Hearthpwn

Telling people they are "killing their brains" through the way the choose to play a game is considered a dick move in English.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you are "trying to tell", but you have been rude and not constructive.

I net deck these days, as I choose to play as light entertainment and dip in and out as a f2p. I used to play much more homebred in vanilla when I had few cards and was learning the game. I don't come to HS looking for intellectual stimulation, I get plenty through my job and my other hobbies. Assuming I'm killing my brain by net decking and watching Kripp is very wide of the mark, and coming here to tell me that is just obnoxious. 

 Pretty much agree with Wookie above, also maybe drop Valeera and include some more tempo tools to stop aggro from steamrolling you. This deck will have brutal match ups against decks that go wide on board. 

I don't want to be a dick about this, but I have little time for those who say they could reach legend but just haven't gotten around to it.  Frankly you just don't know.

It's not nothing. It takes knowing your deck (netdeck or otherwise) inside out, and knowing every meta deck just as well. It takes mental discipline akin to online poker, and the drive to keep going when all seems lost.

I'd recommend everyone try to do it once. Wait til you have the time, or set other games aside for one month. It's like running a marathon, a lot of people "could" but much fewer do, and you learn something by pushing that potential into a reality.

It's why I play control. That agony in the control mirror match when you're not quite certain whether to play for tempo or value, to test them to see if they have responses or wait to respond, draw or worry about fatigue... I live for that shit.

Thinking about all the angles under time pressure is fun for some people. Like me. That's also why I play competitive chess. Hearthstone is obviously more random, more just-for-fun, but I don't enjoy switching off completely so I only ever play aggro as a means to an end and don't enjoy it. I believe in the need for aggro though: it's intense to play against and stops the meta becoming a greed-fest.

On a more interesting note, I find the assertion that aggro decks are more "active" quite interesting, because I find them actually really passive - to my mind almost every move is "forced" because you generally play what you have as quickly as you can. Then you just wait to see if your opponent can answer: yes, lose; no; win. Clearly other people see it differently!

You have posted a question about why people play control.

When people comment explaining why, (which is the fairly obvious: it allows you to make more decisions over a longer game, so now variety in games, more challenge etc) you tell them to go play chess.

If you're not trolling, you should take moment to reflect on what you are doing.

I enjoyed climbing to legend this month with Renolock. Every game felt tense with a lot of live-or-die decisions, even in the short games against pirate warrior or shaman.

Ultimately there is no definition of "healthy meta", and so this conversation is a bit doomed. However, I quit standard during mid range shaman's rule and came back for this meta. As everyone has identified, some classes are under represented (although I had my worst win rate against paladin), but most are present. Aggro, combo, control are all present, but losing to aggro T5 is unpleasant and common. Whether you apply the label "healthy" to this is a question of semantics.

If it helps understand my frame of mind, I used to play a ton of handlock and CW back in the day, and pre-MSG was running with a greedy nzoth priest in wild. Only ever play aggro for quests.

Agree strongly with ganashal, except I would add to the final paragraph by saying that the difficulty you are experiencing in "fitting everything in" is actually the difficulty of knowing what to cut to minimise your deck size.  It just so happens that in HS the min deck size is also the max deck size; if that weren't true you'd still be trying to streamline your deck down to as small as possible.  If the max deck size were 50, the strongest control decks would still run 30 cards, and if you were trying to make the best possible deck you would still have to make the difficult choices you are describing.

I think that would even be true for actual fatigue decks, as you would still prefer to have the consistency to the weight.

Too soon to call on this one, well need to see if there is more potion synergy to come.