Ding! Hireling has joined your party

[tihocan]

What about letting the leader dismiss any hireling in the party?

[sirgog]

What about letting the leader dismiss any hireling in the party?

That's IMO better than the status quo, but not as good as having a setting for hirelings welcome/unwelcome.

Alternately, having a setting where hirelings can join to fill the group but the LFM remains up - if a human player joins the group, one random hireling is automatically dismissed to make room for them.

[Leyoni]

The LFM said that we would not be waiting for a cleric, and I reminded party members to make sure they were able to cover their own healing if need be.

So, you told folk you wouldn't wait on a cleric and to cover their own healing.

Joe Pugger did that by taking along a hireling.

And you're upset....

Sounds like Joe did exactly what you asked him to do with your LFM. Sorry it wasn't what you intended. Maybe you should have been a bit more specific.

I find both your anger and Joe's choice to be very hilarious.

[sirgog]

So, you told folk you wouldn't wait on a cleric and to cover their own healing.

Joe Pugger did that by taking along a hireling.

And you're upset....

Sounds like Joe did exactly what you asked him to do with your LFM. Sorry it wasn't what you intended. Maybe you should have been a bit more specific.

I find both your anger and Joe's choice to be very hilarious.

Yep, it is good comedic relief.

I'm surprised that someone that fetches a Hireling for a quest that's as rough in places as SoS is actually flagged for it.

[cdbd3rd]

For this reason, and a few others, I foresee a lot of "No Hirelings" LFMs to be popping up.

And I think that what the contract-holder did was absurdly rude; which if it happened in my party he'd be blacklisted right away. And I'm not one who blacklists folks lightly (I think I have three total since the game went live). I can see it maybe being okay if he'd asked first and gotten the okay. But, to have filled a spot in a group that they were not leading is just boneheaded.

hopefully...
...only if he refused to remove the hireling aftre being asked.
May not have realized what a faux paus he'd made. Now if he insisted on locking up that char slot after being asked, THEN onto the list he goes.


.

May need to see about enabling an option for Party Leader to remove anyone's hirelings from party to prevent this turning into a griefing tool.



edit: Yeah, I kinda chuckled too at the story. But can see the potential for problems down the road.

[Leyoni]

Yep, it is good comedic relief.

I'm surprised that someone that fetches a Hireling for a quest that's as rough in places as SoS is actually flagged for it.

A lot of information missing here, at least for me. It was asked earlier in the thread if the quest went alright. I haven't really seen an answer to that question.

I haven't seen what OP did to communicate with Joe Pugger.

For all we know the quest ran smoothly and it wasn't an issue, OP is just PO'd that a slot got grabbed by a hireling and is venting.

Could be that Joe is very capable and figured the group was capable enough to handle things. In general, if an LFM says "bring own healing" or the leader says "going with what we get" that tells me that nobody really expects things to go horribly wrong (or nobody has a freaking clue about the quest so is too stupid to know better!).

I will say that the general problem of hirelings being able to fill up group slots is a legitimate concern and that we will need to develop some generally accepted practices on each of the servers. IMO it is probably a situation where LFMs either need to specify "no hirelings"/"hirelings only with leader approval" or players need to ask in group chat ahead of time if hirelings will be allowed.

[wamjratl1]

Lot's of points to discuss here:
Party leader should have an option to allow hireling or not and this should be made evident in the LFM. A toggle of some sort... Or if someone summons their hirleing into the quest, party leader should be given a notification of some kind and an option to allow hirleing or not. Yes, in an ideal world, a group member would ask first but we all know the reality... An LFM that says "bring ur own healing... not waiting for cleric" means, to me, that he wants a full party of capable players. Good tactics and DPS can negate the need for a designated healer if the party works together. If I had seen the OPs LFM, this is how i would have interpreted it.

Hireling contracts should be based on time in quest, not real time. So if it's an hour contract, you can do 2 30-minute quests, for example, before the contract expires. Not 1 30-minute quest, 20 minutes of admin or waiting for group, and 10 minutes into next quest, contract expires. This will soften the blow for someone who had hired a hireling but can't find a group that will allow one. (it may work this way already, IDK I haven't hired a hireling yet...)

Hirelings should be able to be dismissed at any point during quest in case a live person wants to join. Leader should have the option. (may also already work this IDK...)

All of this, of course, is IMHO only...

[Ghoste]

So, you told folk you wouldn't wait on a cleric and to cover their own healing.

Joe Pugger did that by taking along a hireling.

And you're upset....
Sounds like Joe did exactly what you asked him to do with your LFM. Sorry it wasn't what you intended. Maybe you should have been a bit more specific.

I find both your anger and Joe's choice to be very hilarious.

Wrong, and wrong.

I posted this thread with the intent of pointing out a mechanic that could potentially lead to conflict. Nowhere in the op did I say anything about it making me upset.

In fact the situation that I was in was quickly resolved. The party member in question willingly and happily removed the hireling.

The issue I'm trying to address, that you clearly missed, is that now no matter how responsibly and clearly you try to lead a party, other players now have absolute power if they so choose to force their wishes with hirelings on others. Turbine has set up two party forming mechanics that are in direct conflict with each other. Perhaps you missed the point in the op where I switched from talking about what happened to the hypothetical. The part where I used the word "if"

1.
a. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
b. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
c. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.
2. Although possibly; even though: It is a handsome if useless trinket.
3. Whether: Ask if he plans to come to the meeting.
4. Used to introduce an exclamatory clause, indicating a wish: If they had only come earlier!
A possibility, condition, or stipulation

Having said that, I find your quaint little assumptions to be very...hilarious.

[Ghoste]

OP is just PO'd that a slot got grabbed by a hireling and is venting.

Again...you seem to be very clearly seeing anger and offense in my post. Now seeing as I didn't put it there, what does that leave as the source of those perceived emotions? Do you have anger issues? Please stop projecting them on me.

[twix]

I set up an lfm for stk elite.We didnt have a cleric and one spot left so whil waiting for members to meet at entrance a pug hired a cleric and brought him with him.It was kinda shocking to see a cleric symbol pop up outta nowhere in group but other then it was pretty amuseing.The cleric actually tried to heal everyone and was fun to watch get killed as well .But i can see potential drama over not haveing a say if a hireling is in group when youre party leader.I know if i had a certain individual that the spot was saved for it wouldve been a different story.Over all was impressed with the ai of the hireling.They even shrine and res themselves

[Xithos]

I don't forsee this as being much of a problem; a little bit of communication will take care of this 99% of the time. A mechanic where the leader could disallow hirelings directly would have been nice, but there are enough bugs to fix and this mod was already released incomplete so I am hoping they are making up for lost time and getting ready to put out a mod that folks will get real excited about

[Arianrhod]

Again...you seem to be very clearly seeing anger and offense in my post. Now seeing as I didn't put it there, what does that leave as the source of those perceived emotions? Do you have anger issues? Please stop projecting them on me.

It's the WF image....they just radiate rage

Seriously, though....there should be a mechanic like the "so-and'so requests to join your party, accept/reject" message when someone tries to bring in a hireling. Once people get used to it, they'll ask before summoning their hirelings.

[parvo]

"Everyone please step out of the quest for a sec"
Boot. Ignore xxxx. Reform.
"Ok, as soon as we get two more, we're good to go"

[Zenako]

Should be easy enough to put a toggle in the Create Party page that you select for "allow hirelings/do not allow hirelings" and that shows up on the LFM page as a little ICON in the upper right corner of the Quest column. IF allowed you see a little stick figure clearly, if not allowed the little stick figure has a bold red X across it to indicate not allowed/wanted. This setting should be changeable by the leader at of the group even once into a quest. So an emergency replacement might be possible if someone DC's or something like that.

For some of us the cost is a non factor, but high end hirelings are still pretty pricy for most players who might want / need to engage their services.

[jddonkeykong]

a Smart Player Will Ask Before He Buys The Contract...

Ftw

[rimble]

As group leader, just Remove the Hireling from the party. I'll admit I haven't tried it in a 'real' group yet, but when it's just me and my Hireling I can boot him from group just fine.

[Leyoni]

Again...you seem to be very clearly seeing anger and offense in my post. Now seeing as I didn't put it there, what does that leave as the source of those perceived emotions? Do you have anger issues? Please stop projecting them on me.

Gosh Ghoste, maybe it is because of what you posted originally.

Was putting together a pug for Sorjek the other night. The LFM said that we would not be waiting for a cleric, and I reminded party members to make sure they were able to cover their own healing if need be.

Suddenly, ding, a cleric joins the party. I think, well that was handy. That should help those who would have just been wand whipping themselves.

...wait a minute...

...how did that cleric just join the party? I had the star and didn't see any join request...

...Oh, it's a hireling!

...wait a minute...

If I'm putting a PuG together in the future, and am trying to save a spot, or two spots, or even three spots for friends or certain classes, the other people in the party can just bypass that choice on my part by just stepping into the quest and summoning their hirelings.

Trying to put together a group for a tough quest with your guildies and you guys discuss it and decide to pug out the remaining slots? You guys agree no hirelings because the quest is too complex to leave up to AI?

Well too bad! Joe pugger can now fill a slot in your party with a cleric that will only heal him because he looked at his build, realized he sucks at self healing, but really wanted to do the quest you posted for anyways. He's in the quest, so you can't boot him from the party and there's no option to boot hirelings. You're now stuck with Joe Pugger and his dim witted and exclussive cleric.

I guess you are just trying to be witty and have fun and all of that. But see the exclamation marks in your post (Oh, it's a hireling! and Well too bad!)? Those indicate emphasis and, given the other parts of your post (...wait a minute... and ...how did that cleric just join the party? I had the star and didn't see any join request... and ...Oh, it's a hireling! and ...wait a minute... and Joe pugger can now fill a slot in your party with a cleric that will only heal him because he looked at his build, realized he sucks at self healing, but really wanted to do the quest you posted for anyways.) -- well, it is pretty hard to see what you are saying as funny instead of angry. Moreso because there are and and and available to indicate when you are trying to be light-hearted.

But, given your choice of words and the lack of emoticons to indicate differently -- my read is that you were ticked off. My take on your subsequent posts is that you are trying to diffuse that so it looks less like a rant and more like a serious evaluation of a possible problem. And, I think you didn't really like it when I mentioned that Joe did what you asked him to do and you look stupid complaining about it.

But hey, clearly not the situation at all.

(BTW, I chose red to highlight your words because I really do have anger issues. )

[VonBek]

I got to learn about it on the forum, instead of in game. Thanks.

[Bekki]

For this reason, and a few others, I foresee a lot of "No Hirelings" LFMs to be popping up.

And I think that what the contract-holder did was absurdly rude; which if it happened in my party he'd be blacklisted right away. And I'm not one who blacklists folks lightly (I think I have three total since the game went live). I can see it maybe being okay if he'd asked first and gotten the okay. But, to have filled a spot in a group that they were not leading is just boneheaded.

hopefully...
...only if he refused to remove the hireling aftre being asked.
May not have realized what a faux paus he'd made. Now if he insisted on locking up that char slot after being asked, THEN onto the list he goes.


.

May need to see about enabling an option for Party Leader to remove anyone's hirelings from party to prevent this turning into a griefing tool.



edit: Yeah, I kinda chuckled too at the story. But can see the potential for problems down the road.

While I have to Admit, it is a Clever solution to a proposed need,
and good use of available resources at the time...

And though Ghoste did not Authorize Nor Deny the Use of Hirelings...

I am inclined to Agree with Ghoste, Memnir and Cd.

All Ghoste did Was Warn them there May
be a need to Provide for their own healing...

I feel it would have Been much more courteous
to at least give the party leader a "Heads Up".
as to what he/ she was planning.

If only because you can probably
assume that the leader will keep the LFM up
if only on the Off chance you can get a cleric to
jump in late.

Fortunately (according to Ghoste) this was resolved peacefully...

I think it would be proper party Etiquette
to inform the party leader before you just Drop in a hireling.

If that hireling does take up a party member slot
(I am not sure, I haven't tried Hirelings yet.)

and it happens to be the last spot...
then that can inadvertantly cause an automatic decline
to a LIVE cleric who may want to jump in.

And that could be very bad.

Glad things worked out peacefully Ghoste.

I say, the Party leader should have
Approval/ Diassaproval rights over Hirelings...

A button would be nice, but I would go with override privleges.

OR

Should a PLAYER character submit a join request
And a Hirleling is filling the last spot...
it would Automatically Boot a Hireling.

Just my 2Cp's

[Leyoni]

I feel it would have Been much more courteous to at least give the party leader a "Heads Up" as to what he/she was planning.

Oh, absolutely agree. This is why I said in another part of this that we need to work out on each server just what the expectations are.

While I think it would be wonderful if Turbine implimented some sort of mechanic, like autoboot NPC when PC shows up the problem comes when you have multiple hirelings. Who sets the priority order and which player gets messed over by spending plat and then not getting to use their hireling?

So I think the most reasonable thing is for the server populations to address this themselves and decide on what makes best sense.

Honestly, I can't see using hirelings unless I am in a 2 or 3 player group but we really need an extra character to stand on a switch or do something similar. Unless they stand where you put them (or work levers inside rooms where they'll be locked in until the rest of the group gets done with their half of things) I can't see them being much real use.

In general I think the LFM should read "no hirelings" and players should not bring hirelings unless the group decides that it is needed (at which point the leader and whatever designees take up a collection and go bargain shopping).