i was wondering nick could put a uv de-attacher in spiral knights, and it cost 1000ce to by one. It would extract a uv from 1 item at can put the same uv on another item. Ex. Combusted with ASI high , extract the uv and put on a DA. And it has terms and conditions that are written in the unique variant wiki. Only armor uv can put on armor and weapon on weapon.
I hope you would add this item to the game
No, at least without severe restrictions. Imagine rage-crafting cheap caliburs to transfer UVs to high-level, non craftable stuff, like FoV.
Correction: imagine rage-crafting Static Edges to transfer UVs to items that can be upgraded all the way to 5*, such as Snarble Barbs.
Static Edges cost 10 energy to craft.
They can be upgraded to a 2* version, which can then be used to transfer the UV to an appropriate 2* weapon.
VH and Max! UVs are worth considerably more that 1k CE - I had a Magic Hood with Freeze Max! that sold for 3k CE, and that was because I wanted to get rid of the thing fast. If I managed to get Max! UVs on an Emberbreak Helm and transferred it to an appropriate item, I could make a killing, particularly if the UV happened to be Shock.
This is a terrible idea. - 1
Sorry, i agree with Little-Jaunces because without very high restrictions, CE and CR would soon be worthless.
Wouldn't it solve the "Ragecrafting" problem if you could only transfer the UV from a weapon of the same family tree? Say, from a Brandish to a Blazebrand. While yes, it would still add a great value to that weapon, but think about it: Right now the system favors P2P greatly, because if you craft a weapon you have to raise it up to 5* again. "Again", because you will not get a super rare UV on a weapon you do not know you would even want to use. That means twice the CE for one weapon, of which one will just rot away after you got the super duper cool one. And let's face it, no one will pay the unbinding for a normal 5* item.
And let's take this one step further, to prevent weapons with three UVs on very high just by ragecrafting: You could make it, that you can only transfer an UV on the second slot to the second OR first slot of a weapon of the same family, depending if there is a UV on the first slot to begin with. In return, you can not transfer a UV from the first slot to the second slot, it will in that case replace the one that is currently in the first slot.
Let me give you some pictures:
http://www.abload.de/img/uvsecondslotp6s4l.png
http://www.abload.de/img/uvfirstslotges2f.png
While yes, this will make UV weapons more accessable, it will also encourage crafting. Right now it is more likely that you don't bother with UVs because you wouldn't bother spending twice the CE on something you already have. But if you could transfer it, you might consider aiming to craft some. Also, it would give the UVs a new value, which would probably influence the auction market for the better.
I would imagine it to be a service of Vise and to cost half of the CE of the current rank of the item it is being transferred to. In laymans term: You want to transfer a UV from a 2* weapon to a 5* one, so it would cost you 400 CE. Likewise, if you transfer it to a 4* weapon, it would cost 200 CE.
This is just a quick thought, though.
I invested a lot into these things. So did everyone else who currently has them.
And yes, people who triple-rolled before UV-locking suffered the same (relative) detriment. Doesn't mean it should happen again.
Juances is completely right and it would harm the value of crowns - which is however not a problem that wouldn't be manageable. Make the service crown based and it would be less of a problem - although I would support a change in tickets for UVs. 20k CR for a random UV is, in my eyes, not worth it. Better ragecraft and sell some of it. But that's another story and people who did pay so much would be more than unhappy with any change to that. (Yet I think sacrifices are necessary at times of great changes.)
Regarding Derpules' complains, it would influence the value of double and triple UVs as you would still need to buy the two and three UV-Tickets from punch in the first place. That's what I explained in the second paragraph:
"And let's take this one step further, to prevent weapons with three UVs on very high just by ragecrafting: You could make it, that you can only transfer an UV on the second slot to the second OR first slot of a weapon of the same family, depending if there is a UV on the first slot to begin with. In return, you can not transfer a UV from the first slot to the second slot, it will in that case replace the one that is currently in the first slot."
I even provided pictures! The change would not influence the value of the multiple UV weapons, as you'd still have to get a UV in the desired slot to begin with. It would only allow a greater variety of what you can have on a weapon. The real difference would be the accessability for the F2P community, that wants not 2 or 3 UVs but would be happy with just a single one.
Also, don't get me wrong this is not an attack, most of all, because it is not a problem with this idea, but don't you think that a game changing feature like having three VH UVs on a weapon can already be considered P2W if it is only achievable by paying? *Cough*Lockdown*Cough*
However, as I said, it would be useable for second and third tier UVs but it would be only be a real step up for first tier UVs.
Do you know how many Max + Low + Lows I have in my arsenal? (Answer: many.) Some of them have the Max in the first slot, some in the third, some in the second.
Using your very elegant system, I could churn out 3-4 triple Maxes right now.
Imagine what that would do to the value of the triple Maxes already in existence.
I have no comment as to the degree to which SK is currently P2W. I will ask you to kindly not suggest solutions to this problem, if it exists, which work by screwing over everyone who has previously P-ed 2 W.
...we may as well go all the way:
To quote Star Trek "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or the one." Yes, you may have many of those, I do not doubt you, but my view on this problem explains itself. It is rare enough to see someone with any three UVs, let alone on more than one weapon. For someone as myself, who only comes across such people by chance, the idea of people running around with more than three weapons of the same family with three UVs slots, is ridiculous. Are you really trying to tell me, you have more than three Brandishs in your inventory? Enough Brandishs to craft one with three different H UVs? Even if your answer is yes, I have to call [horsefeathers] on you protecting such a privileg. I mean, OK, they have to be rare, but if you already spend so much freakin' money on getting all those 3-Variant-Tickets on one weapon family that you have three different good UVs in three different slots, then you damn well earned your weapon. I mean, the hell is wrong with that? If you get enough money on your fingers to buy three of those tickets alone, which is, by the way, 750.000 Crowns, more than 90% of the players in SK will ever even own, you'd have already spent crowns nearly worth 30 bucks.
Regarding Addisond, may I ask why you speak out when having no idea of how an economy works? It would add something, simply for the fact, that making a feature that appeals to a wide audience, will raise the value of the necessary materials needed to use it. If it is a crown sink, like Juances suggested, it would automatically raise the value of crowns. If it needed materials, they also would feel a rise in prices. To say a change in a system that would encourage spending something to not make a difference is stupid.
...However, given that the 0.001% of the people seem to pay enough to secure the private island resort OOO must live in, I can understand if this status quo must be kept up. This does... in fact explain a lot of OOO behavior. I'll leave it at that and abandon the thread.
"I mean, OK, they have to be rare, but if you already spend so much freakin' money on getting all those 3-Variant-Tickets on one weapon family that you have three different good UVs in three different slots, then you damn well earned your weapon. I mean, the hell is wrong with that? If you get enough money on your fingers to buy three of those tickets alone, which is, by the way, 750.000 Crowns, more than 90% of the players in SK will ever even own, you'd have already spent crowns nearly worth 30 bucks."
I totally agree. Someone who's spent 30 bucks worth of in-game currency deserves the item they spent it on. Now, think of what the people who already have weapons like that have spent. Why do you want to destroy the value of their items?
I've spent a couple hundred bucks on this game (the rest is merchanting), but let's imagine I'd purely bought my way instead. You think 750kcr is a lot? Well, I have items I've spent four times that amount on, between purchasing the initial UV and rolling the other two. Imagine how upset I would be if I'd bought my way to that weapon. $120 worth (by your count) of UV rolls to make an item that, after the change you support, would now be worth a fraction of that.
Does that sound like good business to you?
OOO took that risk creating UV-locking, yes. And it probably paid off in the form of more people rolling overall. But the rage this suggestion would create would be even greater. UV-locking made triple maxes possible (for about 100-300k CE of rolls on average). This change would reduce that cost to about 15-30k CE, depending on the UVs, and would allow you to get *any* combination you desire. It would make a mockery of the whole system.
No
VH and max UVs add much more than 1000ce to an items value.
People could craft 10 1* items off a days mist, and transfer UVs onto their other items.