Puzzled why this thread seems to be using META to mean strong and over-powered troops. I assume that’s not what the OP meant in asking the question.
The meta-game is the rock-paper-scissors strategy element of designing and using different teams. If certain teams are strong (or over-powered) they win more, so get used more, so emerge as dominant in the meta-game. Then counter teams emerge. Meta is the topology of possible teams and how they interact, leading to the variety (or lack of) builds people take into play.
I’m finding the meta more spread than at most times before; previously there’d be one obviously broken combo or troop that was in a huge percentage of my matches. Right now this seems spread across say five or six strong teams that the AI can use mindlessly to wipe you if RNG cascades go the wrong way.
So the meta sees greater variety right now - but I’m not saying it’s more fun. Whatever the grief team I face is, there’s only one or two builds that are really reliable to win without maximising exposure to the FU coin toss. I have no incentive to experiment or even use old builds I used to enjoy. Other teams can win, sure - but few can win with enough speed or control to do so without a risk that one troll or wisp cast sets off a chain you won’t recover from.
The meta now is more rock-paper-handgrenade. If handgrenade appears on defence, you’ve few counter and design options to work with.
TLDR: the ‘meta’ is theoretically in a better state now for variety - but in practice is steadily getting less fun.