It doesn't make sense to say "playing by the rules" in such a system, because players don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter. I think that's what threw me off initially, because you can't decide to not "play by the rules" like you can in a n/g/p system.
I was talking about "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system . If people are "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system changing the system to a CoH system punishes those players because loot drops will need to be much lower in a CoH system. This means that class specific BoA loot will take much longer to get for people in those groups that would be "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system. There is a solution to this. If a CoH style system was used if BoA loot could be traded to anyone who was in the group when the item was acquired for like 10 minutes or so after it was looted. That I wouldn't mind.
0
zeruinMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
let me know your character names so i can pre-ignore you it's this attitude that makes the sytem not work, I agree a better more sensible system would be one that limits the need button to those who can wear it but us as players need to take some responsibility on what we need or greed for.
My personal preference is to just talk with your group, actually chat with them (I know its crazy right) and from there you get an element of trust and people just greed on trash and need on what they need, that way greedy HAMSTER dont take upgrades off of people.
As others have said, there isn't enough incentive to not roll Need in this current system if left alone. Sure, ignore/blacklist me, that wont affect my gaming experience in the slightest, and it surely wont make yours much better. Considering dungeon matchmaking is random, unless you have a premade group, you're gonna get stuck with people like me every time you group.
I'm going to roll NEED every single time if this current loot system is in place. I see absolutely no reason not to. In MMOs, it's generally every man for himself.
Personally, I don't mind if they keep this system.. but just change it to Roll or Pass. The Greed option is just silly, and expecting too much of players that they just wont roll Need instead.
Another way of looking at this is regardless of who the equipment is for, perhaps everyone should get an equal chance for it. If you're not going to actually use the equipment, maybe you could just as well sell or trade it for a piece of equipment that you can use. That's what most people do anyways. Doing it this guarantees everyone an equal chance for a rare piece of loot. Rare loot is still Rare loot, regardless of who actually needs it.
Sure, Tera has a good system, but it's not perfect. I've ran dungeons where all of, or the majority of, rare loot dropped was exclusive to only one class, and the rest of the players didn't even have the opportunity to roll on any sweet loot.
Just because only your class can use a certain type of equipment, it doesn't necessarily mean you even need it. 9/10, I don't equip what I find in loot or roll for as I probably already have something nicer.
I've said before that I hate this system and would rather a CoX system but if we are stuck with it then I agree that this is a good approach because everyone has permission to use it and everyone has the same chance to get something nice that they can trade (or use).
In fact maybe we should start a campaign on the forums to end the drama. How about "The Need to Roll Campaign"?
I was talking about "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system . If people are "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system changing the system to a CoH system punishes those players because loot drops will need to be much lower in a CoH system. This means that class specific BoA loot will take much longer to get for people in those groups that would be "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system.
Well, I think I've been clear that I believe playing by the rules in a n/g/p system is a sucker's bet, unless you're playing with people you know (something I find harder to do the longer I stick with a game, mainly because people play at different rates and come and go so often). In my direct, personal experience, a uniform distribution model (like CoH) yields more loot than n/g/p for those who would "play nice" under the latter system, and avoids a heap of pointless drama to boot.
There is a solution to this. If a CoH style system was used if BoA loot could be traded to anyone who was in the group when the item was acquired for like 10 minutes or so after it was looted. That I wouldn't mind.
Sure, that works - but I still don't see why BoA is a good thing to begin with.
____________________
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
0
seedyman42Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
As others have said, there isn't enough incentive to not roll Need in this current system if left alone. Sure, ignore/blacklist me, that wont affect my gaming experience in the slightest, and it surely wont make yours much better. Considering dungeon matchmaking is random, unless you have a premade group, you're gonna get stuck with people like me every time you group.
Wow, there was a time were depraved folk like you were actually embarrassed to admit such behavior, I guess the anonymity of the internet shields all. I guess if you can live with yourself that's ok, I can't imagine you'd have any RL friends unless you are all DBs together.
As other folks have said: it is for the evil we must make the rules, for the just will do what is right without. Or some such.
Wow, there was a time were depraved folk like you were actually embarrassed to admit such behavior, I guess the anonymity of the internet shields all. I guess if you can live with yourself that's ok, I can't imagine you'd have any RL friends unless you are all DBs together.
As other folks have said: it is for the evil we must make the rules, for the just will do what is right without. Or some such.
It is a combination of the amoral, self centered, entitled, lazy personalities that are becoming more and more prolific, coupled with the anonymity of the internet. Being a good person is becoming a punchline more and more every day.
0
seedyman42Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited February 2013
I guess the real issue with BoA and stuff is how to get loot into people's hand for doing stuff without simultaneously giving goldfarmers a reason to go after it. There is no way to prevent goldfarming, except by not having an economy, and the only way to prevent people from selling loot is not letting them trade it.
Wow, there was a time were depraved folk like you were actually embarrassed to admit such behavior, I guess the anonymity of the internet shields all. I guess if you can live with yourself that's ok, I can't imagine you'd have any RL friends unless you are all DBs together.
As other folks have said: it is for the evil we must make the rules, for the just will do what is right without. Or some such.
You see depravity; I see someone who understands how the game mechanics actually work. He is certainly self-serving, I won't deny that. But from where I stand, so are you (the general "you") when you 1) make up unenforceable rules that run directly counter to the mechanics, 2) expect others to follow your rules when there is little or no reason to do so, and 3) castigate those who refuse as being depraved.
After all, you wouldn't make up such rules and bring such peer pressure to bear unless you wanted at least some of the loot yourself, right?
Who knows, maybe zeruin truly is evil and depraved - but to butcher another quote, I'll never attribute to malice what can be attributed to self-interest. And we're all acting in our self interest here - otherwise, you wouldn't care who got the loot or why.
...man, I'm getting the strongest sense of deja vu...
____________________
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
0
seedyman42Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
You see depravity; I see someone who understands how the game mechanics actually work. He is certainly self-serving, I won't deny that. But from where I stand, so are you (the general "you") when you 1) make up unenforceable rules that run directly counter to the mechanics, 2) expect others to follow your rules when there is little or no reason to do so, and 3) castigate those who refuse as being depraved.
After all, you wouldn't make up such rules and bring such peer pressure to bear unless you wanted at least some of the loot yourself, right?
Who knows, maybe zeruin truly is evil and depraved - but to butcher another quote, I'll never attribute to malice what can be attributed to self-interest. And we're all acting in our self interest here - otherwise, you wouldn't care who got the loot or why.
...man, I'm getting the strongest sense of deja vu...
The fact that the rules have to be enforced, instead of just stated, is because of those unwilling to follow rules. They are the ones that are responsible for most of the problems in the world. I am not saying all rules are good, or just, or that they all should be followed blindly, without question.
It is this person, and like people, that want everyone else to follow the rules so they can game the system and get more than their fair share out of it. This I consider morally bankrupt and contemptible, thus depraved. Yes, everyone is typically there for a share of the loot, but that's the thing, a share.
My version of the quote you mention is one of the things that keeps me sane. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"
But when they come out and admit they do it on purpose, you can no longer skip the malice. At least not in my book.
The fact that the rules have to be enforced, instead of just stated, is because of those unwilling to follow rules.
The rule in question can't be enforced. Hence the issue.
They are the ones that are responsible for most of the problems in the world.
Really, now? So someone who openly says, "hey, I'm gonna roll need on everything" is responsible for... what, in real life, actually?
It is this person, and like people, that want everyone else to follow the rules so they can game the system and get more than their fair share out of it. This I consider morally bankrupt and contemptible, thus depraved.
Did he say that he wants everyone else to follow the rules so he can get more stuff? That's not even implied in what he wrote. As a matter of fact, he expressed a preference for a mechanic that actually does guarantee a fair share for everyone. You may have missed that in your pursuit of righteous indignation.
But when they come out and admit they do it on purpose, you can no longer skip the malice. At least not in my book.
Again, you haven't established malice to my satisfaction. He recognizes the reality of the situation and openly states that he will take advantage of it; you are trying to impose an ideology that contradicts that reality. IMO, that's at least as intellectually bankrupt as the moral judgment you want to apply to zeruin - and taken to an extreme, one form bankruptcy starts to look a lot like another.
Naturally, we're starting to get into personal territory here, so let me just repeat what I wrote earlier: If everyone rolled "need," the system would demonstrably lead to a fairer distribution of loot. What is your goal exactly; to make sure everyone gets a fair share and prevent exploitation, or to make other people behave the way you think is right regardless of the cost?
____________________
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
0
seedyman42Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
The rule in question can't be enforced. Hence the issue.
Well the rules can't be enforced, easily, by the players, but a code change to disable need by one who cannot equip the item would move in that direction.
But just because something isn't/can't be enforced doesn't make it OK to break the rules.
Really, now? So someone who openly says, "hey, I'm gonna roll need on everything" is responsible for... what, in real life, actually?
Try reading it again, I said people who are unwilling to follow rules.
Anyway, I always have to think that anyone who will cheat at something as trivial as a game will definitely cheat at anything more important.
And yes, to get it out of the way, I consider rolling need on items you can't use cheating.
Some games it can be considered a violation of the EULA.
(Talk about something with spotty enforcement in most games)
Did he say that he wants everyone else to follow the rules so he can get more stuff? That's not even implied in what he wrote. As a matter of fact, he expressed a preference for a mechanic that actually does guarantee a fair share for everyone. You may have missed that in your pursuit of righteous indignation.
He did not say he would encourage everyone to pick he said he would without regard to others, specifically saying he didn't care if the other players didn't like it because they can't do anything to him. So maybe he didn't say it outright, but it certainly WAS implied. Ever hear of prisoner's dilemma?
Again, you haven't established malice to my satisfaction. He recognizes the reality of the situation and openly states that he will take advantage of it; you are trying to impose an ideology that contradicts that reality. IMO, that's at least as intellectually bankrupt as the moral judgment you want to apply to zeruin - and taken to an extreme, one form bankruptcy starts to look a lot like another.
Again, he said he needed incentive not to unfairly weight himself over the folks that follow the rules, because the social pressure or blacklisting wasn't something he cared about. In every game I have seen using an exploit is cheating even if the devs haven't fixed it yet. The reality of the situation is that decent people use the system as intended and others don't. Those others are called a number of names that would get me banned. Depraved was a good substitute. (I think)
Naturally, we're starting to get into personal territory here, so let me just repeat what I wrote earlier: If everyone rolled "need," the system would demonstrably lead to a fairer distribution of loot. What is your goal exactly; to make sure everyone gets a fair share and prevent exploitation, or to make other people behave the way you think is right regardless of the cost?
I don't play with people I don't know for the same reason, presumably, that others don't. I also assume people are going to be greedy A-Hats, and I don't need the stress.
Well the rules can't be enforced, easily, by the players, but a code change to disable need by one who cannot equip the item would move in that direction.
And as I said before, if you're going to do that, why not just give the item to those who can use it? Why not just get rid of rolling altogether?
But just because something isn't/can't be enforced doesn't make it OK to break the rules.
It's not a rule. It's player-created etiquette. There's a difference.
Anyway, I always have to think that anyone who will cheat at something as trivial as a game will definitely cheat at anything more important.
And yes, to get it out of the way, I consider rolling need on items you can't use cheating.
It isn't cheating if it's "working as intended." And I'd be very interested in knowing what games consider it a violation of any EULA or TOS. As for degrees of "cheating" and who is likely to do what, I'll just say that you and I think in completely opposite directions. I've found it surprising what people won't do under certain circumstances...
He did not say he would encourage everyone to pick he said he would without regard to others, specifically saying he didn't care if the other players didn't like it because they can't do anything to him. So maybe he didn't say it outright, but it certainly WAS implied. Ever hear of prisoner's dilemma?
Yes, and it doesn't apply here. If everyone cheats in the prisoner's dilemma, everyone loses. With n/g/p if everyone "cheats," everyone gets an equal share (on average over time). Thus, there's no negatives to "cheating," as there is in the prisoner's dilemma. Ironically, wholesale "cheating" would actually ensure an equal division of loot; on the other hand, your etiquette falls flat if there's even just one "cheater" in the group.
Aren't you the least bit annoyed that developers knowingly set up a system that rewards "cheaters" at the expense of "nice guys," even when the "cheaters" "cheat" on each other?
Again, he said he needed incentive not to unfairly weight himself over the folks that follow the rules, because the social pressure or blacklisting wasn't something he cared about.
Ok, at least you recognize this much - that the only thing your "rules" have going for them is social censure. Now if you'll recognize that that's becoming increasingly meaningless in MMOs, we'll be making progress...
In every game I have seen using an exploit is cheating even if the devs haven't fixed it yet. The reality of the situation is that decent people use the system as intended and others don't.
You haven't established that 1) it's an exploit, or 2) your use of the system is the only intended one. Clearly 1) isn't true, because n/g/p has been around way too long in the same basic form across too many games, has entailed too many complaints, and is ridiculously easy to correct. You'd be really stretching it if you were to argue that developers were unaware of the alleged exploit, or if they couldn't think of a way to fix it.
As for 2), well, I have a hypothesis that involves some theorycrafting, second-guessing, and a healthy dose of paranoia (or, rather, recognition that developers design games to make money). Basically I believe that it is expected that many people will adhere to your brand of etiquette, but I believe it is also expected that many won't. The visibility of the loot (via n/g/p pop-ups), plus the inefficiency produced by the clash of mutually incompatible behaviors, together help to keep people repeating the same content longer than they otherwise would.
I don't play with people I don't know for the same reason, presumably, that others don't. I also assume people are going to be greedy A-Hats, and I don't need the stress.
Way to dodge the question. It's irrelevant to you, so, you know, whatever?
Quetum, while I kind of agree, there is a trade-off. If you see good items, but don't get them, you still know they where there.
A simple fix is an option in chat to display loot picked up by other group members.
I don't see the massive downside to a greyed out option for Need if it is not for your class or usable by your pet.
(Not that I would but....) Under your version of the N/G/P system, do I now have the right to roll need on EVERY item that drops for my class whether I need it or not? By these rules every class is entitled to their classes loot.
What if there are two players of the same class in a group? Statistically, under this system they would get less loot than if they were in a group where they were the only character of their class. Given that NW is going to start with only 5 classes, this will come up quite often.
Those are just two examples that quickly came to mind.
This solution does not actually change anything. Even IF EVERYONE in the group is being an HAMSTER and hitting need for everything, by random chance you would get a something 1 in 5 times in a 5 person group. If we go with reducing the treasure based on a new system to not put more treasure into the game you would get the same amount of treasure so no more treasure is put into the game you are going to get the same amount of treasure so what does this solve? Now lets examine what it hurts.
If people are "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system like in a pre-made group, it is going to take 5x more time to get the loot they are looking for that is BoA because of the reduced drop rate. So we are penalizing people for "following the rules"? That is a bad way to design a system.
I am not saying that there isn't a better system than n/g/p I am just saying this isn't it in my opinion.
This wow system is just anoying. I HATE THIS. The window alway at the bad moment. Change it for a loot automaticaly reparted as in GW for example, or let us configure that with rules.
Exemple: auto need on item for my class and greed for others.
The reason there is need and greed should be obvious. However I will explain it. You are in a party of 5 a 1 GW 2 GFW a DC and a CM. A piece of gear drops for the GW, he already has that exact piece of gear, so to not be a HAMSTER he clicks greed because he doesn't need it. If everyone else then clicks greed as they don't need it then every has an equal chance to get the loot to vendor it for cash even for untradeable loot. I prefer to just put the jackasses on ignore and not group with them rather than limiting the whole system because some jackasses exist.
Then don't be timid with gear if you really can use it. Or ASK if you want to roll on something and still be polite. I agree with people there needs to be a set Need and Greed loot system because otherwise you will have the occasional jerks taking stuff that you need. And generally they need it because they say "I need to sell it". Usually the answer I get, that is. You can say; just group with your friends or people you know. But sometimes people aren't on or have rl stuff and you find that you need to pug something out because you want to work at that piece of gear or whatever for that week.
However, offtopic but still slightly on it from here. I wish a game would some day implement a smart system that knows if the class isn't there then don't drop the loot. Had too many issues with that in previous games, lol.
I'd also like to see them code something in that would prevent the loot roll pop-up box from appearing until after the group is out of combat. It's an obnoxious distraction while you're still trying to fight.
I'd also like to see them code something in that would prevent the loot roll pop-up box from appearing until after the group is out of combat. It's an obnoxious distraction while you're still trying to fight.
That one is as simple as not allowing looting during combat. Problem solved.
Comments
I was talking about "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system . If people are "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system changing the system to a CoH system punishes those players because loot drops will need to be much lower in a CoH system. This means that class specific BoA loot will take much longer to get for people in those groups that would be "playing by the rules" in a n/g/p system. There is a solution to this. If a CoH style system was used if BoA loot could be traded to anyone who was in the group when the item was acquired for like 10 minutes or so after it was looted. That I wouldn't mind.
As others have said, there isn't enough incentive to not roll Need in this current system if left alone. Sure, ignore/blacklist me, that wont affect my gaming experience in the slightest, and it surely wont make yours much better. Considering dungeon matchmaking is random, unless you have a premade group, you're gonna get stuck with people like me every time you group.
I've said before that I hate this system and would rather a CoX system but if we are stuck with it then I agree that this is a good approach because everyone has permission to use it and everyone has the same chance to get something nice that they can trade (or use).
In fact maybe we should start a campaign on the forums to end the drama. How about "The Need to Roll Campaign"?
Sure, that works - but I still don't see why BoA is a good thing to begin with.
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
Wow, there was a time were depraved folk like you were actually embarrassed to admit such behavior, I guess the anonymity of the internet shields all. I guess if you can live with yourself that's ok, I can't imagine you'd have any RL friends unless you are all DBs together.
As other folks have said: it is for the evil we must make the rules, for the just will do what is right without. Or some such.
It is a fundamental belief difference, you and I will never see eye to eye on this, but I respect your point of view.
It is a combination of the amoral, self centered, entitled, lazy personalities that are becoming more and more prolific, coupled with the anonymity of the internet. Being a good person is becoming a punchline more and more every day.
After all, you wouldn't make up such rules and bring such peer pressure to bear unless you wanted at least some of the loot yourself, right?
Who knows, maybe zeruin truly is evil and depraved - but to butcher another quote, I'll never attribute to malice what can be attributed to self-interest. And we're all acting in our self interest here - otherwise, you wouldn't care who got the loot or why.
...man, I'm getting the strongest sense of deja vu...
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
The fact that the rules have to be enforced, instead of just stated, is because of those unwilling to follow rules. They are the ones that are responsible for most of the problems in the world. I am not saying all rules are good, or just, or that they all should be followed blindly, without question.
It is this person, and like people, that want everyone else to follow the rules so they can game the system and get more than their fair share out of it. This I consider morally bankrupt and contemptible, thus depraved. Yes, everyone is typically there for a share of the loot, but that's the thing, a share.
My version of the quote you mention is one of the things that keeps me sane. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"
But when they come out and admit they do it on purpose, you can no longer skip the malice. At least not in my book.
Really, now? So someone who openly says, "hey, I'm gonna roll need on everything" is responsible for... what, in real life, actually?
Did he say that he wants everyone else to follow the rules so he can get more stuff? That's not even implied in what he wrote. As a matter of fact, he expressed a preference for a mechanic that actually does guarantee a fair share for everyone. You may have missed that in your pursuit of righteous indignation.
Again, you haven't established malice to my satisfaction. He recognizes the reality of the situation and openly states that he will take advantage of it; you are trying to impose an ideology that contradicts that reality. IMO, that's at least as intellectually bankrupt as the moral judgment you want to apply to zeruin - and taken to an extreme, one form bankruptcy starts to look a lot like another.
Naturally, we're starting to get into personal territory here, so let me just repeat what I wrote earlier: If everyone rolled "need," the system would demonstrably lead to a fairer distribution of loot. What is your goal exactly; to make sure everyone gets a fair share and prevent exploitation, or to make other people behave the way you think is right regardless of the cost?
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
Well the rules can't be enforced, easily, by the players, but a code change to disable need by one who cannot equip the item would move in that direction.
But just because something isn't/can't be enforced doesn't make it OK to break the rules.
Try reading it again, I said people who are unwilling to follow rules.
Anyway, I always have to think that anyone who will cheat at something as trivial as a game will definitely cheat at anything more important.
And yes, to get it out of the way, I consider rolling need on items you can't use cheating.
Some games it can be considered a violation of the EULA.
(Talk about something with spotty enforcement in most games)
He did not say he would encourage everyone to pick he said he would without regard to others, specifically saying he didn't care if the other players didn't like it because they can't do anything to him. So maybe he didn't say it outright, but it certainly WAS implied. Ever hear of prisoner's dilemma?
Again, he said he needed incentive not to unfairly weight himself over the folks that follow the rules, because the social pressure or blacklisting wasn't something he cared about. In every game I have seen using an exploit is cheating even if the devs haven't fixed it yet. The reality of the situation is that decent people use the system as intended and others don't. Those others are called a number of names that would get me banned. Depraved was a good substitute. (I think)
I don't play with people I don't know for the same reason, presumably, that others don't. I also assume people are going to be greedy A-Hats, and I don't need the stress.
It's not a rule. It's player-created etiquette. There's a difference.
It isn't cheating if it's "working as intended." And I'd be very interested in knowing what games consider it a violation of any EULA or TOS. As for degrees of "cheating" and who is likely to do what, I'll just say that you and I think in completely opposite directions. I've found it surprising what people won't do under certain circumstances...
Yes, and it doesn't apply here. If everyone cheats in the prisoner's dilemma, everyone loses. With n/g/p if everyone "cheats," everyone gets an equal share (on average over time). Thus, there's no negatives to "cheating," as there is in the prisoner's dilemma. Ironically, wholesale "cheating" would actually ensure an equal division of loot; on the other hand, your etiquette falls flat if there's even just one "cheater" in the group.
Aren't you the least bit annoyed that developers knowingly set up a system that rewards "cheaters" at the expense of "nice guys," even when the "cheaters" "cheat" on each other?
Ok, at least you recognize this much - that the only thing your "rules" have going for them is social censure. Now if you'll recognize that that's becoming increasingly meaningless in MMOs, we'll be making progress...
You haven't established that 1) it's an exploit, or 2) your use of the system is the only intended one. Clearly 1) isn't true, because n/g/p has been around way too long in the same basic form across too many games, has entailed too many complaints, and is ridiculously easy to correct. You'd be really stretching it if you were to argue that developers were unaware of the alleged exploit, or if they couldn't think of a way to fix it.
As for 2), well, I have a hypothesis that involves some theorycrafting, second-guessing, and a healthy dose of paranoia (or, rather, recognition that developers design games to make money). Basically I believe that it is expected that many people will adhere to your brand of etiquette, but I believe it is also expected that many won't. The visibility of the loot (via n/g/p pop-ups), plus the inefficiency produced by the clash of mutually incompatible behaviors, together help to keep people repeating the same content longer than they otherwise would.
Way to dodge the question. It's irrelevant to you, so, you know, whatever?
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
(Not that I would but....) Under your version of the N/G/P system, do I now have the right to roll need on EVERY item that drops for my class whether I need it or not? By these rules every class is entitled to their classes loot.
What if there are two players of the same class in a group? Statistically, under this system they would get less loot than if they were in a group where they were the only character of their class. Given that NW is going to start with only 5 classes, this will come up quite often.
Those are just two examples that quickly came to mind.
Simple fix, remove the BoA mechanic.
Exemple: auto need on item for my class and greed for others.
Then don't be timid with gear if you really can use it. Or ASK if you want to roll on something and still be polite. I agree with people there needs to be a set Need and Greed loot system because otherwise you will have the occasional jerks taking stuff that you need. And generally they need it because they say "I need to sell it". Usually the answer I get, that is. You can say; just group with your friends or people you know. But sometimes people aren't on or have rl stuff and you find that you need to pug something out because you want to work at that piece of gear or whatever for that week.
However, offtopic but still slightly on it from here. I wish a game would some day implement a smart system that knows if the class isn't there then don't drop the loot. Had too many issues with that in previous games, lol.
That one is as simple as not allowing looting during combat. Problem solved.
Yeah, that would be good. I vote for that.