Don't see it happening for the simple fact that 5 is a magic number for companions.

Being able to send out only 5 leaves you one companion available to be your "sidekick" while you do stuff.

But, you say, you have 8 because you got Treek and HK? Well, not everyone does and EA/BW doesn't balance around those but around the base 6 companions every player has.

Unless a new companion comes along that everyone gets automatically, I don't think we'll ever see an increase in the companions we can send out.

Don't see it happening for the simple fact that 5 is a magic number for companions.

 

Being able to send out only 5 leaves you one companion available to be your "sidekick" while you do stuff.

 

But, you say, you have 8 because you got Treek and HK? Well, not everyone does and EA/BW doesn't balance around those but around the base 6 companions every player has.

 

Unless a new companion comes along that everyone gets automatically, I don't think we'll ever see an increase in the companions we can send out.

For subscribers 6th should be for free..... if someone doesn't got Treek and HK well the aren't 'hard' to get... and the you will have additional incentive to get it

7th unlock on cartel market:)

Don't see it happening for the simple fact that 5 is a magic number for companions.

 

Being able to send out only 5 leaves you one companion available to be your "sidekick" while you do stuff.

 

But, you say, you have 8 because you got Treek and HK? Well, not everyone does and EA/BW doesn't balance around those but around the base 6 companions every player has.

 

Unless a new companion comes along that everyone gets automatically, I don't think we'll ever see an increase in the companions we can send out.

I don't see anything becoming "imbalanced" by this suggestion. Everyone gets 6 companions, being able to send out all of them just gives us the option of sacrificing a sidekick for more crew skill tasks.

Of course, I'm sure there would be people who'd demand another free companion "just because"

I think that being able to send out 6 is a great idea.

As for having one companion to accompany you on missions, several of the classes get their companions fairly late and can easily get to the point where they can send out more companions than they have.

I don't see anything becoming "imbalanced" by this suggestion. Everyone gets 6 companions, being able to send out all of them just gives us the option of sacrificing a sidekick for more crew skill tasks.

 

Of course, I'm sure there would be people who'd demand another free companion "just because"

I hope you know that all the content, even solo content is designed with having a companion in mind....having none at all will make it more difficult then it really needs to be.

While i do like the idea of being able to send more companions out, i don't see it happening.

I hope you know that all the content, even solo content is designed with having a companion in mind....having none at all will make it more difficult then it really needs to be.

 

While i do like the idea of being able to send more companions out, i don't see it happening.

Nobody's suggesting they remove a companion. Those who need one can still send out 5 and keep one with them, while those who doesn't can send all 6 out. And like the poster before you said, that "imbalance" is already present in the game at certain points.

Some will undoubtedly say that those with HK/Treek then gets an unfair advantage. Well, A: HK can be obtained free so there's already the possibility of having 7 companions without any pay2win, and B: there's already an advantage with having one of them by virtue of their crew skill bonuses (HK/Treek is the only way of getting extra crit on Artifice).

I really don't see why they wouldn't do it, I'm guessing it's merely a few lines of code that can mostly be copy-pasted from the previous companion limits.

For subscribers 6th should be for free..... if someone doesn't got Treek and HK well the aren't 'hard' to get... and the you will have additional incentive to get it

7th unlock on cartel market:)

F2F (free-to-fail) can only send 3, and they can't have more than one crafting order on a companion.

P2W, on the other hand, can send out 5, and have as many as 5 pieces of gear in each companion's queue.

F2F (free-to-fail) can only send 3, and they can't have more than one crafting order on a companion.

P2W, on the other hand, can send out 5, and have as many as 5 pieces of gear in each companion's queue.

You mean those who don't support the game and those who DO support the game?

For subscribers 6th should be for free..... if someone doesn't got Treek and HK well the aren't 'hard' to get... and the you will have additional incentive to get it

7th unlock on cartel market:)

It has nothing to do with easy or hard. The crafting system is designed around the base 6 companions one of which you will have "out" and the other 5 you can send off on missions.

The extra companions do not figure into it. It doesn't matter how easy or hard they are to get, it only matters that they are optional companions that should never give an advantage over players who do not have them.

This is a beaten dead horse.

I don't see anything becoming "imbalanced" by this suggestion. Everyone gets 6 companions, being able to send out all of them just gives us the option of sacrificing a sidekick for more crew skill tasks.

 

Of course, I'm sure there would be people who'd demand another free companion "just because"

Why do you think thy nixed the killing companions from beta? One reason was the effect it had on the crafting system. Granted that situation was self-inflicted, but there was enough of a stink for the devs to change the system.

My suggestion would be to re-implement killing/refusing story companions. With two optional companions available "hated" companions can now be replaced

It has nothing to do with easy or hard. The crafting system is designed around the base 6 companions one of which you will have "out" and the other 5 you can send off on missions.

 

The extra companions do not figure into it. It doesn't matter how easy or hard they are to get, it only matters that they are optional companions that should never give an advantage over players who do not have them.

 

This is a beaten dead horse.

I'll refer you to my earlier post, maybe you didn't see it.

HK is free, so anyone can already have 7 companions.

I'll refer you to my earlier post, maybe you didn't see it.

 

HK is free, so anyone can already have 7 companions.

How is HK free? If you mean that one does not HAVE to spend CCs or credits to add HK to a character's companion list, then that is true. BUT in order to accomplish that "free path" it takes several hours of play and grouping (not everyone can solo level 50 HMFPs) and it takes an opposite faction character to complete the quest line (there are players out there who only play one faction). My point that your definition of "free" does not necessarily coincide with everyone else.

Not to mention the crap gear HK is given and the FACT that it is hard to upgrade - armorings cannot be acquired by any means other than crafting (self-created or GTN purchased, it is still crafting).

F2F (free-to-fail) can only send 3, and they can't have more than one crafting order on a companion.

P2W, on the other hand, can send out 5, and have as many as 5 pieces of gear in each companion's queue.

so if time = money

some people work 'hard'(no time) for the money to pay for subs...

those who don't have the money must work 'hard' (have time)to get the credits for the unlocks (if available on gtn)

if you don't have time and money.....

How is HK free? If you mean that one does not HAVE to spend CCs or credits to add HK to a character's companion list, then that is true. BUT in order to accomplish that "free path" it takes several hours of play and grouping (not everyone can solo level 50 HMFPs) and it takes an opposite faction character to complete the quest line (there are players out there who only play one faction). My point that your definition of "free" does not necessarily coincide with everyone else.

 

Not to mention the crap gear HK is given and the FACT that it is hard to upgrade - armorings cannot be acquired by any means other than crafting (self-created or GTN purchased, it is still crafting).

The issue here was about balance. It seemed like people were playing the pay2win card, and my argument was that everyone has the opportunity to add a 7th companion to their character without spending money. His gear is also the same for everyone. Paying can of course speed up your progression, but that's true for anything in any F2P game.

"Time is money" is a whole other discussion, but I agree with what you said.

You mean those who don't support the game and those who DO support the game?

Nicely said!

How is HK free? If you mean that one does not HAVE to spend CCs or credits to add HK to a character's companion list, then that is true. BUT in order to accomplish that "free path" it takes several hours of play and grouping (not everyone can solo level 50 HMFPs) and it takes an opposite faction character to complete the quest line (there are players out there who only play one faction). My point that your definition of "free" does not necessarily coincide with everyone else.

 

Not to mention the crap gear HK is given and the FACT that it is hard to upgrade - armorings cannot be acquired by any means other than crafting (self-created or GTN purchased, it is still crafting).

That definition of free works. Players have to do [class] quests to get all of their class companions, as well as their ship + droid. Since HK is a faction companion, so he has a faction quest. Also, while gearing may be harder, it is also completely optional. If you are using HK to craft, his gear is irrelevant.

I'd be more concerned that the additional number of missions that would be run would actually cause net profits to drop. I'd rather keep working in a known system than ask for a change with an unknown effect.

That definition of free works. Players have to do [class] quests to get all of their class companions, as well as their ship + droid. Since HK is a faction companion, so he has a faction quest. Also, while gearing may be harder, it is also completely optional. If you are using HK to craft, his gear is irrelevant.

OK ya got me there.

I'd be more concerned that the additional number of missions that would be run would actually cause net profits to drop. I'd rather keep working in a known system than ask for a change with an unknown effect.

This is a valid point.

I hope you know that all the content, even solo content is designed with having a companion in mind....having none at all will make it more difficult then it really needs to be.

 

While i do like the idea of being able to send more companions out, i don't see it happening.

First of all, you're wrong. "All the content" is not designed with having companions in mind. In fact only solo content is. (and even in solo content there are bits where companions are not needed + even on bits where you are meant to have companions there are often other options)

Anyway someone doing group content or someone just hanging on fleet to buy and sell stuff (or one of countless other options) would not miss anything.

Secondly and more importantly, majority of players do a huge portion of their crafting/gathering while logged off from the game, often just logging in to send their companions to their tasks and then going offline again.

In any case, you or anyone else have not given any valid reason why the number of companions you can send to crewskill task should be limited to just 5.

If someone has only 6 companions and wants to send all 6 to crewskill tasks and wants to do some solo content that requires a companion at the same time, then they would of course need to choose this or that.

Many people have already at least one of the extra companions and even those that don't wouldn't loose anything on being able to send at least 6 whenever they do group content or just generally dont do anything that needs a companion or when they just send out companions before logging off.

One way to solve the lack of companion issue would be to have the HK quest line unlock the ability to send out a 6th companion at the end. This way, you would now have 7 total, keeping a companion open for questing.

I'm not sure I would have the 6th companion a legacy unlock though. Seems better to have to run each toon you want to have 6 on do the quest. Would make for some repeatable content and give the quest some life.

First of all, you're wrong. "All the content" is not designed with having companions in mind. In fact only solo content is. (and even in solo content there are bits where companions are not needed + even on bits where you are meant to have companions there are often other options)

Anyway someone doing group content or someone just hanging on fleet to buy and sell stuff (or one of countless other options) would not miss anything.

 

Secondly and more importantly, majority of players do a huge portion of their crafting/gathering while logged off from the game, often just logging in to send their companions to their tasks and then going offline again.

I agree completely.

In any case, you or anyone else have not given any valid reason why the number of companions you can send to crewskill task should be limited to just 5.

This is where you and I diverge. The reasons are legitimate. You may not like the reasons given, but that does not make them invalid. I do not necessarily like them either, but I do understand and accept them.

And IMO the most compelling is the limiting of resources. Is it artificial? yes. Is it inconvenient? yes. But would adding a sixth companion running missions and/or crafting adversely impact the economy? YES!!!

This is just another example, of what is good for the individual is not necessarily good for the community. If one subscriber can send out six companions then all 300k subs can send out six companions. (Simple Math) For grade 9 alone, assuming every sub player has five characters each with a gathering skill that's 1.2 million additional gathering skill materials in the economy. Again assuming each (of five) characters has a mission skill that's an additional 231000 purple materials in the economy. More supply without more demand, decreases value.

And IMO the most compelling is the limiting of resources. Is it artificial? yes. Is it inconvenient? yes. But would adding a sixth companion running missions and/or crafting adversely impact the economy? YES!!!

This is just another example, of what is good for the individual is not necessarily good for the community. If one subscriber can send out six companions then all 300k subs can send out six companions. (Simple Math) For grade 9 alone, assuming every sub player has five characters each with a gathering skill that's 1.2 million additional gathering skill materials in the economy. Again assuming each (of five) characters has a mission skill that's an additional 231000 purple materials in the economy. More supply without more demand, decreases value.

I believe the impact to the economy will be very minor based on two factors. Currently, Conquests have already skewed the market on resources due to demand for conquest points. The market gets flooded with them every week leading up to the next high point crafting conquest when the market will boom with demand. This currently has the market fairly destabilized as it is. Adding another gatherer won't upset this trend at all, it may actually help stabilize it, at least until conquests become old news.

The second point is you have outlined in your statement above that every subscriber will become a fanatical gatherer. That just won't happen outside leveling a skill. Based on my current guild of about 50 unique active members, only myself and two others grind out resources constantly (we cycle all toons every hour for resources). About 10 will cycle their toons once a day and less than half only send companions out gathering when they need a specific resource for crafting and the rest got 450 biochem/Cybertech and never fooled with it again. So in reality, only about 10% of my guild would effect a very minor change on the gathering market. The other top end resource market will be gated by mission availability if the current trend holds in 3.0 which only rich and boutiful missions grant the top grade 9 mats. Having 6 companions out won't increase the number of rich/bountiful available so the top tier market is safe.

In any case, you or anyone else have not given any valid reason why the number of companions you can send to crewskill task should be limited to just 5.

1) Running mat missions costs money -- money which is paid to the game, and not other players.

2) Vendors pay less for mats than the cost to run the missions. Thus, to have this system be of benefit, players have to either sell mats to other players or use them to craft items.

3) Five companions is more than enough to craft items for personal use, so presumably players crafting items would intend to sell them. Again, vendors pay less than the mat cost for items, so to avoid losing money, players have to sell them to other players.

4) Increasing the number of companions able to run missions will not increase the number of players able to play the game.

5) Players need to play (run Dailies, farm mobs, whatever) in order to make credits with which to buy mats or items from other players.

Thus, increasing the number of companions able to run missions will increase the supply of mats and items available on the market without increasing the number of players that would purchase them (demand would not increase) or the amount of money players have for purchasing items. Usually (per basic economic theory), this situation leads to a reduction in prices and net profits. This would benefit consumers, not producers (the people who presumably would be using the feature).

So, I'd argue that the likelihood of lower profits and more work (time to send out the additional companion) with no foreseeable benefit from a feature that would take > 0 sec of dev time is a valid reason to oppose the implementation of that feature.

FYI, I'm not taking people "buying" Conquest Points (CPs) by intentionally overproducing War Supplies into account. To the extent that people want to use an additional companion to gather mats to sell to people buying CPs, my argument that increasing supply without increasing demand in a fixed-money system still applies. To the extent that people buying CPs want to run an additional companion in order to reduce CP cost or increase the number of CPs purchasable per week, I don't think that the damage to the rest of the market justifies the addition of a feature that would likely harm everybody else.