These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Enough is Enough: Nerf Minmatar
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#461 - 2011-11-23 01:16:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Mfume Apocal wrote:

Nobody flies Harb fleets because the Drake can sport more tank and better damage projection while having a similar speed (PDU fit). Canes sidestep this meta because the 2x medium neuts and superior EFT DPS make up for the lost projection when it comes to ganking caps/supers, while Arty Canes (relatively rare) are still useful in a medium gang context as a relative handful can alpha through reps or alpha the logistics themselves.


So - more reasons to fly Canes over Harbs (leaving the Drake out, but of course you're right).

Quote:

Also: I'm not sure where this meme of "autos outrange pulse" got started, but it simply isn't true. A (220mm, 2x TE) Vaga might have 40km of falloff and this is a considerable range advantage over a Harb, but a HPL (+2x TE/TC) Zealot sports an optimal of 44km. Apples to apples, pulse have more range, period.


Any non-range bonused Minmatar ship with TEs fitted can out-dps any comparable non range-bonused Amarr ship ouside scorch range.

Quote:


This entire scenario you have laid out is less about tanking styles or range bonuses and more about the fact that in EVE, most gang PvP is semi-consensual. I've slipped out from nanogangs in a plated BS fleet before, simply because avoiding PvP in EVE is easy if you're prepared (in our case, false scout jumps and delay bubbles on gates). Even when unprepared, armor gangs are perfectly capable of escaping, insofar as they are typically built to ride out the 60 seconds necessary to deaggro and jump/dock.


Not really going to dispute this - still Minmatar ships have a tremendous tactical advantage (read: initiative) over any other ship - therefore they should be weaker on the battlefield. Just nerfing their ammo-base damege by 10% would suffice imho.

(And no - I wasn't ignoring your post - as I said I was tired before replying to Liangs post and had to get up for work in less than 4 hours).
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#462 - 2011-11-23 01:45:31 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

However, sometime after Monaclegate some small segment of the community has taken it upon itself to demand that projectiles and Minmatar ships be nerfed into total oblivion by reversing the entire projectile boost -- and more. Of course we have the usual troll suspects like Naomi and more recently Zarnak (the OP)... but there's a bit more to this one as well.


This thread didn't reach page 24 because of a couple of troll suspects. There is a significant dissatisfation with balance in the game. That disatisfaction is there despite CCP's current overtures. As an example if I'm looking at the Naga as a Caldari pilot I have to wonder why I have the slowest tier three BC, with significant fitting issues and the largest signature radius. This is a new ship! Do they get it? Do they get it at all?!? Has anyone at CCP sat down and tried to fit a rail boat before? Where do they get their fitting numbers from? It's maddening. And you look over at the Tornado pilot who has to decide how many LSE II to fit on his ship when you had to struggle just to fit one named. To repeat - these are new ships; a chance for CCP to step away from past frustrations. Ugh

I understand the point that you have tried to make repeatedly. Hybrids are bad vs. everything. I agree. But I also think that it's easier to balance Gallente vs. Amarr then Gallente vs. Minmatar. Tweak the fittings so I can fit a propulsion mod rather then a fitting mod. Slightly increase speed and agility. Maybe we're already at the spot where blaster boats can quickly catch laser ships. We'll see. As it is right now they're not balanced vs. Minmatar ships that have twice the range and twice the speed. If Gallente/ Caldari are balanced vs. Minmatar there's a better chance they'll be balanced vs. Amarr.

Lastly, when you take a look at how long things are allowed to be unbalanced in the game it's hard to make the argument for patience. Electronic attack frigates have been broken since November of 2008. That's three years. Assault frigates were almost fixed. 18 months ago. Hell - hybrids were pretty much broken in November of 2008 too. It is my belief that the squeeky wheel gets the oil. I'm putting pressure on the situation not only from the 'buff hybrid' viewpoint but also the 'need an alternative to Minmatar' viewpoint. Let CCP know what standard we're holding them to!

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#463 - 2011-11-23 01:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Tara Read wrote:
Kingwood wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Being in your enemies face, grinding them into the dust... Yeah... That's why I love flying close quarters. Either you or them no holds barred. Either you go up in flames or I do.



Quoting this for hilarity.


Hilarity? Oh you sad strange little man. Is 28km too close to you in that cane of yours? Typical kids these days. If they cant stay out of point web and scram range they wont fly it. Pussies the lot of you I say!! Lol.


"My blaster megathron can hit you CANE at 28km, I win !!"

Well, my maelstrom or my pest can hit your blaster brutix or your blaster mega at over 70km and there's nothing you can do.

Roll
Usual Edit for lols because I can: yes you can gtfo and dock until you have 10 friends free to help you kill the bad guy.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#464 - 2011-11-23 02:20:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
This thread didn't reach page 24 because of a couple of troll suspects. There is a significant dissatisfation with balance in the game. That disatisfaction is there despite CCP's current overtures.

...

I understand the point that you have tried to make repeatedly. Hybrids are bad vs. everything. I agree. But I also think that it's easier to balance Gallente vs. Amarr then Gallente vs. Minmatar. Tweak the fittings so I can fit a propulsion mod rather then a fitting mod. Slightly increase speed and agility. Maybe we're already at the spot where blaster boats can quickly catch laser ships. We'll see. As it is right now they're not balanced vs. Minmatar ships that have twice the range and twice the speed. If Gallente/ Caldari are balanced vs. Minmatar there's a better chance they'll be balanced vs. Amarr.


From everything I've seen since I started following these forums again, it appears that there's a very small core group of people that's demanding nerfs to Minmatar and justifying them by comparisons to Gallente and really ****** Amarr ships. I suppose it really shouldn't be unexpected - MMO communities are like this. When a buff is announced it appears to be perfectly normal to see MMO communities pull together and acknowledge the fundamental reasons for the buff --- and then simultaneously demand additional nerfs to go with the buffs designed to bring the offending content up to speed.

Basically - you, and the rest of the Nerf Minmatar crowd, are demanding The Damp Effect. If you were in charge of the game, we'd go through the whipsaw balancing that is driving Rift into the ground and we'd constantly see systems go from overpowered to useless and back because you'd be buffing and nerfing all at the same time without giving the metagame time to settle. This is exactly why we went from ECM to Damps to ECM (except it'd happen oh so much faster). This kind of balancing is bad for the game.

Quote:

As an example if I'm looking at the Naga as a Caldari pilot I have to wonder why I have the slowest tier three BC, with significant fitting issues and the largest signature radius. This is a new ship! Do they get it? Do they get it at all?!? Has anyone at CCP sat down and tried to fit a rail boat before? Where do they get their fitting numbers from? It's maddening. And you look over at the Tornado pilot who has to decide how many LSE II to fit on his ship when you had to struggle just to fit one named. To repeat - these are new ships; a chance for CCP to step away from past frustrations. Ugh


Uh... the Naga is the only Tier 3 BC I'm actually looking forward to. :-/

Quote:

Lastly, when you take a look at how long things are allowed to be unbalanced in the game it's hard to make the argument for patience. Electronic attack frigates have been broken since November of 2008. That's three years. Assault frigates were almost fixed. 18 months ago. Hell - hybrids were pretty much broken in November of 2008 too. It is my belief that the squeeky wheel gets the oil. I'm putting pressure on the situation not only from the 'buff hybrid' viewpoint but also the 'need an alternative to Minmatar' viewpoint. Let CCP know what standard we're holding them to!


I'm sorry, but this is just a pathetic QQ rant in the face of Crucible.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#465 - 2011-11-23 02:34:49 UTC
You have more faith in CCP then I do.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#466 - 2011-11-23 03:15:27 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
You have more faith in CCP then I do.


Yes, I do.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#467 - 2011-11-23 03:18:53 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
which was also a mistake IMO, and one based on the laughable idea that falloff is only half as useful as optimal


Eh, its certainly not equal to optimal either. IMO they couldn't introduce falloff to TDs without giving them an opposing force in TEs and TCs. Still, I'm not inclined to nerf falloff on TEs and TCs because it'd unnecessarily splash over to Hybrids. The falloff bonuses are also not so suspect to me - it shouldn't be surprising that a ship with a range bonus performs well at range.

Compare these 2 hypothetical guns: We'll call them a pulse laser and an AC.
The pulse laser has an optimal of 10km, a falloff of 1km
The AC has the 10 falloff and 1 optimal.
Assuming each has the same base DPS, the pulse will hold an advantage in damage out to 11km, as at this point each turret is in 1X falloff.
Beyond that however, the AC does more damage, as it will still be doing about 40% of its DPS at 12km, whereas the pulse will be doing no damage at all.
It ss, in my opinion at least, a well balanced idea, and is probably the reason why falloff works the way it does, instead of losing all your damage at 1X falloff (and just making the numbers bigger).

But now we have a mod that gives twice the falloff that it gives to optimal, because people arbitrarily decided that optimal was twice as useful (undoubtedly stemming from the fact that you lose about half your dps at optimal+falloff, and that "half" bit sticks in people's heads when they think about falloff mechanics). This is not balanced. Combined with the falloff bonuses certain matari ships get, and you do end up with numbers that can be a bit off. I don't think minmatar as a whole are terribly overpowered, but I do think the blanket buffs they got were a rather bad idea, as there WERE good matari ships before them, and in buffing the good just as much as the bad, they did throw off a few ships in terms of balance. Not by enough to warrant the hilarious amounts of whining we're seeing here (ESPECIALLY from amarr pilots) mind you, but there's definitely something.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#468 - 2011-11-23 03:51:34 UTC
Cambarus wrote:

Beyond that however, the AC does more damage, as it will still be doing about 40% of its DPS at 12km, whereas the pulse will be doing no damage at all.
It ss, in my opinion at least, a well balanced idea, and is probably the reason why falloff works the way it does, instead of losing all your damage at 1X falloff (and just making the numbers bigger).


The core concept is sound, I agree - though I will never agree that this is a balanced situation. I think the core difference of opinion comes from the fact that you're thinking of it as doing DPS whereas I'm thinking of it as doing useful DPS at useful engagement ranges. Simply put, I don't feel that 1 falloff is even remotely as useful as 1 optimal - and neither do you when you get right down to it. Taking two guns doing 1000 DPS, would you rather have 250 optimal + 1 falloff or 1 optimal and 250 falloff?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#469 - 2011-11-23 04:57:42 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Cambarus wrote:

Beyond that however, the AC does more damage, as it will still be doing about 40% of its DPS at 12km, whereas the pulse will be doing no damage at all.
It ss, in my opinion at least, a well balanced idea, and is probably the reason why falloff works the way it does, instead of losing all your damage at 1X falloff (and just making the numbers bigger).


The core concept is sound, I agree - though I will never agree that this is a balanced situation. I think the core difference of opinion comes from the fact that you're thinking of it as doing DPS whereas I'm thinking of it as doing useful DPS at useful engagement ranges. Simply put, I don't feel that 1 falloff is even remotely as useful as 1 optimal - and neither do you when you get right down to it. Taking two guns doing 1000 DPS, would you rather have 250 optimal + 1 falloff or 1 optimal and 250 falloff?

-Liang


The other distinction is unpowered vs powered. ECM jam a ship and it cannot target. All the ships hit these issues but powered weapons systems ALSO face neuts to shut them down. This is how we end up with such "good" bastardizations as Amarr hulls fitting projectiles.

Now take your 2 guns doing 1000 DPS and neut the hell out of those ships and tell me who's doing what. When you are immune in such a fashion to a very popular fit, there should be associated penalties which do NOT exist for unpowered systems. Missiles have a few downsides to them but every downside has a positive offset to it. The powered systems though - they will remain less popular when they can be off-lined by very popular PvP fitting options.

yada... yada... yada... Easy stuff to debate over and over but IMO - enough changes for now. Let's see what the hell we get from the current batch that's going live soon. THEN start looking at whatever else might need fixing.

Simply put: There is no way in hell to predict how all these current changes are going to show in the game until it's live for a while. we'll hear mass about "over powered now!" and "underwhelming!!!" as folks get used to how these things "fit" in how they play so it'll be a while until a balance is struck on how things "are".

Again: Let's see what we have before asking for changes based upon "what is" and not what will be here in a couple of weeks.
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
#470 - 2011-11-23 05:04:32 UTC
1. fighting in falloff = half the damage
2.T2 long range sniper ammo is not that powerful

no reasons to nerf
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#471 - 2011-11-23 05:37:41 UTC
Mocam wrote:

The other distinction is unpowered vs powered. ECM jam a ship and it cannot target. All the ships hit these issues but powered weapons systems ALSO face neuts to shut them down. This is how we end up with such "good" bastardizations as Amarr hulls fitting projectiles.

Now take your 2 guns doing 1000 DPS and neut the hell out of those ships and tell me who's doing what. When you are immune in such a fashion to a very popular fit, there should be associated penalties which do NOT exist for unpowered systems. Missiles have a few downsides to them but every downside has a positive offset to it. The powered systems though - they will remain less popular when they can be off-lined by very popular PvP fitting options.

yada... yada... yada... Easy stuff to debate over and over but IMO - enough changes for now. Let's see what the hell we get from the current batch that's going live soon. THEN start looking at whatever else might need fixing.

Simply put: There is no way in hell to predict how all these current changes are going to show in the game until it's live for a while. we'll hear mass about "over powered now!" and "underwhelming!!!" as folks get used to how these things "fit" in how they play so it'll be a while until a balance is struck on how things "are".

Again: Let's see what we have before asking for changes based upon "what is" and not what will be here in a couple of weeks.


Yeah, couldn't agree more.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#472 - 2011-11-23 05:58:17 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Number of 'Nerf Gallente!' threads in past year: None
Number of 'Nerf Amarr!' threads in past year: None
Number of 'Nerf Caldari!' threads in past year: None
Number of 'Nerf Minmatar!' threads in past year: Countless!

That's saying something.

You obviously weren't playing eve before december 2009. In the two years that I played before that, it was a constant drivel of nerf lasers, nerf lasers, nerf lasers, nerf nano, nerf nano.

You obviously also see to have missed the stream of nerf drake threads at the end of 2010, when everyone decided that the drake was the best blob ship.
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#473 - 2011-11-23 05:59:55 UTC
ElCholo wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Basic line of thought is that if you can disengage at will, you shouldn't be able to shoot as far as Minmatar currently can. And it really comes down to a few culpable ships. You forgot to mention the dramiel, cynabal, and Machariel. Cool


I don't think that he forgot to mention them. I think it's more along the lines that they aren't "Minmatar" ships. They are Angel faction ships that have insane falloff bonuses along with amazing speed and agility. You don't nerf an entire weapon system because of unbalanced ships. :P CCP knows this which is why the Dramiel is already getting nerfed this Winter.

Yes, yes, the nerfmatar whiners will still say "But they use ACs!". This still doesn't make AC's OP'd, nor does it make them Minmatar ships, no matter how they will try to spin in to support their side that Minmatar is OP.

Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Basic line of thought is that if you can disengage at will, you shouldn't be able to shoot as far as Minmatar currently can.


My issue with this train of thought is that if you make a race that is supposed to be able to disengage at will, then why take away the weapon system that allows them to use that? At the point to which you take away this weapon system, they can no longer fight in the ranges that allow them to disengage and are thus no longer used. They can keep range and do no damage, or get in range of their "then nerfed" guns and be outclassed by every other ship. IMHO that is bad logic.

I'm going to steal a word from your post to start a new meme if you don't mind: Nerfmatard.
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#474 - 2011-11-23 06:13:18 UTC
Vmir Gallahasen wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Or how about my personal favorite. 150k ehp triple plate mega. 1126 dps, 860 ms with agility boost and once again can fit a heavy cap injector.

An abaddon fit similarly has 2.5% less DPS but 10% more EHP and about three times the range, and deals more damage at ranges beyond 7.5km

I'm glad you're impressed with the changes but you'll soon see they're not nearly enough. a 2.5% dps advantage is not a good enough reason to put yourself in the zone of scramwebneut despair, especially when you have to give up EHP to do it which more than negates your advantage in the first place

The Abaddon is on the same tier as the Hyperion and the Maelstrom. You're trolling.
Vmir Gallahasen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#475 - 2011-11-23 06:40:17 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

Basically - you, and the rest of the Nerf Minmatar crowd, are demanding The Damp Effect. If you were in charge of the game, we'd go through the whipsaw balancing that is driving Rift into the ground and we'd constantly see systems go from overpowered to useless and back because you'd be buffing and nerfing all at the same time

I don't know if you've noticed, but Eve does this already. The difference is that years pass between balancing patches.


Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm sorry, but this is just a pathetic QQ rant in the face of Crucible.

So, a single patch makes up for years of CCP's balance neglect in your eyes does it? Improving minmatar as much as they did was a mistake and is a perfect example of what you've called the Damp Effect. Now Minmatar have made up 60% of the top ships used in PvP for three years straight. It needs to be fixed, and nerfing one thing is a lot better than buffing everything else to compete with the overpowered thing
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#476 - 2011-11-23 06:47:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Vmir Gallahasen wrote:

Liang Nuren wrote:
The Damp Effect

I don't know if you've noticed, but Eve does this already. The difference is that years pass between balancing patches.


So... I reference an Eve module that was nerfed in an Eve patch on the Eve forums and you're asking me if I noticed that they did exactly what I said they did.

Really?

Quote:

So, a single patch makes up for years of CCP's balance neglect in your eyes does it? Improving minmatar as much as they did was a mistake and is a perfect example of what you've called the Damp Effect. Now Minmatar have made up 60% of the top ships used in PvP for three years straight. It needs to be fixed, and nerfing one thing is a lot better than buffing everything else to compete with the overpowered thing.


My thoughts on Crucible: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/crucible-is-like-a-marriage. The tl;dr: I think its as good as we could possibly ask for. Better, even, because I happen to know that the CCP devs are working bucket fulls of overtime to make this patch happen. Furthermore, your assertion that they've made up 60% of the top ships in PVP for three years straight is total bullshit. We had an entire year where the top ship used was the Drake.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Vmir Gallahasen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#477 - 2011-11-23 06:53:32 UTC
Bomberlocks wrote:
The Abaddon is on the same tier as the Hyperion and the Maelstrom. You're trolling.

If you want me to compare a close range gank fit mega to a sniping Amarr bs, you are the one trolling sir
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#478 - 2011-11-23 06:56:59 UTC
Vmir Gallahasen wrote:
Bomberlocks wrote:
The Abaddon is on the same tier as the Hyperion and the Maelstrom. You're trolling.

If you want me to compare a close range gank fit mega to a sniping Amarr bs, you are the one trolling sir


I'd fancy my chances against an Abaddon if I was in a Hype.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Vmir Gallahasen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#479 - 2011-11-23 07:05:31 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

So... I reference an Eve module that was nerfed in an Eve patch on the Eve forums and you're asking me if I noticed that they did exactly what I said they did.

Really?

No, I was referring to the overall effect of things becoming overpowered or underpowered with a huge buff or nerf in a whipsaw balancing patch that you accused Minmatar-nerf-desiring people of encouraging and I was pointing out that that's already been happening and has been for years, it's just hard for you to see because the time between balance patches is measured in years

Damps
ECM
Missiles
Autocannons
Istabs
Damage controls
Supercarriers
Oversize AB
Nos
Webs
Scrams
ABs

And those are just the larger things I can remember off the top of my head

Quote:
My thoughts on Crucible: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/crucible-is-like-a-marriage. The tl;dr: I think its as good as we could possibly ask for. Better, even, because I happen to know that the CCP devs are working bucket fulls of overtime to make this patch happen.

I don't disagree this is as good as it is going to get, I just disagree that pretending like it's reasonable to expect smaller balance patches after this one is still moronic given CCP's track record. Yes, they say they're going to iterate on it but if you've been around for a couple of years you know that's a load of crap

Faction warfare? Oh, we'll iterate on it. Abandoned
Assault frigates? Sure, we'll fix those. Waiting for years
Black ops? We don't want them to be overpowered when released, so they're pre-nerfed and we'll adjust them later. Waiting for years
Supercarriers unbalanced? Three years
Gallente almost never seen in PvP? three years
Incarna: we'll release the other captain quarters a few weeks after release. Six months


Quote:
Furthermore, your assertion that they've made up 60% of the top ships in PVP for three years straight is total bullshit. We had an entire year where the top ship used was the Drake.

Just in case you missed it, I'll post this again

Vmir Gallahasen wrote:
1 Drake
2 Hurricane
3 Abaddon
4 Armageddon
5 Zealot
6 Tempest
7 Maelstrom
8 Dramiel
9 Rifter
10 Cynabal
11 Sabre
12 Rapier
13 Scimitar
14 Tengu
15 Hound
16 Vagabond
17 Manticore
18 Loki
19 Harbinger
20 Capsule

Caldari
Winmatar
Amarr
Amarr
Amarr
Winmatar
Winmatar
Winmatar Angel Style
Winmatar
Winmater Angel Style
Winmatar
Winmatar
Winmatar
Caldari
Winmatar
Winmatar
Caldari
Winmatar
Amarr
People who tried to kill someone but died during it

60% Winmatar
20% Amarr
15% Caldari
5% Pods
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#480 - 2011-11-23 07:22:00 UTC
This Nerfmatard meme has taken on a life of its own, and frankly, it's becoming tiresome.

In two weeks Gallente frigates, interceptors, destroyers and assault ships will be collectively the most powerful frigate class race in game. They have received agility and velocity improvements that make it nigh on impossible for armour tanked ships or shield tanked ships without webs to dictate range. They have by far the highest dps and the best tracking, and they have the hull hp bonus which is critical at that size due to the lacks of slots to fit big armour or shield tanks.

This agility and velocity bonus carries over to the larger blaster ships as well. Give me a choice of a Thorax gang with 5x med ecm drones or a set of light ecm and warrior drones and a Rupture gang with 5x light ecm drones and I'll take the Thorax gang any day because med ecms are so OP that you'll keep any similarly sized gang permanently jammed out.

Hybrid blasters have received fitting requirements buff so that the ability to fit larger blasters (read neutrons) is now possible and realistic. They have also received a damage boost on top of that. What they means in small scale combat is that if the combat is within overheated web range (say in a bubble), the odds are that the big dps increase will win the day.

Hybrid railguns have also received fitting and damage and tracking improvements. They are, however, still difficult to fit, especially in the larger tiers. However, on small ships, like the Cormorant, Harpy etc, they now provide up to 300 dps at pretty enormous ranges unmatched anything else. You will be able to take on a Hurricane gang at range with mere Cormorants.

Honestly, I have been training Hybrids the last few weeks on my Main account (Minnie/Caldari specced) mainly because of these changes, and am training Caldari on my my alt that is already purely Gallente specced.

I would be doing it for the Destroyers alone. And while I'm on the topic, some figures of often used ships in eve that will only get better with this patch:
Gallente:
Frigates: Incursus, Tristan. Both are used, both are now better than the standard Rifter
Destroyers: Catalyst, the highest DPS destroyer can now do over 500 dps....
Cruisers: Thorax, Vexor. Both benefit from the changes.
Battlecruisers: Brutix, Myrmidon. Both benefit from the patch
Battleships: Megathron, Dominix and Hyperion. All benefit from the patch.
AFs: Enyo, Ishkur: The Ishkur was already one of the best AFs...
HACs: Deimos, Ishtar: The Deimos becomes a viable HAC for moderately good players as opposed to an elite PvPer ship. The Ishtar is now pretty damn good.
CS: Astarte. The Astarte is now a superb ship.

Caldari:
Frigates: Merlin. Now able to keep track of Rifters with improved blaster tracking.
Destroyers: Cormorant. 300 dps from 80 kms sounds pretty nice to me.
Cruisers: Blaster Moa might be better, I have no idea.
Battlecruisers: Ferox: Blaster fits are now an interesting option, and they weren't bad before
Battelships: Rokh, ditto
AFs: Harpy is now one of the best and most rounded AFs.
HACS: Eagle: Meh, still not really worth it.

Now, what about all the ships that are still subpar on standard fits in eve? Why don't we spend some time asking for them to improved instead? Things like the:
Breacher (missing slots and missile fitting problems)
Kestrel (missile fitting problems)
Inquisitor (I'm sure there was a point to this ship, I just don't know what it was)
Omen (cpu/grid are terrible)
Maller (good for bait and nothing else)
Stabber (this is what almost all Minnie used to be like - poor tank, no range, poor dps, only speed)
Bellicose (lackluster dps, poor tank)
Caracal (missile fittings (cpu especially) is a problem for almost all missile ships, from standard missiles, to HAMs, to HMLs to Torps )
T1 interceptors (slasher, executioner, condor enough said)
Raven (Torps gimp the fit, Cruise missiles have poor dps)
Retribution (one mid slot is one mid slot too little)
Coercer (one mid slot is one mid slot too little)

And now we also have to cope with Tier 3 BCs and the imbalance they will bring to the game.....