Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Discovery: Arsonistic Chip III (L) & Arsonistic Chip IV (L) & NeoPsion 20-A Mindforce Implant (L)

John B Knight

John B Knight

Elite
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Posts
4,265
Society
Titans of Space
Avatar Name
John Black Knight
Last night after hunting locusta for several hours and just about as we were to end our hunt i received some nice little souvenirs :D
























If someone has a clue what they are worth please let me know :)
 
Looks like another name on ignite chips.
The implant has 10% deterioration, old ul implants has 2% so i guess the old ul is 5 times cheaper to use.
 
Nice one, congrats! Been wondering about the stats of those chips.

Is the graphic the same as the combustive chips or is it original?
 
Look to be exactly same as ignite chips but a little bit more range. Decay test would be useful.
 
Gratz on discoveries!

I would value implant around sth liek this: highest nanochip/strike_chip/effect price -2% or -3%.

So basicly someone who uses those high markup "added effect" (L) chips probably will want to buy this one (it seems those have highest markup and some decay quite a lot).

Falagor
:bandit:
 
slither said:
Look to be exactly same as ignite chips but a little bit more range. Decay test would be useful.
Click to expand...

I assume the largest difference is that Ignite chips are Calypso specific (dropping only from beacons) and Arsonistic chips are universal (dropping in space loot).
 
Repeating the above, I guess you could price those Arsonistic chips similar to Ignite chips.

The L implant interests me. That particular 20-A is pro level 20, so you could not run any chip above that pro level.

In other words you could use the III arsonistic chips with it (pro level 19.5) but not the IV arson chip with is pro level 30.

I'm still struggling to appreciate the benefits of using an L implant, especially since unlimited L20 implants are pretty abundent. Maybe a sign MA are still pushing for 100% L on everything.

Maybe it's a feeler how the community are prepared to accept this, question marks remain regarding the L55 implants (best implants) and how MA are planning to manage that with bigger and more powerful chips. I would suggest MA lift the pro requirements of the exisiting L55 implants if this happens (although I'm going slightly off topic here).

As has alreadly been said, would be interesting so see if any difference in animations. MA developers are getting really good, at making these effect chips look really cool indeed.

Big gratz on your discoveries John and team.

Rick
 
RickEngland said:
I'm still struggling to appreciate the benefits of using an L implant, especially since unlimited L20 implants are pretty abundent. Maybe a sign MA are still pushing for 100% L on everything.
Click to expand...

Well, the 10% decay absorbation makes any chip used with it last longer... and increases the eco of any (L) chip with higher markup than the implant itself.

I've been expecting those implants to drop ever since the implant rebalance :silly2:
 
Nighthawk said:
Well, the 10% decay absorbation makes any chip used with it last longer... and increases the eco of any (L) chip with higher markup than the implant itself.

I've been expecting those implants to drop ever since the implant rebalance :silly2:
Click to expand...

You was mentioning that to me yesterday, although I had so many PM's open at the time I was struggling to digest what you was saying.

I still don't get it NH. I dont see how the implant effects the eco of the chip, they are two different things. I see it as the implant decays by 10%, but not enitely clear what the 10% represents.

To be honest I tend to ignore the costs of implants as it is so minimal, its hardly worth thinking about across 1000's of ammo.

Looks like I might be due some histroical research when have some time.

Rick
 
RickEngland said:
I still don't get it NH. I dont see how the implant effects the eco of the chip, they are two different things. I see it as the implant decays by 10%, but not enitely clear what the 10% represents.
Click to expand...

Well an example then:

Implant 1:
- 1% decay absorbation.
- 100PED max TT.
- Unlimited.

Implant 2:
- 10% decay absorbation.
- 100PED max TT.
- (L), with 150% markup.

Attack Chip:
- 1PED base decay per use.
- 100PED max TT.
- Eco is 3.0 not counting markup.
- (L), with 200% markup.



Using Attack Chip + Implant 1:
- Chip decay will be 0.99PED per use.
- Implant decay will be 0.01PED per use.
- Chip will last for 101 uses.
- Eco will be 3.03 not counting markup.
- Eco will be 1.515 including markup.

Using Attack Chip + Implant 2:
- Chip decay will be 0.9PED per use.
- Implant decay will be 0.1PED per use.
- Chip will last for 111 uses.
- Eco will be 3.33 not counting markup.
- Eco will be 1.95 including markup.



Since the implant absorbs some of the decay from the chip, the chip markup per use will be lower. This obviously only works to increase eco if the implant markup is lower than the chip markup.

In essence, a higher decay absorbation ("Implant Deterioration") means higher implant decay and lower chip decay per use. The TT cost of decay per use will stay the same, but some of the markup cost will shift to the implant.



EDIT: Please note the example assumes the chip does 300 dmg/use and has no ammo cost.
 
Last edited:
This is true IF it work like this

10% implant decay absorbation example:
Total decay: 10 pec
Decay on chip: 9 pec
Decay on implant: 1 pec

Edit:
I guess this is wrong since it says decay absorbation in the description on the chips wich have to work like Nighthawk says

If the decay on the chip is static for example 10 pec you will end up with 11 pec decay including that new implant while you get 10.2 pec (2% decay absorbation) with old ul implants.


Nighthawk said:
Well, the 10% decay absorbation makes any chip used with it last longer... and increases the eco of any (L) chip with higher markup than the implant itself.

I've been expecting those implants to drop ever since the implant rebalance :silly2:
Click to expand...
 
toad said:
This is true IF it work like this

10% implant decay absorbation example:
Total decay: 10 pec
Decay on chip: 9 pec
Decay onb implant: 1 pec

If the decay on the chip is static for example 10 pec you will end up with 11 pec decay including that new implant while you get 10.2 pec (2% decay absorbation) with old ul implants.
Click to expand...

Well to me it is obvious that it works that way, as it would be a logical way for Mindark to offer improvement without having to lower TT cost (increased eco is from markup), which makes everyone happy in the end.

Also, the wording "The Implant will absorb this much of the deterioration of the used Chip." also supports this.



Anyways, this is quite easy to check by simply using a chip with both the 2% and 10% implants and then doing fruit tests on all three :)
 
I edited my post after i wrote it, ofc it has to work like you said Nighthawk, it says the implants absorb decay not add decay.
 
Just when i went to bed.. :rolleyes: I was one round away from hoffing too! :( ;)


Gz :D
 
gratz mate ^-^ easier to global on them now, I did it the hard way before those were added, spent 1k ped doing it, at least I got Deluxe Bustier and Bodystocking though, just won't let me wear them :O
 
Thank you everyone and also thanks for all the great info shared in this thread - i certainly learned quite abit about mindforce chips and implants :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top