Hearthpwn

There's a huge difference between 5%, 20% and 40% winrate. But the whole concept of win rates is actually misguided - if the mmr system was functional at all, it wouldn't be possible to play with 20% win rate.

Laddering effectively with a bad deck should be impossible, but that doesn't contradict my claims, it supports them. What the community needs to realize is that climbing the ladder isn't by default a positive thing: if someone has a 20% wr, the best thing the game can do for them is drop their rank and fast so that they get matched up with people with equally bad decks (although this contradicts the design of the reward system).

But ok, the meta and balance are linked to the design of the ladder, mmr, and reward systems, but we know none of the latter are getting fixed so let's focus just on the meta. We know there's an ongoing issue where new players get matched up with players with better decks way too fast. As we can assume there are no huge changes coming to the ranking or reward system, is there a fix to that that doesn't involve changing those mechanics? I think heavy rebalancing could achieve that.

Your question, I'd assume, would be why, to which my answer is why not? The top meta can be balanced independent from bad decks, so why not do that in a way that maximizes the fun for players approaching the game from different frameworks? The benefits from a lower power level may be marginal, but the benefits of a higher power level are non-existent.

I'm not sure if you're even referring to my comment with the claim about hating aggro. I don't, and I don't know where you got the impression that I do. All I'm saying about aggro is that while it's approachable to new players for design reasons beyond discussions about balance, it's also the biggest threat to new players playing anything but aggro. A bad deck will probably do a lot worse against a decent aggro deck than a decent control deck. It's not hating on an archetype to aknowledge the positive and negative impacts they have on the game.

Low tiers are a part of the meta, and fundamentally you're right, the meta is about the relationships between decks. But if you make the top aggro and control decks proportionally stronger, the aggro decks gain a bigger advantage over lower tier decks.

https://www.hearthpwn.com/news/8959-a-history-of-official-meta-snapshots-every

It looks like Journey to Un'Goro

Why are we discussing aggro anyway? I dislike playing against aggro as much as the next guy when there's no counterplay to it, but current meta isn't imbalanced because of aggro. It's imbalanced because of combo (or ramp-"like" (by ramp like I mean decks like evolve shaman who uses ressources to cheat out giant minions way earlier just like a ramp deck)) decks that kills you as fast as the average aggro deck. There's plenty of control deck that beat all those aggro decks (imp warlock, burn mage, Pure paladin, ...).However those decks are unplayable because of the actual top decks on ladder. 

I don't think you can qualify decks that plays nothing the first three or four turns then does insane stuff to summon a full board with one or more giant minion(s) (or do a lot of damage) between turn 4 and turn 7 qualify as aggro, even if those decks kill you as fast as an average aggro deck. Maybe you could argue that quest demon hunter is an aggro/ burn deck and not a combo / burn deck (even though its strategy is to draw it's entire deck), but I don't think rogues, or ramp druids would ever qualify as aggro decks. 

Maybe shockspitter hunter would qualify as an aggro deck too, depending on how you build it, but the aggro part of shockspitter hunter never was the problem. The problem has always been the bran combo that would otk you.

I know aggro has been problematic in the past, and the game is too fast right now. But the game isn't too fast because of aggro. It's too fast because of combo (/or ramp), making control pointless and "killing your opponent before turn 8" before it summons giant minions or otk you the only other alternative strategy.

As for a balanced meta, I think the best balanced meta would be a meta with all playstyle (control, combo, aggro, midrange, ramp, and zoo) with at least one viable deck, and decent class representation (not all classes have to be viable, but the more the better, if possible with more than one good deck each). Un goro's meta was probably the closest we got for that.