Hearthpwn

Can you please change my name to CrispyTofu or variations of it (CrispyTofu__, etc)

Today I raged quit a game against Tortolan Mage after 10 consecutive freeze turns. That's all.

This deck is THE WORST to play against.

Playing a Monster Hunt with the Shaw and a relatively good deck, bringing the final boss to fatigue to only see its permanent immunity due to a f* stealth demon on board. Since Shaw has no AOE, the game was lost at the moment this stupid demon was played.

(another point: maybe your post would have a less provocative touch without the "Here's the future" subtitle, which implies that you think that your model is perfect. However, we know that all models are wrong, and only some are useful)

First time post for me on this forum, because this post raised my scientific curiosity. 

First of all, congrats to the OP for such a tedious work! From a scientific perspective your paper would have a hard time going threw the review process though, mostly because of issues of reproducibility (methods are not explained clearly enough to be understood by peers). It would have been much better to separate input data (obtained from whatever external source) from the actual code, which itself should ideally been published in whatever language you like (R, python, whatever). 

That said, my guess is that you modeled the meta as a typical Rock-Paper-Scissors species competition problem, like biologists are doing for species diversity studies (example from PNAS ). In this paper you will see very similar behavior as your long term meta, which you call "stalled" (see your own figure attached): a periodic behavior, i.e "stalled" but still with regular variability. A typical Rock-Paper-Scissor behavior.

This is very nice (and an indirect "test" that your model does something meaningful), but this is the problem of your model: as others pointed out, it doesn't allow deck evolution (tech cards) and doesn't incorporate the facts that we (humans) do not always react like bacteria: certain decks are (thankfully) still played because they are fun, not because they are best. Or put otherwise: people will never go "all aggro" or "all control", because it corresponds to different play styles, game duration, etc.

Another indication that the meta doesn't work exactly like a  Rock-Paper-Scissor system is that empirical evidence never showed such periodic behavior. See the long-term prevalence plot from Vicious Syndicate: 

Even after long times without a patch it is hard to find such a periodic behavior.

Altogether, a very nice study but still open to subjective interpretations, like most commentators already mentioned ;-)