What did I say that was irrational, or not true? Choosing to not have blinders on is not the same thing as knee-jerk opposition of change for no good reason.
I don’t oppose any and all change. I oppose what I perceive to be ill-conceived change, bad change, stupid change, change that adds new stuff when the changer can’t even balance or get old stuff done correctly, change where the changer cannot be trusted to implement the change, change which follows a known historical pattern of a bad outcome, etc. The carrier nerf was a bad change, thus I opposed it. Fixing T3C was a good change - I supported it, but the point there was, 1) it took years for it to happen, and 2) the job still isn’t done. I wasn’t opposed to tiericide, which was a pretty huge change, and in general I haven’t had any problems with it. I was opposed to nerfing battleships. I fully support the upcoming QoL changes to PI, and I trust CCP to do that right. CCP did a great job on the probe/scanning QoL changes a while back, and I fully supported that. I like the new map (which some people don’t like). Etc.
In short, I evaluate each change separately. Here, with the developer statements of “meh, we’ll just nerf base modules so as to cram these square RNG modules down a round hole and make them fit” - you’d have to be crazy to support this, in my opinion. I also tend to hate RNG of any kind in pretty much all games, but especially games which are supposed to be based on skill or strategy. In Eve I’m perfectly willing to tolerate randomness in what position I spawn off of a gate. I’m less willing to tolerate it in things like combat mechanics, economics, etc.