaman. Mage and Priest are somewhat expected, but the Shaman surprises me. Why? Shaman traditionally does very well against Zoo specifically, which means that the wins against Shaman are largely because of Handlock. Also, in spite of this, Shaman still has the second highest Constructed winrate and games played, and even maintains a relatively high win-rate in Arena.

So is Zoo really the problem? Or is Handlock what's really causing a lot of the sustained win-rate?

Most likely it's players switching between them as they get to different Rank tiers (and thus potentially different metas). But that doesn't mean that either is inherently overpowered. It simply means that the decks are good at handling what the other is weak against, in theory; so switching between them as a player senses the meta shift would allow for a universally higher matchup against classes (though obviously some of these results are still quite concerning).

That's one possible conclusion. But since I don't have the full data necessary to draw that conclusion, it's only a theory at the moment.

Either way there's a way of looking at the stats that would say that Zoo, in and of itself at least, is not really a problem. The other possibility of course being that Shaman's vaunted strength against Zoo is possibly completely innacurate, and Zoo is powering through, in which case it would very much be "a problem."

TL;DR:
The point is that there isn't enough data to make conclusions about a specific deck. We can only make observations about classes as a whole, and should keep in mind that the data is somewhat flawed due to the nature of how it was gathered. Not enough to ignore it of course, but enough to give wiggle room on what stats are "acceptable."
Reply Quote
Posts: 162
Holy !@#$ what a wall of text. I am just gonna skip most of it and point out that the data is gathered across a sufficient sample size, but the data isn't filtered in sublevels of skill. For instance gathering data from legend only would likely greatly reduce the win/lose % of locks (this is of course an assumption) due to the fact that it is generally accepted that Lock as aggro performs better at lower rank against inexperienced players.

Likewise, I don't believe for 1 sec that the Rogue has that low winrate if we filter the data appropiately. Ow and lets not forget that the data isn't able to make a differentiation between Zoo or Handlock, which also can be a major impact.

In short: data is too incomplete to make a statement.
Edited by Calculus on 6/7/2014 1:04 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,993
snip


If I do what I want to, I do believe these threads are going to get out of control extremely quickly, with huge multi posts bulleting my responses, so I'll attempt to sum up some responses.

Personally, I've reread the quote with the numbers, and I can't actually convince myself that he meant specifically zoo is the reason Warlocks are so numerous. I simply appreciate the witty comment that I really don't think holds any water.

The reason I, personally, and many others, use and despise warlock, is because you have absolutely no idea what you are going to fight against, when fighting them.

Their class synergizes so whole-heartedly with almost every flavor of deck (Where as others, do not, be that they are underpowered, or lock overpowered, the imbalance exists and will likely remain), that unlike every other class on the ladder, I cannot reliably mulligan against them.

I see a
Paladin? almost always shockadin.
Druid? Control of some sort
Rogue? Miracle.
Shaman? Usually midrange control, sometimes late.
Warrior? Control
Hunter? Midrange Control
Priest? Control
Mage? Either freeze/aoe control, or aggro
(Now, this isn't to say that this is all those classes can play, this is simply their meta deck, or the deck they play/synergize best with, at the moment)

Warlock? Murlock, aggrolock, zoolock and handlock

This is the biggest issue with Warlock. Lock decks of overwhelming variety are present at each and every tier and stage of the game. They each gain a very strong bonus of being impossible to accurately mulligan against, as each of their decks almost always require extremely different responses. Handlock isn't that exceptionally strong. Yes, it's incredibly competitive, however I notice that if the opponent mulligans correctly, it works out more evenly.

What I observe is that most people mulligan for early-aggression-lock of whatever variety, be it zoo, murl or aggro, simply because if you don't mulligan for it, it will kill you immediately. Leaving handlock at an immediate advantage.

As for aggro/zoo/murlock, this is the reason why they are scarce in legends. Everyone mulligans against them. Eventually, they will begin mulliganing against Handlock, and then the majority will be, again, zoo/aggro.

To me, this is what my experiences say, and what the numbers say. Immediately saying bias, is as biased as it is correct. It could be biased, but however, in lack of better evidence, or more evidence, it carries a significant amount of weight regardless of the source.
Edited by iAmE on 6/7/2014 5:33 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 405
Yes, It's a little op. I rarely win against them.
Reply Quote
Posts: 17
Nice post iAmE,

the heartache you get when you throw away your BGH when finding out it was a Handlock is enough for me to slam my head into a brick wall.

Oh, and a little confession: when i do meet zoo locks i make sure the game last as long as possible (pressing next turn till the last second),
that way another poor soul does not have to go through the trouble i am currently going through.

You are welcome.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,628
06/07/2014 01:02 PMPosted by Calculus
Holy !@#$ what a wall of text.


06/07/2014 05:31 PMPosted by iAmE
If I do what I want to, I do believe these threads are going to get out of control extremely quickly, with huge multi posts bulleting my responses, so I'll attempt to sum up some responses.


*blush*

I'm sorry! At least I included a TL;DR this time? (Seriously, I'm not good at succinct explanations... I used to be worse. I know, scary right?)

Personally, I've reread the quote with the numbers, and I can't actually convince myself that he meant specifically zoo is the reason Warlocks are so numerous.


He didn't, those stats were Warlock-wide, but the statements he made were stating it as if it had reflected Zoo, and he posted it to a thread complaining about Zoo and Aggro (though they are two different decks, but whatever).

A few clarifications: "biased" as in only from a specific demographic, not necessarily "biased" as in produced with an agenda in mind. Again, I can understand where you'd think I was trying to discredit the data entirely or ascribe motivation to it or something. I was only trying to remind people that it's flawed. Useful, significant, but flawed, and that that flawed data might not be fully accurate (aka: a margin of error would exist, but is unquantified at this time), and that should be kept in mind when referencing such data.

Remember also that the "Best" data is still not necessarily "good" data (though in this case I think it's mostly good, just also flawed).

Back to Mulligans:

Having multiple types of decks viable within one class isn't what is making that class strong compared to other classes with multiple viable deck-types like Mage (or in my experience, Warrior, Druid, and Rogue).

I agree some classes are currently more one-dimensional (though I think Paladin Control is better than most people give it credit for). That, however, doesn't mean that the others should ALSO be one-dimentional. I'd much rather see Shaman, Paladin, and Hunter have more popular/viable decks/deck-types. And Priest to have at least one that's actually good (I suppose Amaz' gets close but...)
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]