Hearthpwn

Anything that gets me to the serious players faster, by all means, everyone else should definitely use this app.

That being said and meant, the belief that there are polarized matchups that create insurmountable odds against winning with certain decks is just not true in the current meta.  I just got thru with over a 1000 games of data gathering playing Silas Warrior, and if that deck isn't polarized enough to not be able to maintain a winning or close to winning rate against all of the favorites of this meta, I seriously doubt you're going to find many decks that are.

But, if plenty of people believe the claims without figuring it out for themselves OR are just not good enough players to squeeze out the best possible winrate from the decks they play, by all means, concede away.

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Anything that gets me to the serious players faster, by all means, everyone else should definitely use this app.

That being said and meant, the belief that there are polarized matchups that create insurmountable odds against winning with certain decks is just not true in the current meta.  I just got thru with over a 1000 games of data gathering playing Silas Warrior, and if that deck isn't polarized enough to not be able to maintain a winning or close to winning rate against all of the favorites of this meta, I seriously doubt you're going to find many decks that are.

But, if plenty of people believe the claims without figuring it out for themselves OR are just not good enough players to squeeze out the best possible winrate from the decks they play, by all means, concede away.

As I said before, by polarized I don't mean unwinnable (there's no such thing in this game), but rather unfun, boring and luck-based matchups. For example, I was testing my anti-aggro Control Warlock with more early and mid game options, but without Tickatus, Y'Shaarj and Strongmans. Deck was indeed performing pretty good against aggro and tempo (13/1 vs Paladin, 9/2 vs Hunter, 6/0 vs Warrior, 4/1 vs Rogue in D5), but also very poorly against NM Mage, Control Priest and obviously Control Warlock. Because how can non-tempo and non-value deck without Tickatus, beat a deck with two Tickatus (and sometimes Envoy on top of them)? Only with a great deal of luck, which can happen maybe in 1 out of 20 games and I think it's not even worth my time (also because those games are usually very long and boring). It was easier for me, to just "skip" these and use saved time to beat 2-3 Paladins instead.

Regardless of what you mean by it, the word "polarized" has a meaning that does not include unfun or boring.  I'm sure there's a high correlation between polarized and unfun to most folks, but "polarized" describes winrates and the likelihood that a match is predominately decided by nothing more than the deck choices alone.

And as I said, there just aren't any matchups that fit that definition in the current matchup.  There are a bunch of folks who SAY that the meta is highly polarized, but that don't make it so.

I can't speak to your homebrew, but on the subject of the Tick within the meta, everyone claims that Priest is utterly hopeless against the Tick, and the reality is it just ain't so.  Mind you, every deck is going to have matches that are unfavorable, but a 60/40 match is not polarized, and if someone wants to concede because they find a match boring or unfun, or they have an issue with their deck having a match or two in which it is the underdog, by all means, concede away.

@Shadowrisen

Priest can tech against Lock, e.g. using Educated Elekk, but my Control Warlock can't, besides using Tickatus and Y'Shaarj himself, yet cutting them was the whole point of the deck. Unfortunately, Warlock is no Paladin nor Warrior, and he can't have a deck with decent chances against most of the meta decks. To beat one, he has to sacrifice some other matchups.