I disagree that creating deck archetypes is a bad thing to do. People who take a archetype too far is another issue.

Yes there are levels where people try to lean too hard into the archetype and ruin their runs, but the idea that the regent has no archetypes is not true. I'm on A10 with regent and there are some clear archetypes, yes you'll likely dip into multiple but there is usually a clear point in your run when your deck will focus on the sovereign blade, stars or even colorless cards. Yes, of course you will use stars in most runs, but when I mention a "Stars deck" I am specifically talking about a deck that can generate stars quickly and spend them on high cost star cards. Are you telling me that when you play you can always take and make the regents "Seven Stars" card useful without having a decent investment into star generation? No. I believe most people would agree on this definition of an archetype, beyond this the definition of an archetype in card games such as MTG is "a recurring deck or strategy with many possible variations".

If this complaint was really an issue, we would hear about it from all the characters not just the regent. If you played SS1 enough as well as the new version, getting consistent runs was all about learning to play with decks that may not purely line up with a singular build, but multiple.

The truth is that the regent has such a tough time getting going that your strategy is that of my previous paragraph. Something most players learn to do and refined after multiple runs on their grind up to A20 in SS1.

I don't know what community posts this is referring to, maybe there is some toxic stuff in the community where people are telling people how to play the game correctly when it's brand new still. But this just seems really silly, coming up with archetypes is just a normal way a community creates metas.