Deeveon
Dominant
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Posts
- 498
- Location
- Seattle, WA USA
- Society
- Hunters Unlimited
- Avatar Name
- Devon Deeveon Knight
EDIT: Oleg pointed out my understanding of how mindforce works was flawed. I thought implants still had a fixed decay value. I undid the changes I made to Entropedia. In any case, as a result of this thread, I now understand how implant/chip decay works. See post #5.
Not sure if this is the right category for this post, but I was curious about the economy of the L implants and the effect of the deterioration value, so did a bit of testing.
Implant Decay
Entropedia Info (before I updated):
NeoPsion 50A (L) = Missing decay
NeoPsion 55 = 0.001 PEC
NeoPsion 30 = 0.001 PEC
NeoPsion 20 = 0.001 PEC
I fruit tested all and found:
50A (L) = 0.047 PEC
55 = 0.009 PEC
30 = 0.009 PEC
20 = 0.009 PEC
I updated Entropedia with my results.
Implant Deterioration
According to the implant description:
50A (L) = 10% deterioration
55 = 2% deterioration
30 = 2% deterioration
20 = 2% deterioration
I used a Corrosive Attack Nanochip V TEN Edition (CVT) for my test.
I did 100 shots with each implant.
Note: Entropedia lists the decay of the CVT chip decay as 0.466 PEC/shot which is not consistent with the above findings.
However, if I add the implant decay & CVT decay together, they all came out to 0.466.
NeoPsion 50A (L)
0.047 Implant decay
0.419 CVT chip decay
====
0.466 PEC decay (implant + chip)
NeoPsion 55
0.009 Implant decay
0.457 CVT chip decay
====
0.466 PEC decay (implant + chip)
So, cost/shot is identical with the 20, 30, 55 and 50A (L) implant, not counting markup on the 50A (L) implant of course.
So, the decay of the CVT chip on Entropedia is wrong, but not sure how to correct it since the decay varies depending on which implant is being used. It seems to be correct as long as you don't select an implant. If you select an implant then it adds the implant decay to the 0.466 making it higher than it should be.
For example, if I select the NeoPsion 55 implant, then it shows a decay of 0.475 (0.466 + 0.009), which is incorrect.
Conclusion
If using a UL attack chip, then it doesn't really matter if you use a 50A (L) implant or any UL one. The eco seems to be the same for both other than the tiny amount of markup you might have to pay on the (L) implant itself and insertion costs. Testing of other (L) implants is needed to see if the results are the same across all (L) implants.
The benefit of an (L) implant seems to be with using high markup (L) chips, like the higher-end Arsonistic chips, where you can get more uses out of them.
Not sure how Entropedia can be modified to show the decay of a chip (without implant) since the decay varies.
Hope this information is helpful to the community.
Not sure if this is the right category for this post, but I was curious about the economy of the L implants and the effect of the deterioration value, so did a bit of testing.
Implant Decay
Entropedia Info (before I updated):
NeoPsion 50A (L) = Missing decay
NeoPsion 55 = 0.001 PEC
NeoPsion 30 = 0.001 PEC
NeoPsion 20 = 0.001 PEC
I fruit tested all and found:
50A (L) = 0.047 PEC
55 = 0.009 PEC
30 = 0.009 PEC
20 = 0.009 PEC
I updated Entropedia with my results.
Implant Deterioration
According to the implant description:
50A (L) = 10% deterioration
55 = 2% deterioration
30 = 2% deterioration
20 = 2% deterioration
I used a Corrosive Attack Nanochip V TEN Edition (CVT) for my test.
I did 100 shots with each implant.
- With the 50A (L) implant, the CVT chip decayed 41.9 PEC for a decay of 0.419 PEC/shot.
- With the 55 implant, the CVT chip decayed 45.7 PEC for a decay of 0.457 PEC/shot.
- The 20 & 30 implants had the exact same decay as 55.
Note: Entropedia lists the decay of the CVT chip decay as 0.466 PEC/shot which is not consistent with the above findings.
However, if I add the implant decay & CVT decay together, they all came out to 0.466.
NeoPsion 50A (L)
0.047 Implant decay
0.419 CVT chip decay
====
0.466 PEC decay (implant + chip)
NeoPsion 55
0.009 Implant decay
0.457 CVT chip decay
====
0.466 PEC decay (implant + chip)
So, cost/shot is identical with the 20, 30, 55 and 50A (L) implant, not counting markup on the 50A (L) implant of course.
So, the decay of the CVT chip on Entropedia is wrong, but not sure how to correct it since the decay varies depending on which implant is being used. It seems to be correct as long as you don't select an implant. If you select an implant then it adds the implant decay to the 0.466 making it higher than it should be.
For example, if I select the NeoPsion 55 implant, then it shows a decay of 0.475 (0.466 + 0.009), which is incorrect.
Conclusion
If using a UL attack chip, then it doesn't really matter if you use a 50A (L) implant or any UL one. The eco seems to be the same for both other than the tiny amount of markup you might have to pay on the (L) implant itself and insertion costs. Testing of other (L) implants is needed to see if the results are the same across all (L) implants.
The benefit of an (L) implant seems to be with using high markup (L) chips, like the higher-end Arsonistic chips, where you can get more uses out of them.
Not sure how Entropedia can be modified to show the decay of a chip (without implant) since the decay varies.
Hope this information is helpful to the community.
Last edited: