How hard is it to get the exceptional implants?

I've only bought one 9-implant pack (with certs ofc) and I got a lot of good ones, but I would love to get the Minor cloak to work with my bolt-action sniper rifle RAMS-50. Sniping is really hard and this item would make standing still overlooking vehicle terminals a bit easier so I'm not constantly getting counter-sniped.

How hard is it to get this item?

i hear less than 1% chance,
i too wanted cloak so i went through a stage of dumping certs the moment i had them (750 for the better deal)
i actually ended up getting Counter Intelligence on an alt i hardly play, though nothing higher than the odd tier 2 implant for the rest,
i must have purchased around 40 boxes across all characters.

i'd be interested to find out what the drop chance is through the new "recycler"

I think 0.05% per draw, and either 3 draws for the 300 cert pack or 9 draws for the deluxe pack (83 certs per implant).
Not sure how to calculate the probability on that. I calculated previously that on average it takes 200 packs to get one specific rare.

Although I couldnt bother with minor cloak. It has a longer decloak time and terminal sniping is a despicable act. Imagine if spawnbunkers didnt protect the people that spawn there. Would that make it OK to just kill people as they spawn in? Just because the devs never got around to fixing vehicle terminal protection doesnt mean its ok.

"despicable act"

Like isn't that kind of the point of the infiltrator? That's the kind of s*** I'm supposed to be doing in this class.

I feel people are so blind to what the classes are meant for. Like people cry that HA has an "I win shield". Well duh that's kind of the point, they're the bread+ butter infantryman.

Same reason I snipe vehicle terminals with my sniper rifles. I mean it's freakin hard to hit moving targets with those things. Whenever I'm not providing hacks/recon I try to deny enemy as much vehicle-counterattack capabilities for my team as I can.

(rant over)

So this is actually kind of disapointing, I didn't realize it was that rare to get these implants.Atleast I don't need to recharge them anymore. I could never be bothered to fart around with that.

If you dont wanna get countersniped, then snipe from 400+m - even when someone hits you on the first shot it wont kill you. Way easier than waiting for exceptional implants to drop

Remember the 8 second activation from no movement, a very long time after terminal sniping. Not a fan of the practice, but the key is relocation. Take a player out, cloak, run a good 100m to another possible sniping perch. Doesn't matter what cloak you use when terminal sniping, they will come for you.

So your entire reasoning is "sniping is hard, so it's completely OK to shoot people the one moment control is literally taken away from them when they access a terminal and latency causes them to be vulnerable for longer than they are actually standing still there".

Infiltrators fullfill many roles. They have the most varied short to long range loadout in the game. They are great for long-range support, taking out people behind turrets or for long-range flanking of people behind cover, picking off specific enemies like Medics of Pocket Engies, and with SASR's and scout rifles they perform a strong mid-range capability and SMG infiltrators are one of the most lethal classes in the game.
But you think that Infiltrators are "designed" to kill people at vehicle terminals just as much as the Heavy shield is designed to tank more shots? I mean really? Especially since the inception of directly spawning a vehicle, the only way to truly "deny vehicle-counterattack capabilities" is to kill players upon the moment they spawn their vehicle and their resources are taken away without spawning the vehicle. Which is a bug!

So yeah, it's a despicable act. And that's an extremely friendly and mellow way to put it. You are actively abusing the fact that people at a terminal cannot control or defend themselves and the fact that it takes the game a moment to realize that the character needs to be removed upon spawning the vehicle.

And since people are definitely going to claim it: No I don't get shot at terminals often. In fact it happens rarely to me because I use other methods and alternative spots to access the terminal (like standing below it, this often throws off any snipers who aim at the same spot/height. Or just using the damn instant vehicle spawn from death).

Honestly, whilst I myself don't often do this practice, your logic here falls short, this game is about war on a continental scale... war is not pretty and nor is it generally enjoyable (though this is a game so some concessions need making)... Now sure, i dislike the taking of resources without spawning the vehicle... but I don't disagree with the practice of killing those on the terminals with a sniper or anything else (I myself if i have to prevent vehicle pulling from terminals... much rather the use of knife its more exhilarating as they actually have opportunity to respond, even if only really small)...

That said, "you are abusing the fact that people at a terminal cannot control or defend themselves" is true, but then, thats no different to abusing any other self-induced state of lack of control/movement to any degree to obtain a kill... take prowlers as an example... you don't (nor would I) advocate making prowlers immune to C4 when deployed... or sundies at that, just because they are immobile when attacked... it makes no sense... in fact the complete opposite is true, it makes perfect sense to drop C4 on a stationary tank... Just like it makes perfect sense to prevent individuals acquiring vehicles when they are at their most vulnerable... when they are at terminals...

"and the fact that it takes the game a moment to realize that the character needs to be removed upon spawning the vehicle"

No, I'm abusing the fact someone accessed the terminal, for all I know they could be changing load outs, we have no way to know what state of nanite payment they are in. All we know is that they entered a self-induced state of severe weakness, most likely without checking their surroundings, why shouldn't we use that? it's not like we have counters to vehicles when they are pulled (as a class) but that tank or other vehicle types sure as hell will shoot us if it see's us...

Frankly, it reminds me of a scene from an anime when I was a kid, called hunter x hunter, when Gon (the main character) was trying to steal a number card of a really dangerous individual named Hisoka. He trained by trying to catch birds, he failed miserably trying to hook them in their air, they were too mobile, so instead, he waited until they attacked their prey (fish) and then hooked them, he attacked the birds at their most vulnerable, he then applied this to Hisoka and hooked the card just as the other guy was attacking someone else... It's a strategy, maybe not one you like, but it's perfectly valid... it's no different to dropping C4 on deployed sundies (guarded or otherwise) or on deployed prowlers...

erm to answer this then: "sniping is hard, so it's completely OK to shoot people the one moment control is literally taken away from them when they access a terminal and latency causes them to be vulnerable for longer than they are actually standing still there" Yes i would, it is not the snipers fault that the player doesn't despawn properly or quickly enough, we have no idea when or when they aren't "actually" there, we merely see a target, of course we take shots at individuals who are in a weakened state, its logical and makes perfect sense, the battlefield is not a place for morals. Its cheesy, sure, so what? its effective...

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the tactic, I find it cheesy and I don't agree with the premises of his position (that we should do it because "sniping is hard", or that its what the class is meant for) but thats not to say its not a perfectly valid, logical approach to denying the enemies the chance to pull a vehicle, if the game bugs due to spawn timing, we aren't capable of knowing "who has" and "who has not" paid, we merely see "weak target who is going to become really powerful soon... kill"

I don't consider it "abusing" to try and tip the balance of vehicle logistics in my team's favor. The peopel at the terminal could've controlled the fact that they could've pulled somewhere else.

As for instant spawning I can just hack the terminal if it's a small enough fight, and if it's not a small fight then chances are the base itself is being contested and you can't instant spawn then either.
As for the people whose vehicle's despawn after dying thus wasting their nanites, I agree that it's a bug and should be fixed.

I'll take all your bounties because I'm not going to stop. The only sniper rifle I've auraxiumed (aside from the TRAP) is the TSAR and I got many of those kills via vehicle terminals. No matter how long I use these weapons It's just too unforgiving to try and shoot moving targets.

Latelly (because of the topic of the thread) I've been using stalker cloak so I can get the most out of the cloak's capabilities and avoid revenge kills and I've been using the blackhand which also works great for doing this. I need to get closer, but I'm only 70 kills away from auraxiuming my Inquisitor with this method as well.

OP, I haven't got them at all yet. Just feel like they aren't even worth it. Now if I'm a cloak I really don't care about minor. Because the spot mechanism is jacked up when your spotted while cloaked. The cloak was meant to be the counter to the spot, meaning while cloaking you cant be spotted so if you decloak and get spotted then cloak your still spotted until the timer runs out. Even the first planetside got this one right.

You do realize some people camp the terminals well back in allied territory right?
As well, the whole bit I think he's getting at, is that the Player using the terminal is literally screwed due to a sniper just sitting at random bases, or in different hexes aimed at the terminal.
So they can't control at all, the problem: That sniper could be at any terminal, at any base, or in another hex aimed at it.
- As until they are killed, they can't really know if they are about to die, due to the whole range, and lack of control during the spawning.
- Aka, doesn't really matter where you are, an Infil can camp any terminal, they aren't restricted to the front line only.

So yeah, I can't see much of a problem with it comically - But it is truly abusing the whole issue with accessing a vehicle terminal.
But eh,
Just the whole loss of nanites bit is an issue they should really fix.

1: It doesn't "prevent vehicle pulling from terminals". 10 seconds means a lot less for vehicles than for infantry, and with the spawn-vehicles-from-death ability it makes little difference if you shoot someone at the terminal... Unless you actively try to leech their resources this way, which is bug abuse.
2: You are comparing the intentional design of making deployed vehicles immobile to the completely unintentional design of players not being able to move when accessing a terminal and not having enough speed to get out quickly with a vehicle due to how the UI loads in. You might as well say "well, throwing frag grenades is hard, so throwing them through walls into spawnrooms to deny enemy spawns is A-OK". War is not pretty right? Or we just dispense with spawnrooms altogether and allow unmitigated spawnkilling. Why not eh? War isn't pretty! While we are at it, let's allow vehicles to shoot inside most spawnrooms as well. War ain't getting any prettier!

It's self-induced because they are forced to by bad design, not because of intentional design specifically so that snipers can kill them.
A player can change the loadout of his vehicles outside of the terminal, but those changes don't mean anything. Unless you do it at a terminal, they don't stick! That's not an intentional design for your sniper, that's unintentional bad coding.

There are a million-and-one places where you can do that where you are using intentional design. From sniping players behind cover to repair crews to counter sniping to whatever. But sniping terminals was never what snipers were designed for, and the excuse of "it's a strategy" is just that: An excuse. It's no better than the people who instead of destroying a Sunderer spawnkilled the players around it with tanks for their KD, because that's all this is, KD whoring. These players claimed they were using a "viable strategy" by "discouraging players to spawn there and taking their time". The Developers took their sweet time with a response, but they did come up with a response: Removing most rewards for a kill on people who just spawned.

"It's not my fault there's a bug that allows me to throw grenades into the spawnroom due to a bug. So I'm allowed to use it!".

This is what's wrong with players. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's supposed to happen, or that it's good design. The developers should have fixed this by now, in fact they did try to fix it by allowing instant-spawns from death. Unfortunately it's very little advertised and new players probably don't even know that it's there.

There is a massive difference between "cheesy" and "abusing a bug for cheesy". Terminal camping is doing the latter.

Stalker cloak, Blackhand, job done.

Not that I've done that myself...........but I've been shot that way a couple of times

Minor Cloak is garbage, extremely situational at best. Even if they reduce it to six seconds it will be garbage. I have it, it sucks, don't get roped in by dbg trying to get to pay to $$$ for it.

1: 10 seconds is not a lot per individual sure, but you have to factor in travel time, the fact I can kill them again, and deterrent factor... I have seen a few times, when enemy snipers have eyes on our vehicle terminal 4-5 guys just refusing to get near it, until a friendly sniped kill the enemy one... simply because they kept dying, it's a perfectly valid way of preventing them getting vehicles. maybe not the most efficient way, but it works in some circumstances (especially because most vehicle mains dont like dying)
and "You are comparing the intentional design of making deployed vehicles immobile to the completely unintentional design of players not being able to move when accessing a terminal and not having enough speed to get out quickly with a vehicle due to how the UI loads in." Firstly, what source do you have on saying it was "unintentional" that those on terminals cant move? Secondly, even if it was unintentional that they can't move, they wouldn't put them in wide open areas where people can get shot due to with large lines of sight, if they didn't want the possibility of those using them to get sniped. The UI sure, its an issue, but for the most part as i stated above, for all we know they are messing around in the terminal... My reference to "war aint pretty" was simply that people will abuse any oppertunity to kill enemies, especially where it benefits your team by preventing vehicles being pulled even for "10 seconds" and that we shouldnt be regulating what players can do, just because its seen as immoral or wrong, so long as its not cheating (which this is not).

2: Not unintentional design, those terminals were deliberately placed in the open, they knew people would fight over them, including people getting shot whilst on the terminal... Also, I could have sworn I had changed load outs away from the vehicle terminal... that said I could be wrong there...

3: yes it's one of several places I when I am sniping pay attention to, I attack pretty much anyone with "strategic" value, that includes, engineers, medics, and if friendly vehicles are about heavies with RL's out, but it also includes those individuals attempting pull vehicles, namely because as I mentioned above, they are going to become incredibly dangerous, Its better to get rid beforehand. This is especially the case where two armour zergs are hitting one another, namely because even slightly lower amounts of vehicles, or slower access to them, is a huge boon to the team who doesnt have that burden

4: We aren't abusing a bug, we accept that the possibility of the bug occurring exists, but that's, not the same thing... I can force the bug where I teleport through a wall with an engineer turret (i never have but i can), but I cannot force this bug, it's pure chance, based on a plethora of factors, ranging from distance (I can shoot someone as soon as they touch the terminal, but if Im far enough away bullet travel may cause the bug), to my reaction speed, to latency, among others. everyone who shoots at someone on a terminal, accepts the risk that they will cause this bug, its merely that snipers are best placed to do so safely and thus are most scorned for taking that risk as we are at little at no risk ourselves... Lets rely on a hypothetical situation for an argument shall we, namely that, if it were infantry just pushing into a tower, after a large vehicle fight, friendlies won (maybe just barely), I as a heavy push into the tower, I go to secure the terminal, I see someone on it, so i shoot them, are you going to complain here? I doubt it, it was a risk that individual on the terminal ran. The same applies anywhere else.

5: its not a "bug" that they were placed in spots with good lines of sight, im going to need evidence then that the devs actually did not intend for those on terminals to be so exposed, otherwise im maintaining the argument that its just cheesy, with the risk of bug.

It is unintentional design. The Infiltrator was never designed as a terminal sniper or anti-vehicle player, except maybe sniping repair crews. You are abusing the way player control is taken away when accessing terminals, despite there being bugs that you can sometimes still strafe and walk while accessing a terminal which prove that this doesn't have to be that way.
The fact that this is actually effective in any way makes things worse. It's like abusing the bug where your player looks like it's still on the ground and dead and using what is basically a prone hitbox to avoid damage. Or the old bug where you could get MAX health and armor as an LA after dying (and since the character that's automatically selected after MAX death has been changed to a Heavy, that would make it even scarier). Abusing it is just that: Abuse. It's not a "valid strategy", it's not fair gameplay, it's not intentional.

"But if it wasn't intentional, the devs would have removed it!"
Think again, let's look at a very very close problem: Mining vehicle pads.
In the early days you could place mines on top of the pads. It was an instant-death when you spawned on top of these mines. Eventually after a long time the devs said "nope, you can't do that. We'll just add this field around every single vehicle pad that will destroy mines if you place it close enough".
And then they completely and utterly forgot to extend that field up to the auto-drive distance of all vehicles, making the entire system obsolete. They put in all that work to solve this problem and prevent cheap mine-kills, and they didn't go all the way even though all they had to do was increase the denial field a bit farther to cover the auto-drive distance as well.
And hey, at some point they actually did start with adding buildings over vehicle terminals. But they stopped doing it for some reason and they didn't give it to all of them in one go.

But you can keep defending an obvious KD ***** tactic and call it a strategy.

We weren't meant to combat vehicles directly, but we were obviously meant to impact them... as noted by the fact that we are the only class capable of hacking turrets so that we can shoot vehicles in ***, or blowing up mines with emp's (a deliberate action)... snipers primary focus is killing those who are of most danger to the battle if they are infantry, and providing recon... close range infiltrators have other tasks such as disruption, but that isn't the prime focus here. Tell me are you actually arguing that "killing those who are about to obtain force multipliers" does not fall under the heading of "those who are going to be of most danger to our side in the battle", because i normally think you are a rational logical individual. Of course this does not mean "solely" farming vehicle terminals, it means hunting anyone who is dangerous on that battlefield, be it an engineer repairing a max, or an enemy sniper who has our terminals locked down, to a heavy who is attacking our tanks. This includes engineers obtaining force multipliers.

You claim its unintentional that they can't move but don't provide any sources for it, the mere fact that bugs allow people to move is not evidence of the fact that it was unintended, in fact it being a bug demonstrates the opposite (that they don't want you moving).

No its not the same as that, those things (if you know you have them) are deliberate actions because you know you are bugged, here you merely run the possibility of a bug occurring, but 9 times out of 10 it won't, it sucks for the individual who gets hit with the bug, but that has nothing to do with us (by which i mean, we cannot force this bug to occur, its pure chance). yes, I think idiots who solely farm terminals are stupid, but then so are a lot of farming tactics, and we don't get rid of them.

You note how they may not fix it, sure they might not, but then, you never addressed my argument of "why were they so exposed in the first place if people weren't meant to fight at (and thus logically) die when, using them?"

"Abusing it is just that: Abuse. It's not a "valid strategy", it's not fair gameplay, it's not intentional." You lost me here, not only do you provide absolutely no evidence of the fact that it is a bug/unintentional people can't move, can die, or can be sniped while at a terminal... but thats the perfect time to snipe someone, when they aren't moving... give me evidence that none of this was intentional... not just your views and i concede, but as far as i can tell, terminal usage was always meant to stop you moving... and if they didnt want people dying on them, they wouldn't be so exposed. sure they made some hard to be shot on, but they left others exposed, that demonstrates that at some they consider it fair game otherwise all would have been done...

Again it boils down to one simple thing:
In the scenario's you describe, the player you attack has all the power in the world to try and protect himself through movement, cover or even retaliation. Except for when accessing the terminal.

You are arguing "but it's possible, so it's OK". Well it used to be possible to throw grenades through a wall into spawnrooms. That's OK then too right? It's also possible to fly underneath the landscape. That's OK as well. It's possible to clip through certain parts in the terrain. That's OK as well...

I don't expect you to fall back on poor arguments like this, Demigan.

You two are talking about the basic elements of this game - shooting at another player over an unobstructed distance. Comparing to a method that violates aspects of the game's immersive elements - expecting surfaces to act like solid barriers - and is treated by the developers as a violation is a complete misrepresentation of the arguments of the benefits and the drawbacks of a simple developmental decision whether or not to toggle player movement before, during, or after they have accessed a terminal. Your spawn pad mining example previously was significantly more appropriate to the context - you should have built upon that, in my opinion.

Wasn't it Wrel who said something like "nobody likes getting killed by something that they have no chance to counter/advoid."

Again, not sure that is an exact quote.