Efficiency Trolls

[essiw]

Just saying, all that "efficiently" isn't efficient at all. We are talking about Runescape, a game. What do you play a game for? FUN (or a feeling of accomplishment), so from a real life perspective, efficiently (the way you people use the word) in runescape is only efficient if you have more fun with it.

 

To take an example: Lets say I invite some friends to do monopoly, the most efficient way would be to not talk and move as fast as possible to finish the game as quick as possible. Would you have more fun in that? In most cases not. thus you have done it for nothing, being not efficient because it didn't reach the goal you wanted to achieve with it, being FUN.

[TheAncient]

I view afkablity as a merit. I like to be able to do things irl while I scape. That much is pretty subjective.

 

To the above, rs is fun because it's a place to hang out and more primarily gives you a sense of achievement. And irl I do debate with my firends about things like that

[pulli23]

Maximize money, xp, fun, time spent w friends

Minimize clicks per hour, money, attention, time

 

Simple enough.

Not attention, also money is a bit useless to a point (hence people use expensive methods).

So you give an importance factor for each "function".

 

And because the factors are personal efficiency is also a personal thing.

[Quyneax]

Just saying, all that "efficiently" isn't efficient at all. We are talking about Runescape, a game. What do you play a game for? FUN (or a feeling of accomplishment), so from a real life perspective, efficiently (the way you people use the word) in runescape is only efficient if you have more fun with it.

 

To take an example: Lets say I invite some friends to do monopoly, the most efficient way would be to not talk and move as fast as possible to finish the game as quick as possible. Would you have more fun in that? In most cases not. thus you have done it for nothing, being not efficient because it didn't reach the goal you wanted to achieve with it, being FUN.

You have a strange take on efficiency... people like being efficient within the game, obviously, we don't discuss irl efficiency here (which incidentally includes killing the elderly, which is a BAD idea). Since the game is a simple mathematical system, you can figure out what is best. Where best is defined as fastest.

 

Efficiency in Monopoly has nothing to do with speed. As there is no way for your competition to pass you if you do not take an action. Efficiency in Monopoly probably has something to do with opportunity cost however.

[TheAncient]

Maximize money, xp, fun, time spent w friends

Minimize clicks per hour, money, attention, time

 

Simple enough.

Not attention, also money is a bit useless to a point (hence people use expensive methods).

So you give an importance factor for each "function".

 

And because the factors are personal efficiency is also a personal thing.

Obviously. But when you see me giving advice I explain it in those terms. The advice I hate is that which is baseless and has nothing to do with those goals, at least explicitly. They claim that their methods are more fun when people clearly have different ways of having fun. Someone asking for help for a method is expressing explicitly they want to afhieve a goal, not trying to look cooler with a cls.

[essiw]

Just saying, all that "efficiently" isn't efficient at all. We are talking about Runescape, a game. What do you play a game for? FUN (or a feeling of accomplishment), so from a real life perspective, efficiently (the way you people use the word) in runescape is only efficient if you have more fun with it.

 

To take an example: Lets say I invite some friends to do monopoly, the most efficient way would be to not talk and move as fast as possible to finish the game as quick as possible. Would you have more fun in that? In most cases not. thus you have done it for nothing, being not efficient because it didn't reach the goal you wanted to achieve with it, being FUN.

You have a strange take on efficiency... people like being efficient within the game, obviously, we don't discuss irl efficiency here (which incidentally includes killing the elderly, which is a BAD idea). Since the game is a simple mathematical system, you can figure out what is best. Where best is defined as fastest.

 

Efficiency in Monopoly has nothing to do with speed. As there is no way for your competition to pass you if you do not take an action. Efficiency in Monopoly probably has something to do with opportunity cost however.

Since we have rules in real life (not killing the elderly) same as rules in runescape (not RWT and botting) that is not really true. In my oppinion the word "best" is what you want the most, is that being efficient? I think in most cases it is having fun, in some cases however those two are combined because people have fun while being efficient.

 

At the monopoly part, it was maybe a bad example, but you can look it at three ways (maybe even more): cost, the time to complete the game and fun (same as runescape: money, xp, and fun) these three things are used all together most of the times. I chose for "the time to complete the game" because it goes together with "being most efficient in runescape by getting xp in the shortest time".

 

It is all based on your oppinion, but the ideal thing in my opinion is to have fun, because you do not achieve something special from not having fun at doing a game. You can ask the question: Why are you playing it if you don't have fun while doing it?. If you ask the question: Why are you playing when you are not being as efficient as possible? That sounds strange doesn't it? But it is what most people are saying here.

[TheAncient]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

[essiw]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

[TheAncient]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

[Bangin_Blonde]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

 

Best known mathematically, but that isn't how some people have fun. If you're idea of fun is to get the most exp/gp/points/rank out of your time, so be it. Some of us don't think of it like that.

[Soma2035]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

 

Best known mathematically, but that isn't how some people have fun. If you're idea of fun is to get the most exp/gp/points/rank out of your time, so be it. Some of us don't think of it like that.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that you can't measure how an individual has fun, and you can't really tell someone what will be fun for them, and what will not.

 

It's quite hypocritical. For instance, look at fast dungeoneering versus slow dungeoneering. Undoubtedly there will be people who say that slow dungeoneering is less stressful, more fun, etc. What they're missing is that there are people who feel exactly the opposite. Fast dungeoneering is less frustrating, less repetitive, etc.

 

Fun isn't quantifiable. Something that's fun for you isn't necessarily fun to someone else. Therefore, advice should never be given in terms of what method is more fun. Advice should always be towards achieving the goals presented, and having fun isn't really a goal anyone can help you with.

[TheAncient]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

 

Best known mathematically, but that isn't how some people have fun. If you're idea of fun is to get the most exp/gp/points/rank out of your time, so be it. Some of us don't think of it like that.

I never said fun = highest numerical xp/hr or gp/hr. Even for "fun" activities like castle wars or just general fooling around, how do you know it's fun until you've heard about it and tried it? Experimentation and keeping a research-oriented mindset opens up possibilities. Likewise, being smart about how you have fun and gathering info on what you could do for fun maximizes your experiences.

 

Stating the excuse "oh shut up I have my own way of having fun" closes your opportunities and exposes you to boredom. Ignoring good advice has no reasonable excuse other than pride.

[Bangin_Blonde]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

 

Best known mathematically, but that isn't how some people have fun. If you're idea of fun is to get the most exp/gp/points/rank out of your time, so be it. Some of us don't think of it like that.

I never said fun = highest numerical xp/hr or gp/hr. Even for "fun" activities like castle wars or just general fooling around, how do you know it's fun until you've heard about it and tried it? Experimentation and keeping a research-oriented mindset opens up possibilities. Likewise, being smart about how you have fun and gathering info on what you could do for fun maximizes your experiences.

 

Stating the excuse "oh shut up I have my own way of having fun" closes your opportunities and exposes you to boredom

 

That's how you have fun. That isn't how I have fun. If you can do something you find fun and figure a way to make it more efficient, great.

 

And frankly, spending hours doing things, logging hours and number, making spreadsheets could not be in any way less boring that what I might do otherwise. That would make me want to hang myself.

 

Again, that's my personal opinion. What I do for fun can be determined by a number of things. The efficiency of of that activity I choose to has no factor on me. You just can't understand my side of it. I can try it and still do things different and have fun.

 

I just choose to not do it even if it will net me an additional 10-20k per hour. So what? My choice. So yeah, do your work. Figure out what gets you the most out of your time, and do your thing. We'll just chill over there, and do that which is slower and have as much fun as you.

 

-edit- Soma, therein lies the difficulty of advice. It is very different on the individual. I would always advise people to do what they want. There isn't anything wrong with knowing what amounts to what and how long it takes. Some of us simply don't enjoy being reproached because we choose to do something that isn't as efficient.

[Ginger_Warrior]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

 

Best known mathematically, but that isn't how some people have fun. If you're idea of fun is to get the most exp/gp/points/rank out of your time, so be it. Some of us don't think of it like that.

I never said fun = highest numerical xp/hr or gp/hr. Even for "fun" activities like castle wars or just general fooling around, how do you know it's fun until you've heard about it and tried it? Experimentation and keeping a research-oriented mindset opens up possibilities. Likewise, being smart about how you have fun and gathering info on what you could do for fun maximizes your experiences.

 

Stating the excuse "oh shut up I have my own way of having fun" closes your opportunities and exposes you to boredom. Ignoring good advice has no reasonable excuse other than pride.

* I like Halo. I've never played CoD for more than ten minutes, but I'm perfectly happy on Halo so why would I need to play it more?

* I play Pokemon Platinum. I've never played HG/SS, but I'm happy on Platinum so why would I need to?

* I used to play CW. I've never PKed but I was perfectly happy playing CW so why would I need to?

* I go to the Warehouse in town on a night out. I've never been to Lava but I'm happy at the Warehouse so why would I need to?

 

Please explain to me where I'm bored simply for not being 'smart' and 'gathering info' on what else I could do.

[essiw]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

If I understand you correctly, you say that if you do research you know which way is best for you? If that is what you mean then I agree with you, although there are some people who rather not research anything and just want to play, but in most cases it should be what you said. However doing research is not always doing research of getting the best xp/money (being efficient like the people use the word), I have done very much resource to found ways which I found fun other then the "best" methods which I did not like.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood your point, my mother language is not english ;)

[Soma2035]

That's how you have fun. That isn't how I have fun. If you can do something you find fun and figure a way to make it more efficient, great.

 

And frankly, spending hours doing things, logging hours and number, making spreadsheets could not be in any way less boring that what I might do otherwise. That would make me want to hang myself.

 

Again, that's my personal opinion. What I do for fun can be determined by a number of things. The efficiency of of that activity I choose to has no factor on me. You just can't understand my side of it. I can try it and still do things different and have fun.

 

I just choose to not do it even if it will net me an additional 10-20k per hour. So what? My choice. So yeah, do your work. Figure out what gets you the most out of your time, and do your thing. We'll just chill over there, and do that which is slower and have as much fun as you.

 

-edit- Soma, therein lies the difficulty of advice. It is very different on the individual. I would always advise people to do what they want. There isn't anything wrong with knowing what amounts to what and how long it takes. Some of us simply don't enjoy being reproached because we choose to do something that isn't as efficient.

 

That's not helpful advice in the slightest.

 

If someone posts asking advice in achieving a goal, the advice given should always be in an attempt to achieve that goal in the best quantifiable manner. That is to say, something fast, something cheap, or something that takes less effort. If you dislike being told what's fun, then you should understand that you are doing EXACTLY that when offering advice that's inefficient, on account of it being "fun".

 

Fun is not quantifiable. There is no method that's inherently more fun than another to each and every person. You say you don't like it when people tell you what to do for fun, so stop doing it to other people, and when you offer advice, focus on something that IS quantifiable - how much money you can make in an hour, or how fast you can train in an hour, or how much you can get for your money, or how much experience/money you can get for your efforts.

[Soma2035]

* I like Halo. I've never played CoD for more than ten minutes, but I'm perfectly happy on Halo so why would I need to play it more?

* I play Pokemon Platinum. I've never played HG/SS, but I'm happy on Platinum so why would I need to?

* I used to play CW. I've never PKed but I was perfectly happy playing CW so why would I need to?

* I go to the Warehouse in town on a night out. I've never been to Lava but I'm happy at the Warehouse so why would I need to?

 

Please explain to me where I'm bored simply for not being 'smart' and 'gathering info' on what else I could do.

 

* I live in a cave and cook game over an open fire. I've never known the luxury of living in a modern house with bathrooms, kitchen appliances, electricity, etc. But I'm perfectly happy living in a cave, so why would I need to try it?

 

Just because you like something doesn't mean you can't find something that serves your needs better.

[essiw]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

 

Best known mathematically, but that isn't how some people have fun. If you're idea of fun is to get the most exp/gp/points/rank out of your time, so be it. Some of us don't think of it like that.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that you can't measure how an individual has fun, and you can't really tell someone what will be fun for them, and what will not.

 

It's quite hypocritical. For instance, look at fast dungeoneering versus slow dungeoneering. Undoubtedly there will be people who say that slow dungeoneering is less stressful, more fun, etc. What they're missing is that there are people who feel exactly the opposite. Fast dungeoneering is less frustrating, less repetitive, etc.

 

Fun isn't quantifiable. Something that's fun for you isn't necessarily fun to someone else. Therefore, advice should never be given in terms of what method is more fun. Advice should always be towards achieving the goals presented, and having fun isn't really a goal anyone can help you with.

I have seen many threads where players asked other ways (fun ways) then the efficient way to train a skill . Why should advice not been given in terms of fun if the player asks for it?

[Ginger_Warrior]

* I like Halo. I've never played CoD for more than ten minutes, but I'm perfectly happy on Halo so why would I need to play it more?

* I play Pokemon Platinum. I've never played HG/SS, but I'm happy on Platinum so why would I need to?

* I used to play CW. I've never PKed but I was perfectly happy playing CW so why would I need to?

* I go to the Warehouse in town on a night out. I've never been to Lava but I'm happy at the Warehouse so why would I need to?

 

Please explain to me where I'm bored simply for not being 'smart' and 'gathering info' on what else I could do.

 

* I live in a cave and cook game over an open fire. I've never known the luxury of living in a modern house with bathrooms, kitchen appliances, electricity, etc. But I'm perfectly happy living in a cave, so why would I need to try it?

 

Just because you like something doesn't mean you can't find something that serves your needs better.

But if he's happy there, who are you to judge until such a point that he comes asking for your opinion?

 

That's really the crucial issue here. People giving opinions where they're not wanted.

[Michael]

People go to H&A for help and advice, saying they're don't want others opinions is frankly ridiculous.

[Ginger_Warrior]

People go to H&A for help and advice, saying they're don't want others opinions is frankly ridiculous.

Even one's like these?

 

Totally useless, completely ignorant and incredibly rude.

[Soma2035]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

 

Best known mathematically, but that isn't how some people have fun. If you're idea of fun is to get the most exp/gp/points/rank out of your time, so be it. Some of us don't think of it like that.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that you can't measure how an individual has fun, and you can't really tell someone what will be fun for them, and what will not.

 

It's quite hypocritical. For instance, look at fast dungeoneering versus slow dungeoneering. Undoubtedly there will be people who say that slow dungeoneering is less stressful, more fun, etc. What they're missing is that there are people who feel exactly the opposite. Fast dungeoneering is less frustrating, less repetitive, etc.

 

Fun isn't quantifiable. Something that's fun for you isn't necessarily fun to someone else. Therefore, advice should never be given in terms of what method is more fun. Advice should always be towards achieving the goals presented, and having fun isn't really a goal anyone can help you with.

I have seen many threads where players asked other ways (fun ways) then the efficient way to train a skill . Why should advice not been given in terms of fun if the player asks for it?

 

Player A has fun killing Armoured Zombies. Player B has fun playing Castle Wars. Player C posts a topic asking for a fun way to train melee. How can you honestly answer this question? If you're Player A, can you automatically assume that Player C has fun the same way as you? Or do you have to assume he has fun some other way, because Player B always complains to him, "Armoured Zombies aren't fun!"

 

If it's not right for an efficient player to always assume that other players have fun playing efficiently, it's just as wrong for someone to assume that someone doesn't have fun playing efficiently. Even if they ask for a fun method, you can't really give them proper advice on it.

[Th e Doctor]

. It is ok to have something that is your favorite that isn't the best, just don't call it the best, call it your favorite.

 

quoted for win. also, for pointing out pulli's terrible argument lol.

 

Thanks :)

 

Lots of posts and just finished reading them, first of all

 

At pulli, again you have the definition of efficiency wrong. A persons inability to use the most efficient methods does not mean that the methods they can do are the most efficient. Classic example is brett favres throwing mechanic. Nothing about it is proper in terms of efficient movement from a sports performance stand point, but he saw great success with it (and had fun), he would however been even better had he been trained to throw correctly.

 

 

I'm studying aerospace engineering.. Here efficiency is always the questions to ask.. However efficiency is nothing without looking at the circumstances: soemthing is only efficient under certain circumstances. If you don't grasp this I will have to keep calling you a "clown" since further discussion is not really possible.. It's like those who are answering (when I ask for the average drop rate of item X): "it's random"; Or trying to discuss fundamental physics (bing bang) with theists..

 

First of all if you read the OP you would have seen that any comments that are inflammatory towards a persons religious beliefs are against the rules. Im a theist and im offended, mostly because I do undedrstand your "bing" bang theory.

 

Secondly I'm studying exercise science and so I deal with efficiency a lot as well, namely efficiency of movement VO2max etc. So I am well aware that efficiency is determined by its context. Your ad hominim arguements about my intelligence however don't make your point valid. Namely because we all have the same context, that being a game. And the only way to measure the efficiency of something is with definite quantitative numbers. The numbers we have to work with in this game are gp, exp, and time. Trying to incinuate that something like killing green dragons is more efficient gp/hr versus killing TD's for gp/hr on the basis that you lack the skill to do so is nonsensical. Your inability to kill TD's from lack of skill does not change the fact that it is indeed better gp/hr.

 

Don't try to act like efficient ways of playing this game are anywhere close to as complex as something like aerospace engineering.

 

Edit

 

For clarification we reserve the word "best" for describing things that can be measured quantitatively, because on matters of opinion it loses all its capabilites to describe anything. If I enjoy killing lvl 2 men it doesn't make it the best money maker. It makes it my favorite. It is ok to have something that is your favorite that isn't the best, just don't call it the best, call it your favorite.

 

 

Wait, you know that efficiency is based upon a context.... Yet you don't see the fact that the context also includes what a human can and what a human can not do? Just like choices made by goverments (in the form of taxes) change the fact which plane is more efficient at which country.

In runescape efficiency is not only determined with cost & time analyse; As said difficulty (which in runescape itself manifests as possibility to do "spike" loads as well as the ability to continue the method for long times) also is an important factor. You can try to refuse this, but whenever you give advice about what is more efficient you should always take this into account - if you can't calculate it: that is fine but always add the note then: "this method is very difficult, an easier method is ...." so the poster of the question can still determine wether or not the method is most efficient for him.

 

This might sometimes tip the balance in favour of other methods, and unless you can prove it is "ridiculous" you can never completely write down a method to do something. For example IF prayer flashing would become very, very important (ie prayers are needed, yet prayer potion price is many times as expensive as they now are) a person might be more efficient using a longsword (or maul) over the rapier: with a slower speed he would be able to flash his prayers better, leading in less (taken) damage or more dealt damage!

 

Again, your personal inability to successfully use the most efficient methods does not make your method the most efficient for you. It makes it the most doable by you. My owning a 1995 saturn that can't go above 70 mph without the steering column shaking doesn't make 70 mph the most fastest speed a car can go. It makes it the fastest speed I am capable of going. Please stop trying to make efficiency a subjective thing when it is an objective thing. Granted that it only becomes so once you have an established context for what you are measuring, which we do.

 

[Hide]

No it's not. Playing efficiently and doing research directly provides you the best way to have fun and achieve your goals. By definition.

In your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. In what way you have fun is not stated by a definition it is an opinion.

Research provides the best known way to do something. Is that an opinion?

 

Best known mathematically, but that isn't how some people have fun. If you're idea of fun is to get the most exp/gp/points/rank out of your time, so be it. Some of us don't think of it like that.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that you can't measure how an individual has fun, and you can't really tell someone what will be fun for them, and what will not.

 

It's quite hypocritical. For instance, look at fast dungeoneering versus slow dungeoneering. Undoubtedly there will be people who say that slow dungeoneering is less stressful, more fun, etc. What they're missing is that there are people who feel exactly the opposite. Fast dungeoneering is less frustrating, less repetitive, etc.

 

Fun isn't quantifiable. Something that's fun for you isn't necessarily fun to someone else. Therefore, advice should never be given in terms of what method is more fun. Advice should always be towards achieving the goals presented, and having fun isn't really a goal anyone can help you with.

[/hide]

I have seen many threads where players asked other ways (fun ways) then the efficient way to train a skill . Why should advice not been given in terms of fun if the player asks for it?

 

Because we can't know what the individual finds fun. Only he/she can...through trying things him/herself.

 

We arent arguing that you should play for fun, we're saying we can't tell you what to do for fun because its different for everyone. What we can tell you is what's the same for everyone, namely things like gp/exp, gp/hr, exp/hr etc. If you want a list of things to try for fun then ask for a list of things to try for fun. But don't ask for the best way to do something and then say its not the best because its not fun, because you did not ask for fun...you asked for the best.

 

Edit

 

People go to H&A for help and advice, saying they're don't want others opinions is frankly ridiculous.

Even one's like these?

 

Totally useless, completely ignorant and incredibly rude.

 

Rude yes, ignorant and useless no. The OP in that thread said he was trying to save money...by using a godsword (min 10 mil pricetag at the time) vs a whip (1.4 mil at the time) on the basis of whips being overrated, even in light of the fact that a whip+rune defender out dps's a gs in virtually all conceivably situations. His post was worded poorly but it was correct in its factual information. Especially given the OP's expressed desire to save money.

 

Edit 2

 

Ninja'd :(

[Michael]

People go to H&A for help and advice, saying they're don't want others opinions is frankly ridiculous.

Even one's like these?

 

Totally useless, completely ignorant and incredibly rude.

 

Useless? No. Ignorant? Maybe. Rude? Ok you have me there.

[Nifflin]

Just a thought. If all the "efficiency trolls" left these forums, what would they be like? Isn't that high standard of devotion to the game and exploration of mechanics what makes these forums different from others? If people who gave advice about efficient methods all left H&A, would people be better off? If people didn't post the math proving that rapier > cls or other things about top gear, would the members of this community be better off?

 

My opinion is that the "efficiency trolls" are what makes this community great. Shoving things down peoples throats is never okay, but striving for knowledge should always be encouraged.

 

The negativity towards efficiency seems to be hindering so much more, is it really worth it?

 

PS, it's also REALLY [bleep]ING ANNOYING when people in H&A stick to incorrect, preconceived notions or give flat out bad advice. When someone posts the most efficient method there they are doing the best they can with the information given. A makeover of the H&A rules might be a great idea putting more burden on the OP to specify exactly what they want.