I want to add a few of my own thoughts to this conversation about how I feel about the design of the game, (cards printed to counter top decks, cards printed to encourage new strategies, and how to keep the meta fresh).
(1) There are a lot of what I consider to be design failures in Netrunner. Having cards to counter decks helps a lot, don't get me wrong, but many of these cards are either super narrow, underpowered, or both. The problem with narrow counters like Sealed Vault and Plascrete are twofold. First, it's not fun to see a narrow counter when you play the game and your opponent isn't playing the card you're trying to counter. No one wants to have to play useless cards in their decks. Plascrete might work very well at stopped the meta from being overrun with Scorched decks, but the fact that it counters these decks so incredibly well and does nothing against most players means that you end up playing a game that's less skill-based and more about drawing your counters. Compromised Employee to NBN:MN, Sweeps Week to Andy, and Jackson Howard to Noise are examples of good, "soft" counters; cards that are useful no matter what but that also help to thwart a strategy, (though Jackson has a different problem: that's he is so good that he's in every deck and as a result we are just countering Noise without trying, with no consideration of the metagame). The other issue with printing "hard" counters is that the metagame has to be so overrun with a particular card, deck, or strategy before playing them is a good idea, that essentially, people are only going to be playing counters if you already have lack-of-diversity problems. If Sealed Vault sees any amount of play, it's only because the designers failed to deal with Account Siphon in a more elegant way, and if it's actually a good card, that implies Siphon is ubiquitous to far too much a degree.
(2) Introducing new strategies is important, but if the designers want them to be Tier 1, they're going to have to accept a couple of things about how this game works that I don't think they are willing to accept. The power level of the top tier is set by cards like Parasite, Datasucker, Account Siphon, and Desperado. No doubt that the designers know this. However, because this is the case, you can't really effectively change the metagame without printing more cards at this power level or outright banning, restricting, or errataing these cards. Introducing new strategies is awesome, but if you never accept that the cards you're competing for deck space with are the 'unfair' cards, you're going to fail to dethrone the top decks. Sure, because of hard counters and whatnot, there might be a tournament or two where it's wise to bring a usually tier 2 deck because it's well positioned in the metagame, but that will not make it a tier 1 deck a month down the road. Essentially, if they want the winning/top X decks at tournaments to look different than Andy/NBN, (something they failed to do in a long time now), they can't just print new strategies at a "fair" power level, blame the players for not being creative enough, or print counters, they need to actually match the power level of things like Astroscript and Siphon with new strategies and synergies, and give players a reason to NOT play those cards. This is a huge design challenge. Most of the time, it's probably better to just ban/restrict/errata these cards, because there just isn't a lot else you can do besides power creep if you don't want to meta to settle with a ton of these overpowered cards at the top.
(3) The biggest design failure in Netrunner, to me, isn't Siphon or Astro, it's the printing of unplayable cards. Damon can claim that I'm looking at cards from a 'math' perspective all he wants, but the vast majority of the cards I dismiss for math reasons could have been printed at a lower cost or with better numbers in some other sense, and they wouldn't have broken the metagame. There is no good reason to overcost these cards. If they want me to try out these cards in the first place, they should be costing them aggressively, because the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of really strong cards (math-wise), that I could play. I don't take issue with cards because they do "different" things, and therefore don't fit into my deck. I take issue with them because they're 3/1 agendas, and therefore are hard to fit into a deck in the first place. I take issue with them because they're narrow. I take issue with them because they cost too much. I take issue with an ID because there is simply not enough influence to make playing it worthwhile over the alternatives. It sometimes feels like not very much thought put, at all, into tweaking these numbers.