It would be worse and have a much smaller player base if they cut out RNG effects.
Proof of that being true?
There is another digital card game that have much less RNG than magic, HS and artifact, even so the game is not really that much popular besides Japan.
The fact its still popular in japan disproves you.
Second, there are more variables in a card game than just RNG. You didn't state what the game was (Which means you could be outright lying) nor link it or provide literally ANY context.
A LOT of DCGs have failed. And it wasn't because of them having or not having abundance of RNG. Its more to do with the fact that there are already popular DCGs established. Card games aren't something you can really just jump into due to how much of a difference having a collection of cards makes. If someone is already well established in games like Hearthstone or MTG:A, why should they play some no-name DGC?
Pokemon TCG also have less RNG than the big ones and a lot of players agree that the game is in a bad spot because is sooo easy to fix your hands so the match is just "my deck can win against his deck?" there is not "he will draw his finisher?" because they will always draw what they need. In fact without RNG every card games would be: how many answers and wincon i can put in one deck and still make it playable.
Magic the Gathering has A LOT less RNG than Hearthstone and is still insanely popular. Despite its age, which is mindblowing.
Yugioh is still popular (Though I'm not a fan of it anymore) and has a lot less RNG than Hearthstone. I will say that it has actual cards that use coin flips and dice rolls in their effects, but these cards are practically never played due to those reasons. The cards that DO see play and are often meta, are the cards with literally no RNG-based effects. They're often ones that nuke the field, tutor specific cards, negate activations and so on.
Those two prove that a card game can be popular without RNG being so prevalent like it is in Hearthstone.
Some card games have more RNG than others. So what? What is your point? I take you don't like like the RNG of HS. K.
Play one of the other games you mention.
HS follows a certain model. It's working. It doesn't have to imitate other games. It is what it is.
RNG does not preclude skill. That is why the best players consistently make top 8's and 16's in tournaments. Poker is a very popular game of skill and luck.
It would be worse and have a much smaller player base if they cut out RNG effects.
Proof of that being true?
There is another digital card game that have much less RNG than magic, HS and artifact, even so the game is not really that much popular besides Japan.
The fact its still popular in japan disproves you.
Second, there are more variables in a card game than just RNG. You didn't state what the game was (Which means you could be outright lying) nor link it or provide literally ANY context.
A LOT of DCGs have failed. And it wasn't because of them having or not having abundance of RNG. Its more to do with the fact that there are already popular DCGs established. Card games aren't something you can really just jump into due to how much of a difference having a collection of cards makes. If someone is already well established in games like Hearthstone or MTG:A, why should they play some no-name DGC?
Pokemon TCG also have less RNG than the big ones and a lot of players agree that the game is in a bad spot because is sooo easy to fix your hands so the match is just "my deck can win against his deck?" there is not "he will draw his finisher?" because they will always draw what they need. In fact without RNG every card games would be: how many answers and wincon i can put in one deck and still make it playable.
Magic the Gathering has A LOT less RNG than Hearthstone and is still insanely popular. Despite its age, which is mindblowing.
Yugioh is still popular (Though I'm not a fan of it anymore) and has a lot less RNG than Hearthstone. I will say that it has actual cards that use coin flips and dice rolls in their effects, but these cards are practically never played due to those reasons. The cards that DO see play and are often meta, are the cards with literally no RNG-based effects. They're often ones that nuke the field, tutor specific cards, negate activations and so on.
Those two prove that a card game can be popular without RNG being so prevalent like it is in Hearthstone.
Some card games have more RNG than others. So what? What is your point? I take you don't like like the RNG of HS. K.
Play one of the other games you mention.
HS follows a certain model. It's working. It doesn't have to imitate other games. It is what it is.
RNG does not preclude skill. That is why the best players consistently make top 8's and 16's in tournaments. Poker is a very popular game of skill and luck.
My point is that those games prove that having less or no RNG won't cause a game's player base to tank.
You really jumped into a conversation without reading any of it? This string of quotes was caused due to Over's comment of "It would be worse and have a much smaller player base if they cut out RNG effects."
Its baffling that you're asking me what my point is.
Yugioh is still popular (Though I'm not a fan of it anymore) and has a lot less RNG than Hearthstone. I will say that it has actual cards that use coin flips and dice rolls in their effects, but these cards are practically never played due to those reasons. The cards that DO see play and are often meta, are the cards with literally no RNG-based effects. They're often ones that nuke the field, tutor specific cards, negate activations and so on.
So which commonly played Hearthstone cards are you even complaining about? You mentioned Academic Espionage in another comment, but the card doesn't actually see competitive play.
It would be worse and have a much smaller player base if they cut out RNG effects.
Proof of that being true?
There is another digital card game that have much less RNG than magic, HS and artifact, even so the game is not really that much popular besides Japan.
The fact its still popular in japan disproves you.
Second, there are more variables in a card game than just RNG. You didn't state what the game was (Which means you could be outright lying) nor link it or provide literally ANY context.
A LOT of DCGs have failed. And it wasn't because of them having or not having abundance of RNG. Its more to do with the fact that there are already popular DCGs established. Card games aren't something you can really just jump into due to how much of a difference having a collection of cards makes. If someone is already well established in games like Hearthstone or MTG:A, why should they play some no-name DGC?
Pokemon TCG also have less RNG than the big ones and a lot of players agree that the game is in a bad spot because is sooo easy to fix your hands so the match is just "my deck can win against his deck?" there is not "he will draw his finisher?" because they will always draw what they need. In fact without RNG every card games would be: how many answers and wincon i can put in one deck and still make it playable.
Pokemon was boring tho because a Pokemon turn consisted of people drawing half of their decks in 1 turn with a combination of OCtillery/ shaymin EX, Sycamore/N ,Ultraballs and some stadiums like scorched land or Brooklet hill, so you'd sit through 3 to 5 minute turns of effects that were only drawing and searching through the deck and nothing else happened, stuff that didn't revolve around drawing would happen sparingly, it's gotten way better nowadays tho with Shaymin ex and Sycamore out of the format and Tapu lele gx only searching for a supporter while CYnthia actually shuffling cards back into your deck means that people cant draw half their deck by turn 2 and that you can actually redraw useless cards for the turn means you no longer face players that play a 5 minutes turn of just drawing (and no i'm not exaggerating with 5 minute turns, Pokemon has no turn timer).
It would be worse and have a much smaller player base if they cut out RNG effects.
Proof of that being true?
There is another digital card game that have much less RNG than magic, HS and artifact, even so the game is not really that much popular besides Japan.
The fact its still popular in japan disproves you.
Second, there are more variables in a card game than just RNG. You didn't state what the game was (Which means you could be outright lying) nor link it or provide literally ANY context.
A LOT of DCGs have failed. And it wasn't because of them having or not having abundance of RNG. Its more to do with the fact that there are already popular DCGs established. Card games aren't something you can really just jump into due to how much of a difference having a collection of cards makes. If someone is already well established in games like Hearthstone or MTG:A, why should they play some no-name DGC?
Pokemon TCG also have less RNG than the big ones and a lot of players agree that the game is in a bad spot because is sooo easy to fix your hands so the match is just "my deck can win against his deck?" there is not "he will draw his finisher?" because they will always draw what they need. In fact without RNG every card games would be: how many answers and wincon i can put in one deck and still make it playable.
Magic the Gathering has A LOT less RNG than Hearthstone and is still insanely popular. Despite its age, which is mindblowing.
Yugioh is still popular (Though I'm not a fan of it anymore) and has a lot less RNG than Hearthstone. I will say that it has actual cards that use coin flips and dice rolls in their effects, but these cards are practically never played due to those reasons. The cards that DO see play and are often meta, are the cards with literally no RNG-based effects. They're often ones that nuke the field, tutor specific cards, negate activations and so on.
Those two prove that a card game can be popular without RNG being so prevalent like it is in Hearthstone.
Magic as mana RNG and the fact that the cards that let you manipule the RNG in magic cost more than hundred dollars prove that competitive MTG envoirment is not what newbies players find when they discover the game. So lets put some stuff on board: yes Draw RNG and Mana (resource RNG) are in fact things that you try to avoid in the deck building of the big games. I am a MtG player i can tell you how much different is a casual deck a standard deck and a modern deck (and finally a legacy deck). The more you scale in those rakings the less RNG you find but the cost of the decks also are bigger AND BIGGER. Same happens in HS the more consistent the deck is the less RNG it has but also the dust cost is bigger.
Also a lot of magic players dont like the fact that games like yu gi oh and pokemon has literally 0 RNG like...in this moment you can tutor every card in your deck in every competitive deck. There is not brick chance or chance that your oponnent not draw what they need. That is totally degenerate. So yeah mtg players dont like a lot the RNG but we accept the fact that is a need for balance sake. HS rng is also for the same, it balance some cards but also this game wants to be played for kids too so reduce the complexity of the cards. I can tolerate that really. I dont know what is the super hard RNG that people is talking with so much hate.
Some card games have more RNG than others. So what? What is your point? I take you don't like like the RNG of HS. K.
Play one of the other games you mention.
HS follows a certain model. It's working. It doesn't have to imitate other games. It is what it is.
RNG does not preclude skill. That is why the best players consistently make top 8's and 16's in tournaments. Poker is a very popular game of skill and luck.
Yeh - I was going to come in and mention poker.
HS needs RNG because the rest of the game is SOOO consistent. You gain mana consistently. You are free to attack consistently. You mulligan consistently. The game would be trash without it.
Obviously, "how much RNG and at what point in the game" is a totally fair question to ask. And I think we see that Blizzard is constantly learning the answer to it.
RNG is what makes Hearthstone different from other cards games. It can't be printed as a hard copy game because of it. The RNG can create those super suspenseful moments of if someone wins or loses. Without RNG, the game would just be figuring out what decks beat what. Having that "Neverlucky Bullshit" moment or the perfect discover to get lethal is what makes people keep playing. Yogg single-handedly got me interested in playing Hearthstone because the RNG
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm Nate and I enjoy writing. I got kicked off of my school newspaper so I figured I'd bring my passion to my favorite game.
It’s also the spice that makes the game really fun over the long haul. Don’t agree?
What's fun about facing a rogue that goes T1 > Prep + Academic into T2 > Warlock DK?
What’s so bad about facing him? You weren’t guaranteed to win or anything anyway. Why can’t you just say “Well Played” and move on?
Meanwhile, the person who pulled that ridiculous opener is having the time of his life, and screenshotting it to be able to tell his grandchildren!
Yeah, I'm generally happy for my opponent when things like that happen. It's fun and interesting and almost always happens in casual where I don't care about a win, anyways.
I'd say without question that the most fun I've had in Hearthstone has been in games that turned completely unpredictable via Rogue or Priest steals, Renounce Darkness, Molten Blade into another class legendary weapon, etc. Whether I'm running the meme deck or on the receiving end of it, it's generally a blast.
But you see my point ? Of course this crazy situation can be felt like "unfun" or "cheated" when you face it but still you can deny it's what make this game "crazy".
If you face the situation you describe of course you'll probably lose and can instaconcede but as there is no consequences for losing (or winning) in HS it's not a problem. Losing star is not a problem since climbing the ladder is almost rewardless (some dust/ 1 golden card once a month)
Your point that you tried to make became void due to your impossible situation. And this discussion isn't about whether or not RNG makes the game 'crazy'. Its about whether or not the abundance of RNG in this game is unfun or not.
As for there being no consequences for losing, I have to disagree. Ranked alone, already means you're going to not advance in rank as well as lose rank. If you're running a Quest that -requires- you to win, then losing due to an insane Academic from rogue stops you from completing said quest. This can amount to frustration.
My impossible situation was just a fun answer to your extremely rare nicely picked situation. RNG can screw you or make you win game. On the long term I think it's balance.
"Crazy" is for me synonym of "fun". I think this game was primarily design to be fun and RNG, by creating crazy situation, make it fun.
I don't have a lot of time to play so usually I log in just to do the quest (in ranked) with fun homebrew deck. And most of the time I can complete them in 2-3 games. Completing winning quest is not that long.
People do not like to lose. If they did, they would just queue up into games then concede on the spot.
Oo I mean if someone can't deal with the fact he can't win 100% of his match, he should maybe not play a game which state "You win" or "You lose" every 5-10 min. Sorry but your point is really weird for me.
Hearthstone thrives on offering RNG as a way of "equalizing" matches, such as Deathstalker Rexxar singlehandedly winning matches vs odd warrior and other control decks. Ever wonder why Deck of Wonders exists? What about Yogg-Saron, Hope's End? RNG brings with it potential swings that can both work for and against players that are behind in a match. I think it was Ben Brode that said it was one of the reasons they kept RNG as such a central tenant to the game (correct me if I'm wrong here).
Depending on the situation, RNG can be fun, hilarious, infuriating, and even a source of despair. Removing this drama from hearthstone would make it a little less "Hearthstone-y," though it would remove a lot of the tilt caused by randomly generated wins. If you want a card game with less RNG, go for Gwent and try to not fall asleep during one of the 20+-minute matches. It may make you angry sometimes, but RNG is something that is part and parcel to this game, take it or leave it.
Last note: RNG exists in any and all card games in the form of card draw. You can't know what you're going to draw from your deck for sure, you can manipulate the odds, but you won't ever know for sure, so it's random.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
as long as it's controlled RNG i'm completely fine with it. RNG for which you could wrap your head around of things that COULD happen. for example, people bitch about a brawl going against them when they have way more stuff than the opponent or things like mc tech. the percentages of the worst outcome for you are still very plausible, mathematically speaking
this whole thing of RNG only falls apart imo with things like yogg-saron. when nobody could have any plausible clue of whats about to happen, thats when things get problematic
as long as it's controlled RNG i'm completely fine with it. RNG for which you could wrap your head around of things that COULD happen. for example, people bitch about a brawl going against them when they have way more stuff than the opponent or things like mc tech. the percentages of the worst outcome for you are still very plausible, mathematically speaking
this whole thing of RNG only falls apart imo with things like yogg-saron. when nobody could have any plausible clue of whats about to happen, thats when things get problematic
100% agreed
My biggest gripe against Deathstalker Rexxar is the ability to generate minions that you as the opponent can't possibly account for unless you're a supercomputer, and the pool was refined on rotation this year, so it's been a year solid of Rexxar saving my hunter decks from control by becoming counter-control on turn 6 with infinite minion generation, negating a whole archetype.
Fun RNG is drawn from a very limited pool of effects, or effects you can determine when they're played out (Mad Hatter, Animal Companion, maybe even Tess Graymane etc.). Expansing the possibilities makes for seriously tilting results, like winning solely because your opponent was able to swing favor 3+ turns in a row due to RNG, even though you outplayed them all game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
I love HS for its RNG so I can’t agree with you. As many have already said, if you don’t like RNG and prefer when your decision and skill matter you should look for another game (card game or not).
HS is a fun card game and in my opinion not design to be competitive (having a Ranked mode does not make a game competitive). I know Blizzard push the “Esport” scene for HS but I think it’s more for economical reason.
The problem with RNG is that its compliments Loss aversion.
You feel twice as bad as losing against RNG than winning with it. Thus killing your enjoyment of the game.
I don’t. I actually feel better about it. “Aww, he just got lucky.”
Really? You have a very different outlook than I do. I find it tilting when I outplay someone and they build 3-5 turns of perfect answer zombeasts with Deathstalker Rexxar (bring him up a lot in these discussions; he's super problematic even though I love the card). Or when Deck of Wonders saves a tempo mage after my strategy would have otherwise won the game.
I feel much better when RNG isn't the main reason I lose a match (but admittedly it is thrilling and relieving when it saves me from an otherwise bad matchup).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
The bottom line is card games like HS require RNG, because there needs to be an essence of luck.
Others have given great reason already for RNG and why the prefer it. The question is what's the right amount of RNG, the OP thinks too much, and probably wasn't around for the Casino mage meta...
The truth right now is there may not actually be enough RNG, the meta is so polarized and draw dependant that by T5/6 you usually know which way the game is going and there's nothing you can't do about it, resulting in an utter sense of hopelessness. This is why discovery is arguably the strongest and best mechanic in the game, it offers the RNG element but choice as well, causing impact and game changing outcomes and decision making all at once.
Deathstalker Rexxar is an example of too far, because infinite card generation with discovery is just too powerful, but again what is the sweet spot, the place where it doesn't feel like chess or checkers vs playing a slot machine. And everyone has a different opinion on what that is...
The problem with RNG is that its compliments Loss aversion.
You feel twice as bad as losing against RNG than winning with it. Thus killing your enjoyment of the game.
I don’t. I actually feel better about it. “Aww, he just got lucky.”
Really? You have a very different outlook than I do. I find it tilting when I outplay someone and they build 3-5 turns of perfect answer zombeasts with Deathstalker Rexxar (bring him up a lot in these discussions; he's super problematic even though I love the card). Or when Deck of Wonders saves a tempo mage after my strategy would have otherwise won the game.
I feel much better when RNG isn't the main reason I lose a match (but admittedly it is thrilling and relieving when it saves me from an otherwise bad matchup).
Well, I play for fun and to collect cards. I’m not trying to get to top 100 legend in order to have a shot at a pro career or anything. I have a good-paying job already, and Hearthstone is 30 minutes of fun each day (more often than not against my children).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Some card games have more RNG than others. So what? What is your point? I take you don't like like the RNG of HS. K.
Play one of the other games you mention.
HS follows a certain model. It's working. It doesn't have to imitate other games. It is what it is.
RNG does not preclude skill. That is why the best players consistently make top 8's and 16's in tournaments. Poker is a very popular game of skill and luck.
My point is that those games prove that having less or no RNG won't cause a game's player base to tank.
You really jumped into a conversation without reading any of it? This string of quotes was caused due to Over's comment of "It would be worse and have a much smaller player base if they cut out RNG effects."
Its baffling that you're asking me what my point is.
So which commonly played Hearthstone cards are you even complaining about? You mentioned Academic Espionage in another comment, but the card doesn't actually see competitive play.
Pokemon was boring tho because a Pokemon turn consisted of people drawing half of their decks in 1 turn with a combination of OCtillery/ shaymin EX, Sycamore/N ,Ultraballs and some stadiums like scorched land or Brooklet hill, so you'd sit through 3 to 5 minute turns of effects that were only drawing and searching through the deck and nothing else happened, stuff that didn't revolve around drawing would happen sparingly, it's gotten way better nowadays tho with Shaymin ex and Sycamore out of the format and Tapu lele gx only searching for a supporter while CYnthia actually shuffling cards back into your deck means that people cant draw half their deck by turn 2 and that you can actually redraw useless cards for the turn means you no longer face players that play a 5 minutes turn of just drawing (and no i'm not exaggerating with 5 minute turns, Pokemon has no turn timer).
Magic as mana RNG and the fact that the cards that let you manipule the RNG in magic cost more than hundred dollars prove that competitive MTG envoirment is not what newbies players find when they discover the game. So lets put some stuff on board: yes Draw RNG and Mana (resource RNG) are in fact things that you try to avoid in the deck building of the big games. I am a MtG player i can tell you how much different is a casual deck a standard deck and a modern deck (and finally a legacy deck). The more you scale in those rakings the less RNG you find but the cost of the decks also are bigger AND BIGGER. Same happens in HS the more consistent the deck is the less RNG it has but also the dust cost is bigger.
Also a lot of magic players dont like the fact that games like yu gi oh and pokemon has literally 0 RNG like...in this moment you can tutor every card in your deck in every competitive deck. There is not brick chance or chance that your oponnent not draw what they need. That is totally degenerate. So yeah mtg players dont like a lot the RNG but we accept the fact that is a need for balance sake. HS rng is also for the same, it balance some cards but also this game wants to be played for kids too so reduce the complexity of the cards. I can tolerate that really. I dont know what is the super hard RNG that people is talking with so much hate.
Yeh - I was going to come in and mention poker.
HS needs RNG because the rest of the game is SOOO consistent. You gain mana consistently. You are free to attack consistently. You mulligan consistently. The game would be trash without it.
Obviously, "how much RNG and at what point in the game" is a totally fair question to ask. And I think we see that Blizzard is constantly learning the answer to it.
Discover? Good.
Tuskaar Totemic? Bad.
What’s so bad about facing him? You weren’t guaranteed to win or anything anyway. Why can’t you just say “Well Played” and move on?
Meanwhile, the person who pulled that ridiculous opener is having the time of his life, and screenshotting it to be able to tell his grandchildren!
Well RR will hit tomorrow, and it has the least amount of RNG Hearthstone has seen in a long time
RNG is what makes Hearthstone different from other cards games. It can't be printed as a hard copy game because of it. The RNG can create those super suspenseful moments of if someone wins or loses. Without RNG, the game would just be figuring out what decks beat what. Having that "Neverlucky Bullshit" moment or the perfect discover to get lethal is what makes people keep playing. Yogg single-handedly got me interested in playing Hearthstone because the RNG
I'm Nate and I enjoy writing. I got kicked off of my school newspaper so I figured I'd bring my passion to my favorite game.
Yeah, I'm generally happy for my opponent when things like that happen. It's fun and interesting and almost always happens in casual where I don't care about a win, anyways.
I'd say without question that the most fun I've had in Hearthstone has been in games that turned completely unpredictable via Rogue or Priest steals, Renounce Darkness, Molten Blade into another class legendary weapon, etc. Whether I'm running the meme deck or on the receiving end of it, it's generally a blast.
My impossible situation was just a fun answer to your extremely rare nicely picked situation. RNG can screw you or make you win game. On the long term I think it's balance.
"Crazy" is for me synonym of "fun". I think this game was primarily design to be fun and RNG, by creating crazy situation, make it fun.
I don't have a lot of time to play so usually I log in just to do the quest (in ranked) with fun homebrew deck. And most of the time I can complete them in 2-3 games. Completing winning quest is not that long.
Oo I mean if someone can't deal with the fact he can't win 100% of his match, he should maybe not play a game which state "You win" or "You lose" every 5-10 min. Sorry but your point is really weird for me.
Hearthstone thrives on offering RNG as a way of "equalizing" matches, such as Deathstalker Rexxar singlehandedly winning matches vs odd warrior and other control decks. Ever wonder why Deck of Wonders exists? What about Yogg-Saron, Hope's End? RNG brings with it potential swings that can both work for and against players that are behind in a match. I think it was Ben Brode that said it was one of the reasons they kept RNG as such a central tenant to the game (correct me if I'm wrong here).
Depending on the situation, RNG can be fun, hilarious, infuriating, and even a source of despair. Removing this drama from hearthstone would make it a little less "Hearthstone-y," though it would remove a lot of the tilt caused by randomly generated wins. If you want a card game with less RNG, go for Gwent and try to not fall asleep during one of the 20+-minute matches. It may make you angry sometimes, but RNG is something that is part and parcel to this game, take it or leave it.
Last note: RNG exists in any and all card games in the form of card draw. You can't know what you're going to draw from your deck for sure, you can manipulate the odds, but you won't ever know for sure, so it's random.
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
The problem with RNG is that its compliments Loss aversion.
You feel twice as bad as losing against RNG than winning with it. Thus killing your enjoyment of the game.
as long as it's controlled RNG i'm completely fine with it. RNG for which you could wrap your head around of things that COULD happen. for example, people bitch about a brawl going against them when they have way more stuff than the opponent or things like mc tech. the percentages of the worst outcome for you are still very plausible, mathematically speaking
this whole thing of RNG only falls apart imo with things like yogg-saron. when nobody could have any plausible clue of whats about to happen, thats when things get problematic
I don’t. I actually feel better about it. “Aww, he just got lucky.”
100% agreed
My biggest gripe against Deathstalker Rexxar is the ability to generate minions that you as the opponent can't possibly account for unless you're a supercomputer, and the pool was refined on rotation this year, so it's been a year solid of Rexxar saving my hunter decks from control by becoming counter-control on turn 6 with infinite minion generation, negating a whole archetype.
Fun RNG is drawn from a very limited pool of effects, or effects you can determine when they're played out (Mad Hatter, Animal Companion, maybe even Tess Graymane etc.). Expansing the possibilities makes for seriously tilting results, like winning solely because your opponent was able to swing favor 3+ turns in a row due to RNG, even though you outplayed them all game.
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
Okay and so what ? That will happen once in your life.. you lost one game..no big deal, just move on.
That type of RNG is just extreme, just laugh and concede. Move to the next game and win unless you're just a salty noob.
Really? You have a very different outlook than I do. I find it tilting when I outplay someone and they build 3-5 turns of perfect answer zombeasts with Deathstalker Rexxar (bring him up a lot in these discussions; he's super problematic even though I love the card). Or when Deck of Wonders saves a tempo mage after my strategy would have otherwise won the game.
I feel much better when RNG isn't the main reason I lose a match (but admittedly it is thrilling and relieving when it saves me from an otherwise bad matchup).
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
The bottom line is card games like HS require RNG, because there needs to be an essence of luck.
Others have given great reason already for RNG and why the prefer it. The question is what's the right amount of RNG, the OP thinks too much, and probably wasn't around for the Casino mage meta...
The truth right now is there may not actually be enough RNG, the meta is so polarized and draw dependant that by T5/6 you usually know which way the game is going and there's nothing you can't do about it, resulting in an utter sense of hopelessness. This is why discovery is arguably the strongest and best mechanic in the game, it offers the RNG element but choice as well, causing impact and game changing outcomes and decision making all at once.
Deathstalker Rexxar is an example of too far, because infinite card generation with discovery is just too powerful, but again what is the sweet spot, the place where it doesn't feel like chess or checkers vs playing a slot machine. And everyone has a different opinion on what that is...
Well, I play for fun and to collect cards. I’m not trying to get to top 100 legend in order to have a shot at a pro career or anything. I have a good-paying job already, and Hearthstone is 30 minutes of fun each day (more often than not against my children).