Originally Posted by
Bragi
I think that the 'unique' vs 'better' thing is being affected by some overlap.
Let's say there's a gap in a given weapon TL range. We can add a WoC weapon within that gap that is balanced accordingly; this doesn't make this weapon 'better' (so long as the implant options associated with it aren't any better than with any other choice), but adds variety. Those without WoC then don't feel the need to reach it to compete.
On the other hand, if you have (for example) a WoC implant that's identical to the DIP, but has a +10 (or whatever value) bonus to something, even if it's 'incidental' (such as VHC, HCK, etc.) then this is still 'better', and you end up shifting the line ever upwards.
We have to draw the line at overall performance at some point.
We could of course have a 'soft' line.
Though horribly confusing to many players, the previous implant rework aimed to make the difference between Tier 3 implants and the Rares and MC5s much less (very similar to what I just mentioned and greensoldier's suggestions). The MC5s were intended as the end-game items, but use of the the lower tiers for more casual and/or less hard-core players would be less detrimental.
But at the end of the day, the MC5s were always the end-game items.
The question that needs to be addressed is: Where is our chosen end-game performance line?
Is it MC5s? In which case WoC is about prestige and non-essential options; Or is it WoC, which while possibly marginal in it's benefits, is still the standard for end-game.