Same; this is part of the reason I railed against these sorts of decks over in the old place we used to bitch about the meta’s direction, the Negative Play Experiences thread :). The two poles of perceived badness: Inevitability (perceived or not), and The Rigged Jackpot (upside variance that doesn’t vary much)–
It’s a really hard thing to do, keep a game balanced between those and feeling fresh while delivering a steady trickle of 20 cards a month. Means your playtesting really has to be on point, and also probably means you have to be willing to take breaks while you work on a particular issue. I think games like Netrunner need to get a little more quantitative with their playtest analysis and community feedback and a little less qualitative.
I don’t think the charge of “stale groupthink” really holds up in 2016 (I don’t think it did in 2013-2014 either, but that’s water under the bridge). There are tons of decks being tried all over my meta, and if all these 2016 Store Champs tags are correct, there are tons of decks being piloted to the top tables–but as @Chill84 says, that’s probably because (as we did here in MI) enough people got bored of only playing the try-hard decks. So there is lots of experimentation, and lots of “good enough” decks right now. But, as lots of good players have said: wait until regionals to see how many people stick with the “good enough”.
Anyhow, thanks for the article as usual. Less funny this week