Right now we have a well balanced and highly polarized meta.
If you read that last sentence and you’re thinking WELL BALANCED MY FOOT then it’s important to understand what balance is. Balance is the obscuring of the optimal (meaning highest winrate) build choices from the playerbase. If it doesn’t involve a build choice (in this game, deck building choice), it’s not balance. Kazakusan decks have Tier 2.5 lackluster winrates, so they’re not overpowered from a balance standpoint.
Now what is a problem is polarization. Polarization is how much matchup winrate gap there is on average — for example, a polarization of 10 means the typical matchup is 55-45 while 20 means it’s 60-40. In the same way winrates can be measured fairly objectively, polarization can be empirically measured. About a week ago, it was probably at a record high — I’m not sure as the record is spotty, but about as close as this game will ever come to rock paper scissors. It’s lower this week (just posted stats in a new thread) but still a major concern.
That PRS feel can be more intense when two of those three choices appear as Druid before mulligan, when you’re a non-Druid. But that’s just a feeling, as it already factors into winrate data. If you think nerfing Ramp Druid would solve the meta being highly polarized, it wouldn’t. Ramp Druid is about average in polarization, which means it’s no saint but it’s not more guilty than the meta on average. We’d still have big polarization if we yeeted Ramp Druid completely out of the picture, because most of the matchups would still be there and still be polarized. The most polarizing deck, by far, is Control Warrior, if it matters.
So in conclusion, I agree with you that there’s a problem with the meta, but just because a man is sick and may die without treatment doesn’t mean we need to apply leeches to his body like stupid and superstitious medieval doctors. Nerfing Ramp Druid wasn’t the solution and Blizzard was wise to not do what you believe they should have done.