So I had a thought the other day and want people's feedback. I've read a lot of theoretical stuff about hearthstone over the years and one thing that has always seemed hard to define is archetypes, i.e. aggro, midrange, control and combo, along with sub-archetypes like zoo, tempo, burn etc.
So the thought I had was: what if we define archtyps based on what kind of pressure they applied to their opponents. Every successful deck focuses on trying to do something, it's not just a random selection of cards bundled together but a carefully concocted combination trying to achieve a certain goal. So considering this, I suggest defining the archetypes as thus:
Aggro: puts pressure on opponents health total, by whatever means, and seeks to limit their opponents plays by threatening lethal as early as possible. Countered by denying the means through which they apply damage or just straight up healing or otherwise mitigating that damage. Typical examples include face hunter and aggro pally
Midrange: pressures the board, threatens the enemy through accumulative damage and board resources. Countered by denying their board advantages or overwhelming them before their accumulative advantage can secure them the game. Typical examples include jade druid and beast hunter
Control: applies pressure to the opponents resources (card advantage), tries to bleed the opponent dry, while keeping their resources high, before playing their own scarce but high value cards. Countered with good resource management and consistent board pressure. Typical examples include control pally and jaina mage
Combo: everyone knows combo is a tricky one to define but by this metric it's actually pretty simple, combo puts pressure on time or, more aptly, turn count. All combo decks need to do is collect the right cards in hand to just finish the game. In order to do that they either stall, draw a ton of cards or both. Their counter is literally just applying your win condition before they get theirs. Typical examples include exodia mage and the now defunct razanduin
So just by these definitions we can see the balance between the main trifecta of deck types. Aggro applies too much pressure for midrange, which typically doesn't have room for healing or aoe, to build their board advantage. But aggro dries up against control, which in turn doesn't have enough tools to deal with midrange's consistent board synergies. Combo lies somewhere around control, trying to pressure the opponents resources somewhat but ultimately just trying to reach their own. Due to sacrificing a portion of their deck for the combo itself, they have reduced consistency against aggro and midrange in exchange for crushing other control decks
Yet that is not the full story. The sub archetypes detail alternate or secondary win conditions within the main archetypes and can pull a deck away from a pure archetypal definition. A few examples would be:
Tempo: sacrifices card advantage to accelerate other advantages like board control. Tempo mage, which I'd define as tempo-midrange, is a classic example of this. I'd also say that old ramp druid is an example of tempo control, exchanging typical control resources for an accelerated win condition.
Zoo: A midrange variant, zoo looks to use as many low-costed board centric minions it can in order tonot only take board control but also apply as much face pressure as possible. Typical examples include zoolock and murloc pally, both of which lie somewhere between aggro and midrange
Burn: not often defines an entire deck but a portion of it, it usually function as a secondary win condition in that it supports the archetype it's in (usually aggro) by removing taunts but also enables a final all-out push if the deck begins to falter. Good examples would be something like the current tempo mage but also face hunter of old, using Kill Command, Eaglehorn Bow and Quick Shot
And that's it until I get some feedback, hopefully later i can use an actual computer to type this up and expand upon it. I think there's a good chance that combo should belong in the sub-archetype section but I'd like to hear what people think. Also I believe that bit could be bigger, I'm sure there are some I'm missing
Changing how the community decides on archetypes really won't work in hearthpwn since we aren't the majority of the community. You'd need basically the entire pro team to decide to stick to the definition. Trying to work off of your own reasoning will just mean confusion if, say, a deck you deem as midrange is deemed as tempo to the community.
THAT SAID, your definition is basically how the community tends to label the archetypes for the most part. Aggro focuses on your pressuring your health (which doesn't always mean 'always face' but does mean always threatening face). Control focuses on stalling and draining until their win condition is achieved that you can't counter. Midrange pressures the board then follows up with health. Combo hunts their win condition via their cards at hand.
The sub archetypes though...ummm...
Tempo, in hearthstone, is actually NOT a subtype but an archetype in itself and is closest related to Aggro as most aggro decks tend to be 'slown' down into a tempo deck (which is why many can't see the difference between the two).
Tempo, the concept not the deck, is the drive to utilize all of your mana and all of your value. It's making sure that, at turn 3, you use all 3 of your mana directly against your opponent. for example, playing Aldor Peacekeeper to an empty board is desiring to sacrifice the value of the card (the battlecry) in order to use all 3 mana offensively and is called a 'tempo play'. A 'value play' would be hero powering instead to save the aldor for a more 'valuable' time.
Tempo decks live by this concept. it focuses on cards that are best played on curve since you won't want to sacrifice mana to hold them. It won't waste turns to draw cards or heal or the like. The goal is to be as high tempo as possible, going toe to toe when opposing decks are strong and exploit their weakness when they are weak. The second your deck does a low tempo play it snowballs its tempo into a game winning advantage.
Tempo does well against aggro as it combines the ability to fight for tempo early game with being able to outlast aggro. It also does well against combo as it's strong early tempo tears up the combo deck before it can setup. It's weak against decks that can outvalue it without dying to it's "wannabe aggro" early offensive.
zoo is.....honestly misused. Zoo is a deck. a SPECIFIC deck. It's a warlock deck designed in the same mentality of MTG's 'zoo' deck: cheap, good cards that work together to create an overwhelming front. It's key feature is that it used warlock's hero power to attack in 'waves', thus creating an aggro deck with a 'second wind'.
"Zooey" tends to refer to decks with a similar concept, the ability to play aggro but 'refill' to strike multiple times. It strattles between Tempo and aggro as it combines the desire to pressure your health at all times but CAN focus on the board thanks to its refill mechanics if necessary. It sometimess 'feels' midrange since nowadays most people expect the first two waves to be beaten then die in the midgame to it's refills.
But Midrange can't kill you at turn 4 barring insane hand vs poor hand. It's still holding you back and preparing to strike. 'Zoo' WILL kill you turn 3 if you can't wipe that first wave.
"Burn" decks are archetypes...in MTG. Thanks to the UI of the game and a lot of memes we renamed such decks as 'face' decks then just coopted the term 'burn' the way you describe. But we technically DO have this archetype, even though they aren't in vogue at the moment.
Burn*coughcough* FACE decks are an archetype of Aggro that opts to put everything into 'burn'. These are the 'face is the place' decks that ignore other minions most times effectively starting the 'race' from turn 1 and not stopping. interestingly, when you put two face decks against each other, and the opponents are good, it results in a VERY interesting trading match.
We also have Fatigue. if Face decks are Aggro decks that go extreme, Fatigue is Control in the extreme. Control decks have a win condition (which tends to feel like a combo of some type which is why people get confused over what 'combo' is. The differences is that Combo is impatient while Control is willing to wait). Fatigue, at BEST, uses fatigue to kill you. In many cases, it doesn't even care to do that and technically 'doesn't have a direct win condition: it wins when you stop being able to kill it.