Missile DMG Implants Consolidation

Zainou ‘Snapshot’ CMTD - 601 (2/3/4/5/6)

Zainou ‘Snapshot’ AMHM - 701 (2/3/4/5/6)

Zainou ‘Snapshot’ LMRD - 901 (2/3/4/5/6)

As shown above proposing ‘Snapshot’ implant line damage consolidation to bring it in line with gunnery counterparts and certain navigation(bonuses to AB and MWD) implants as well.

Current situation feels to me like arbitrary limitations and having few less clones in rather limited clone pool sounds pretty appealing to me.

From theoretical 6 clones to cover all missile weapon sizes this would change it to 3 clones making room for more shenanigans.

Let me know your opinion on the matter.


Given all the possible implant clone combinations you’ll never have enough clones. I’d be ok with such dual implants but they gota come from a harder to farm lp store like say Mordus Legion

1 Like

Yeah certainly an option for them to be pirate set.
Beside point that if you want all missile clones they will consume more that half of clone pool 6 vs turret 3 it also open up short / long range doctrines on a single clone(like guns) that is kinda desirable for me not necessary to have all missile covered.

1 Like

+1, seems arbitrary that other weapon systems have one implant that fits all while launchers are left behind


gunnery: Summary by Slot
6: +damage for racial small turret, else use a utility hardwire.
7: +tracking, -capacitor use or +falloff.
8: +damage for racial medium turret, else use a utility hardwire.
9: +damage, +rate of fire or +optimal.
10: +damage for racial large turret, else -CPU.

missiles: Summary by Slot
6: +Damage for large launchers, else use a utility hardwire.
7: +Damage for medium launchers, else range.
8: -Explosion radius, else +Velocity for defenders (but a utility hardwire is probably preferable over that).
9: +Damage for small launchers, else +Explosion velocity.
10: +ROF unless you really love FoF.

I dont see the problem that you are talking about. Missile hardwirings are shuffled around compared Gunnery but are essentialy the same.

Not quite

single implant impact both short and long range weapons

Two implants affecting short or long range weaponry basically penalizing you to choose one over other while turrets get a free pass.

1 Like


Those are my proposed mergers atm those are 6 separate implants not 3

Thats what i get for not using missiles much. You should probably clarify in OP.

No probs thanks for dropping by.

If it uses slot 6, it’s no good, because that’s where the Omega implant needs to go :slight_smile:

IIRC for my missile clones I run MP-70x, GP-80x, TN-90x & RL-100x which works for all missile types, and then I only have to worry about shield/armor/speed/whatever else to fill out the remaining 6 slots.

However I cannot do this for turrets (slot 8 is a medium sized hybrid/projectile/energy turret dmg and slot 10 is only large sized hybrid/projectile/energy turret dmg (or fitting), neither of which really appeals when combining with shield/armor/speed/etc implant sets.

So in my turret clones slots 8 & 10 remain empty, or it becomes a really specialized clone (for e.g. hybrids, cause demios & vigilant are awesome, or slot 10 used in the ‘missions’ clone, because Nightmare!).

If we can get the same ‘generalization’ out of turret clones as we can from missiles, I’d be all for it.


This is a tradeoff not really good deal but guns have it too just on a opposite scale small turrets.

One can still rock dual dmg(large or med small get shafted like large missiles) implants application implant and full pirate set shield/armor/speed etc ie tradeoff.


It is not spec just for med hybrids one can use slot 8 for all medium guns and in combination with boosting implant in slot 10 what you get is dual damage+application+pirate set+boosting monster of a medium ship this game possibly can provide you with.

You might dislike it or cant find use for it but this is another tradeoff because arguing that dual dmg boosting pirate set clone is bad…well good luck.

Arguing about trade offs is fine slot 6 for missiles is kinda bad and slot whatever for guns is kinda bad yeah…but are on another level of complaining altogether.

But(t) a big one

One small turret dmg vs two missile implants
One medium turret dmg vs two missile implants
One large turret dmg vs two missile implants
…is not a tradeoff its arbitrary situation that variant fixing first(thus my focus on it alone) than i can start complaining about missile slot 6 and turret slot of unfairness.

Fixed that for you. Missile users have to choose bewteen short and long range inplants that work across all racial ships lines whereas turret users can use short and long tange turrets one one set of implants, but they’re only applicable to one (sometimes two) racial ship lines.

I’m not at all opposed to clearing up some of the complexity in weapon damage hardwirings, but it would help to properly state the problem first.

So you want to have singular dmg implant for three separate weapon systems and call that balanced?
Why not just 5% DMG S/M/L to all the things and 5% ROF S/M/L to all the things?

I think you mistook me. I don’t want to increase the number of implants (i.e. I don’t think we need short and long range implants for turrets), I was just pointing out a secondary imbalance between missile and turret hardwirings.

If anything, I’d like to see the number reduced.

If you want to argue that one implant(beside one we already have) should work across weapon types(projectiles/hybrid/lasers) go ahead be sure to add triglav guns as well if you are removing any difference among turrets than triglav can fit as well.

However in this thread i focus on a weapon system i see is wrapped in arbitrary limitation and i wont tag along on turret idea because i believe there are 5(+1 new trig) weapon systems in eve not 2.