Okay, first off, not all games use RNG and not all games use RNG to the same extent. You never roll a dice when playing chess. When playing a game of World of Tanks, there is some RNG involved every time you fire, but these merely add variety to the situations you end up in, and with smart play you can limit the effects of randomness. But certainly at no point does the game roll a dice at the start of the game to tell you which tank you can play.
Now there are games which do roll a dice to tell you what you can play. A lot of rogue-lites rely heavily on RNG to give you access to various weapons/abilities/upgrades, and that will heavily shape your playthrough. Well guess what, not everybody likes these games. Early D&D used to limit the class you could play based purely on dice rolls. Virtually everybody agrees this was bad, and most RPGs these days have moved away from it.
There is something to be said about playing the hand you're given and making lemonade... but that kind of game is usually tailored towards a special type of player. Not everybody likes that, some people enjoy more control and fairness in how they get to play their game. That doesn't mean absolute control, but there are degrees of uncertainty people enjoy more than others. And you'd think that if a sizeable part of your playerbase already resents absence of control, it would be quite risky to implement more elements taking control away from the player. The popularity of coriolis.io and the various trade tools should attest to the fact that more randomness and lack of control is something many aren't interested in.
And the worst part about the critics about min-maxing and 'cookie cutter builds'? Most of you aren't interested in min-maxing or using sensible builds for that matter. So what should it matter to you whether some people retain control over their game? What should it matter if Frontier added a reasonably deterministic crafting system for those who really can't stand RNG, if they kept the lottery as an option for you?
