in a bounty hunter story line is not alternate option to kill skadge?

No. Perhaps in the KotFE recruitment alert it will be possible. Please?

I wish you could kill him instead of backing down like a beta and letting him force his way into your ship.

I think there was an idea during development that the player to be rid of or kill certain companions, so you could kill guys like Skadge, Quinn, or Vik. But the developers changed their minds, so in the initial game, you can't get rid of any of your companions.

It wasn't, as I heard it, so much that they changed their minds (which could be "out of nowhere", as it were). What happened was that whiny idiots complained that they had killed their companions and caused themselves problems as a result (Example: the aforementioned Quinn was the SW's healer companion...) and so Bioware made it impossible.

Whence, also, I suspect, the perceived contrast between "Consequences matter" coming from Bioware about KotFE, versus what actually changes in the KotFE storyline if you choose different options. Consequences have to matter because they were rightly criticised for that in the main stories, but they can't matter very much, or all the whiny brats will jump up and down and stamp their feet(1) and hold their breath until they ...

Sorry, I digress...

(1) A few years back, I was in the McDonalds in the Gare Lille Flandres (main central rail station) in Lille, France, and there was this woman there with her 2-3 year old daughter. And the said daughter threw the most EPIC classic cliché two-year-old's temper tantrum complete with stamping her foot and everything. Mother was not moved, and I forbore to applaud and say "Bravo!" - I thought that the mother would not have appreciated it.

It wasn't, as I heard it, so much that they changed their minds (which could be "out of nowhere", as it were). What happened was that whiny idiots complained that they had killed their companions and caused themselves problems as a result (Example: the aforementioned Quinn was the SW's healer companion...) and so Bioware made it impossible.

 

Whence, also, I suspect, the perceived contrast between "Consequences matter" coming from Bioware about KotFE, versus what actually changes in the KotFE storyline if you choose different options. Consequences have to matter because they were rightly criticised for that in the main stories, but they can't matter very much, or all the whiny brats will jump up and down and stamp their feet(1) and hold their breath until they ...

I don't think that's really a fair way to put it. The issue is that companions were too closely tied to important gameplay mechanics. Had companions been independent of important gameplay, they probably would have left the companion death in. Note that they brought the concept in a limited capacity in KOTFE content, where you're overloaded with a boatload more companions than you'll ever need.

The mechanic reasons that come to mind are:

- roles (healing, etc., which is now simplified with 4.0)

- crew skills (having six is pretty important if you want to do crafting at maximum efficiency)

As there is no way to get more than six in the vanilla game, it makes sense that they wouldn't want people killing their crafting options inadvertently. The same goes for roles, prior to 4.0.

I think in this case you're overestimating the power of complaining and underestimating the power of a dev team realizing "oops, this is a good point" and correcting a mistake.

I would theorize, in fact, that companion death was sketched out in development before things like crew skills and companion roles were finalized. Or it was done by two different teams, who weren't communicating well. The idea of knowingly mixing the two worlds, from a game development standpoint, just doesn't make sense. It makes sense for the consequences to be felt in story, but not in something so integral to long-term gameplay.

I don't think that's really a fair way to put it. The issue is that companions were too closely tied to important gameplay mechanics. Had companions been independent of important gameplay, they probably would have left the companion death in. Note that they brought the concept in a limited capacity in KOTFE content, where you're overloaded with a boatload more companions than you'll ever need.

 

The mechanic reasons that come to mind are:

- roles (healing, etc., which is now simplified with 4.0)

- crew skills (having six is pretty important if you want to do crafting at maximum efficiency)

 

As there is no way to get more than six in the vanilla game, it makes sense that they wouldn't want people killing their crafting options inadvertently. The same goes for roles, prior to 4.0.

 

I think in this case you're overestimating the power of complaining and underestimating the power of a dev team realizing "oops, this is a good point" and correcting a mistake.

 

I would theorize, in fact, that companion death was sketched out in development before things like crew skills and companion roles were finalized. Or it was done by two different teams, who weren't communicating well. The idea of knowingly mixing the two worlds, from a game development standpoint, just doesn't make sense. It makes sense for the consequences to be felt in story, but not in something so integral to long-term gameplay.

This is what happened...

• In beta testing, killing companions in vanilla was possible
  
• players killed companions
  
• players realized that they gimped themselves for killing companions (roles, and crew skills being the biggest areas)
  
• players wanted their companions back
  
• players "threw a tantrum"
  
• BW removed the ability to kill companions
  

Whether the last bit was an "oops, that's a good point" revelation or "holy **** we are going to catch hell for this. Let's head it off at the pass." reaction is debatable, but it was the players' tantrum that caused the change.

This is what happened...

 

• In beta testing, killing companions in vanilla was possible
  
• players killed companions
  
• players realized that they gimped themselves for killing companions (roles, and crew skills being the biggest areas)
  
• players wanted their companions back
  
• players "threw a tantrum"
  
• BW removed the ability to kill companions
  

 

Whether the last bit was an "oops, that's a good point" revelation or "holy **** we are going to catch hell for this. Let's head it off at the pass." reaction is debatable, but it was the players' tantrum that caused the change.

I wasn't meaning to imply that the devs figured it out all on their own. Rather that fixing something based on "oops, that's a good point" is typically the more likely reason for a change. Take the "tantrum," for example, that players threw with DvL, demanding that the achievements be retroactive. BW didn't cave on the retroactive thing at all, probably because from a game dev standpoint, it wouldn't have made any sense to do at that point... would have just nullified the event for people who had already done the stuff in the objectives.

In other words, I would argue it's more accurate to say that player feedback caused the change and the "tantrum" aspect had little to do with it. Occasionally, the degree of complaining can have more of an impact, but again, that's not the tantrum part itself, so much as the realization of how many consider something to be a problem, in pure numbers.

There are so many cases in games like these where a tantrum is forgotten and/or ignored and no change results from it because the demands are unrealistic, or not in line with development goals for the game, or break some kind of company policy. A tantrum isn't carte blanche route to change in the MMO world and insinuating that it has that kind of power is something I take issue with.

It wasn't, as I heard it, so much that they changed their minds (which could be "out of nowhere", as it were). What happened was that whiny idiots complained that they had killed their companions and caused themselves problems as a result (Example: the aforementioned Quinn was the SW's healer companion...) and so Bioware made it impossible.

 

Whence, also, I suspect, the perceived contrast between "Consequences matter" coming from Bioware about KotFE, versus what actually changes in the KotFE storyline if you choose different options. Consequences have to matter because they were rightly criticised for that in the main stories, but they can't matter very much, or all the whiny brats will jump up and down and stamp their feet(1) and hold their breath until they ...

.

As I was told by friends who were in the betas, quite a few of the companions had a get killed option like Kaliyo, Ashara, Quinn, Vector, Skadge and I'm momentarily forgetting who else. Quinn's the one who gets brought up the most because he was a designated healer. The kill option also had a popup clearly stating this was a permanent decision that you had to click confirm on, and despite still having the ship droid being able to get kitted out to be a healer, people had a conniption about losing companions permanently despite being told this would happen and the devs pulled all the kill options.

The somehow not realizing permanent means permanent mentality's still around as the other night or so there was a guy complaining in fleet chat about how he'd started Shadows of Revan, then started KotFE and was mad that he couldn't go back to Shadows of Revan. This is despite having TWO click to confirm windows clearly stating once KotFE starts that you can't go back to the listed content.

If it had been my decision, I would've ruled the killing companion option as "Welcome to Choices Matter" and left it at that. But from what I've seen from reading the posts on the forums, too many tend to take Choices Matter as only the choices mattering that come out the way they want are the ones that should matter rather than dealing with the choice repercussions that happened.

In total seriousness, I am actually really annoyed at how the Bounty Hunter first lets Gault walk all over them and get a spot on the crew jeopardizing their Great Hunt standing and then just lets Skadge force his way on.

In total seriousness, I am actually really annoyed at how the Bounty Hunter first lets Gault walk all over them and get a spot on the crew jeopardizing their Great Hunt standing and then just lets Skadge force his way on.

Gotta be honest, I felt that way too, but at least with Gault they did a better job with the dialogue. With Gault it was more like "whoa whoa whoa I can be asset to you." (albeit over and over until you finally cave in). Skadge's dialogue was just "I'm joining your crew whether you like it or not."

Gotta be honest, I felt that way too, but at least with Gault they did a better job with the dialogue. With Gault it was more like "whoa whoa whoa I can be asset to you." (albeit over and over until you finally cave in). Skadge's dialogue was just "I'm joining your crew whether you like it or not."

Gault I didn't mind since he was being true to the smooth talking con man that he is along with he did present a viable solution to the situation. Skadge, my Hunter didn't like him from the first time she met him and he consistently got in her way as well as made things more difficult each time he showed up. I was more than ready to have my Hunter blast him at the end since she'd shot others for less reason and when he bulled his way onto her ship, I was genuinely p***** off. The only good thing I can say about Skadge is for as much as I used to strongly dislike Corso, after encountering Skadge, I realized even at his worst, Corso's not that bad.

I do hope the rumors I've heard about Skadge being the next companion we're able to kill off is true because as ridiculous as it sounds, ever since my first Hunter playthrough years ago, I've wanted him off the ship by any means possible.

I cannot wait for Skadge to come back as a companion. I will put every last one of my toons all the way through KotFE just so I can kill him over and over and over again. My merc was my 1st tool and I have wanted to be rid of Skadge since my first run through Belsavis.

This sounds like why my Imp characters *all* do the Taris planetary arc. You know, so I can kill Thana Vesh *again*.

Skadge and Rusk are both in the next companion recruitment mission, they both have achievements for recruiting them and killing/refusing each of them.

Can you clarify that a bit? How/when/which char? Is that an ach only available with BH chars or something?

Thanks in advance! Really appreciate the help

Can you clarify that a bit? How/when/which char? Is that an ach only available with BH chars or something?

Thanks in advance! Really appreciate the help

You need to finish chap 16 of KotFE and unlock alliance alerts. There is one for recruiting Rusk where you also meet Skadge. You have the option to accept Rusk, accept Skadge, refuse Rusk, and refuse Skadge. You only have the option to do 2 of these in the alert so you'd need to use two characters to get it.

You need to finish chap 16 of KotFE and unlock alliance alerts. There is one for recruiting Rusk where you also meet Skadge. You have the option to accept Rusk, accept Skadge, refuse Rusk, and refuse Skadge. You only have the option to do 2 of these in the alert so you'd need to use two characters to get it.

! Awesome, thanks

Ah, Skadge. I forgot how much I wanted my Hunter to strip him to his underwear and dump him in Esh-Ka territory with maybe a cheap hold-out blaster to fight with. You make creepy comment about Mako, you don't get a ride. Felt pretty good to whack his crew, then capture him...was tempted to kill him, but decided that it would probably be what he wanted. Better to put him behind bars where he can revel in his fail for the rest of his sorry life.

Rusk...Never played a Knight, but he has a bigger stick up his rear than Jorgan ever did, and he's got a side order of Zenith's ruthless streak. I was actually surprised that an Imperial COULD recruit the guy.

Of course, this leaves the Consular still out in the cold with only ONE of their companions accounted for. At least it's my big fellow. Heralds of Zildrog? Meet Heralds of Scorekeeper.