Not at all. It is very much about interactivity of the game and having it be more about setting up plays (and disrupting the opponents) than just slapping cards down. It adds a level of richness (and yes, skill) to the game, and makes it more a battle between two people. The "point vomit" decks don't really give a rats about what the opponent does. Just spit out more points than the opponent any way you can. No real strategy. No real skill. The most challenging aspect is making sure you don't mess up the order you play a couple of cards (e.g., don't play a resurrect without having something to resurrect - really difficult stuff like that). May as well be playing against a bot. Boring.
I understand and agree. Gwent would be much more enjoyable with strategic moves as you described, IF THE META/CARD POOL ALLOWED THAT, what doesn't happen anymore. If you try to run a "creative/stratregic" deck, it doesn't matter if you tweak it constantly, if you mastered all its synergies, if you have the better hand possible and play perfectly your controls and combos: you just can't overcome the amount of points you oponent can assemble, if he/she is using the so called and hatred "point vomit" decks.
I will never blame players, though. They are just using the best card and mechanichs the game offers. Therefore, devs are responsible.
I run a NR deck since 1st open beta season that is somewhat hybrid of temerian boost/thining, armored units + kadweni calvary combo/ control options (Radovid/Margarita/Dethmold). It served me well to get to rank 18 (and I'm ok with it, no desire of being a Pro) until 2 seasons ago, when it became unviable from rank 11 onwards. Switched to a SK bear based/Olaf and Nova deck (not a netdeck, although very similar to others because his idea is kind of obvious), and winning games became possible again.