Hearthpwn

Perfect: Every class as 1 viable deck

Wins are earned through smart minion trading (there can be various strong finishers but it should feel like they earned the win and it didn't just come out of nowhere, prolly 8 direct dmg to face from hand is the cap for 99% of decks) 

1 straight control deck that is low A tier, and 1 straight super high skill combo deck that can OTK but is D tier for most players and high B tier for pros 

Nightmare: 80-90% of the meta is just one deck and that deck kills you on turn 4-6. 

I want at least 1 attrition deck.

Every archetype (control, midrange, aggro) is viable and each class has at least two playable archetypes.

Winning is mostly about board control. Burst exists but is limited to the 9-15 damage range for the vast majority of decks. Drawing cards and other forms of generating value (at low mana cost) is costly and generally much less efficient than simply playing a more expensive card.

Ideal (my personal one, will never happen): tempo meta with the power level of 2016-2017. No OTK, less mana cheat, less card generation, less board clears, less heal, more minion combat, more opportunities to have a flexible game plan. Rogue and Priest are bad, DH and DK are not in the game.
Nightmare: 1. Fatigue meta with very long games. 2. Solitaire meta. 3. Control-dominated meta countered by OTK decks.

Quote from Scorpyon >>

floods of Aggro decks and games that don't even make it to turn 10
(Pirate Warriors, Zoolock, Aggro Druid / Mage, anything like that that requires zero thought to play)

In the golden age of Hearthstone aggro decks were trying to end the game before turn 6 and midrange decks were trying to do so before turn 10. How come that now turn 10 is considered not a late game, but something expected in every game?
Pirate Warrior was kinda dumb, but Zoolock was always widely considered as an example of not mindless aggro (contrary to Face Hunter, which also required a lot of thought to pilot optimally). Saying that face deck requires zero thought to play because it just optimizes face damage and tempo deck requires zero thought to play because it just optimizes grabbing the board is like saying that control requires zero thought to play because it just removes everything. All of that requires thinking. Your nightmare meta is a meta where only early tempo matters, absolutely understandable. Is it impossible to say without underestimating the complexity required to optimally pilot all of the decks relying on early pressure?

Perfect: 0 mana cheat, atleast 8 playable classes

Nightmare: Every class is cheating mana.
I dont really care what types of decks people play, it's just mana cheat that drives me crazy

I don’t want a meta where blizz prints 8-10 cost cards and only Druid can use most of them. 

also I don’t like the idea of otk’s pre turn …17ish.  OTK’s on turn 7-10 is such a disservice to people trying to build any kind of control deck. For me personally my favorite part of any card game is building a deck. But sometimes the meta is soo fast that I know I cant put XYZ Minion in my deck cause I’ll rarely see the turn where I can play it.

unpopular opinion, I think that 40 card decks should be standard so that people are not drawing their entire deck turn 8-10, and so that there is slightly more variance in what gets drawn. I think that it would make the games where you see your opponent and go “I have a 20% chance to win I’ll just concede” much less often.

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Obviously this is all just personal opinion (which I believe is what the OP wanted) - so it's not to say this is what "everyone" wants, just me. :-)

For me, turn 10 is when the game should really begin, when you have the full compliment of mana available. 
If something is killing you within the first 7-8 turns, there is a problem and this shouldnt be happening. It probably means heroes dont have enough health or options to stabilise.

I never saw much need for thought when playing Zoolock. Just play minions, attack. Get wiped, play more, attack. Rinse, repeat. 
Implock currently is another version of just this. 

Would you prefer to start the game at 10 mana, 100 hp, with 10 cards in hand, 100 cards in deck then? To me it sounds like playing Civilization starting from modern era: same game, but the fun part is cut. Well, I guess, same argument can be made about the game that is not fun at the start and fun later on. Regardless, I was not going to argue about personal tastes. What I disagree with is that aggro requires zero thoughts.
Let's take the Implock example. When I play it, I rope with it quite a lot, especially in the early game. Just play minions? In which order? Turn 1, you have Imp, Librarian and Voidwalker, what to play first? Will it change depending if your opponent's deck has early removals? Will it change knowing that many of opponents are actually rogues in disguise? What if you have a coin and no 3 drop? What if you have one? What if your opponent played his own 1-drop? What if it's Trogg?
How many imps and board presence do you need to draw cards with Catastrophe instead of playing Imp Swarm? What if Imp Swarm upgrades next turn? What if it's two 1-drops instead? Do you buff Murlocula with Vile Library because you was pressured by opponent or do you buff Librarian because you want it to survive? Do you fill your board suboptimally or play Tamsin on empty board? Do you trade Shady Bartender when you have a demon board and 1 floating mana? What if you have lethal even without buff if board is unanswered? Do you play around AOE? Do you tap when you're at low HP and may put yourself in a lethal range? How much you can afford to go face instead of trading?
There are a lot of questions with an answer "it depends", therefore, a lot of thinking. As I said, if aggro is just play minions, control is just remove minions.

When Priest isn't a T1 deck

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Ummm, no. 10 mana, 5 cards in hand and 30-40 cards in deck seems fine. I mean, not sure where you got 100 cards and 100 health from exactly, but certainly can't have been from anything I said?

Well, you said:

For me, turn 10 is when the game should really begin, when you have the full compliment of mana available. 
If something is killing you within the first 7-8 turns, there is a problem and this shouldnt be happening. It probably means heroes dont have enough health or options to stabilise.

So I was thinking, maybe it would be better to just get rid of those pesky 9 turns, give players more resources and completely remove the possibility to get killed by an early tempo-oriented deck.

I mean, that IS my personal opinion. So... yeah. I am honestly not really sure why you're being so defensive / reactive about it. The OP asked what  people's Golden and Nightmare meta's are. Plenty of others have posted theirs. Why is mine such a problem for you?

Because no one else said that some particular playstyle requires zero thought. If your opinion didn't include thinking part, I would be absolutely fine with it. "I love control! I hate aggro!" - that personal opinion is fine. "I love control! You aggro, tempo, midrange players are idiots who don't even think about your plays! Your playstyle existence is a problem!" - that personal opinion is not very nice.

And is that your "personal opinion"? Do you see where the problem lies now?

No, my opinion is that both statements are incorrect and most of the decks, regardless of playstyle, are hard to pilot optimally and should not be diminished to just "play minions", "remove minions" or "draw cards".

Golden: 10 total "meta" decks across roughly 5-6 classes that compete against each other. The other classes/decks have at least a chance with 2 different decks each, not a very great chance but one nonetheless. This year the closest thing was Sunken CIty and MaCN— A lot of the time if you could play your deck properly you'd win most of the time against any deck in Sunken City and it came down to how drawn resources were handled by each player—

MaCN brought Midrange(Mostly Hunter) into the mix and a good Control deck was able to still withstand their board presence some of the time; aggro was there with mostly DH, Warlock and Druid, Mages have been clinging to Big Spell Mage because of Poly and Rune working against pretty much everything and same with hardcore Warrior players with Enrage, Paladin was able to scrounge whatever that Reno Jailer thing was and Rogues had their shenanigans always. Shaman had Murloc and Evolve or both, and Ramp Druid was as un fun as it was even before Denathrius. MaCN had a rocky start but I think halfway through the balance was there

Nightmare: Where you're just bouncing between the ungodly monster of netdecks and that one was deck that counters it. Then it's not fun, gets stale pretty quickly and I find myself playing Battlegrounds or doing PvE in either Mercs or Dungeons.

I dislike heavy Discover-meta's and while there were discovers this year can someone actually say the discovers were as bad as Year of the Dragon/Phoenix where it wasn't unusual to have 2-3 discover cards played per turn? What we have is an RNG meta with Rune of Archemage, Convoke and Thief Rogue. Mana-cheating at the level we have right now is a problem though, I prefer mana-cheating like the Dark Portal where it's just one card as opposed to Rod where it's all cards by 2...

Perfect : No cancer decks archetypes but every class having one option to grind

Nightmare : This one in wild with T2 Neptulons, Old Discolock, Pillager rogue, Secret Mage, this is so annoying you can't play meme decks even after waiting 13 days those decks are in the bronze 10 ranks 

Zoolock back in the day was way harder to play then control in that time

Quote from Scorpyon >>

So are you saying that just because someone expressed an opinion you didnt like about your favourite low skill deck archetype, you felt compelled to argue about it with me? Because the fact is that it is just my opinion in terms of what I personally feel about it (I can have whatever opinion about it that I like).  

Was it someone else who said that aggro playstyle means zero thinking? Aggro is not even my favorite archetype, but I'm next in line as a midrange enjoyer and since you think that game shouldn't start before turn 10 when I want it to end, it feels like (maybe I'm wrong) that you think classic midrange is aggro too by now and your opinion about the inability of aggro players to think is directed at me too.

My opinion is fine as long as there is no “thinking” involved in it? I mean, I generally like to think about things before forming opinions about them. Not sure I can help that. 

Maybe my English is not good enough, but I have a feeling you understand the exact wording that made me want to argue. Low-skilled archetype? Ok. Zero thought to play? Makes no sense and insulting.

I think that maybe I missed the part where I directed an insult of any kind toward any specific person or even group of people?

So by saying that aggro players have zero thought you not intend to insult that group of people? Ok, fine, whatever.