sorry to be a bother, but...
Your post is still as clear as mud, to me at least.
Why are you "adding slots"? The number of slots avaialable would be pre-determined by the kit.
What is a "one-shot slot adding machine"?
The only QL requirement would be a range based on the QL of the kit. Maybe an 80% rule could apply. So, a QL 100 kit could use QL 80-120 parts. Every slot uses the same range. What's the sense in making this any more confusing than it has to be?
How would making open slots disappear stop duping exactly? Can anything be duped by trading someone an unfinished Implant, say one with only one slot filled? I've never heard of this kind of magic, but it sounds very powerful.
Finally, the idea is to do away with the old system of weapon manufacture completely. No, one wants to have to follow guidelines when "creating" something. What if there were recipes for Implants,that had to be followed? Given, Implant manufacture is not a completely open trade skill either, but it is not nearly as restrictive as weapons manufacture. The weapons kits themselves should be made up of a number of slots, you shouldn't have to, nor should you be able to add slots to it. There's no reason or need for this.
I agree that the price of pursuing any trade skill is too high at this point, and that the reward for participating is far too low. In fact, these two factors have had a cripling effect on the trade skill community, and it is likely that unless Funcom fixes those two issues, all of what we are discussing will be little more than a trivial pursuit, as no - one will invest in trade skills anyway.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to flame, just trying to moderate. I don't want to confuse the issue. I want what has the potential to be an excellent addition to the trade skill community to be presented to Funcom as clearly and concisely as possible. I have seen a lot of threads go every which way, because the one who started it doesn't take out the time to consider each post, and respond with complete thoughts. It will be difficult enough for old Funcom to implement the kinds of changes many of us would like to see, without making it harder than it needs to be. Like I said, there are still 3.5 years to get trade skills right, and it is likely that the improvements will come in steps. Maybe we should push for one idea first, and then, after seeing how well it works, we can give feedback to further tweak the finer details. Things like costs of trade skill items and the amount of xp given for using them could be changed easily, but the basic operation of trade skill items may take a little longer. I'm one that believes in allowing the development team to develop an idea completely before presenting it as a finished product. Not doing this has gotten us to where we are now, and two wrongs never make a right.