We don't know the specifics of the death penalty yet. If you drop 60%+ of your resources on death, it's going to be advantageous for you to fight back to get that reduced penalty, especially if you have been farming for a while.
@Gothix Right, I like the argument I am only going to attack (and kill) green flagged players because I was mining and they came along and mined more than I could, or I was going to mine but they were already there. If that was how everyone approached the PvP aspect (or at least the killing greens part) that would be great.
When PvP players start targeting, and killing, random greens because "they have resources" (even though the other player would have no way of knowing) that is unfair targeting. Players would just be, in that case, targeting and killing random greens as RNG loot boxes.
As far as progressing your character that's nice. I mean, as a green gatherer I am trying to progress my character. It's nice others have the option to slow my progression because they want to progress their own character. Luckily as a green gatherer I can slow their progress as well by mining before they get there and hoping they don't want to risk the corruption.
It's nice that the corruption system is there to prevent my progress from constantly being slowed for no reason. It's a bad mechanic that killing gatherers is the only way for the PvP crowd to produce gold/materials.
Either way, I still like the "long-time purple flag" option. Those gatherers that love PvP can make themselves more readily available targets, and the guys that might want to kill me hoping to get some random resource drop shows up on my radar. I'm still good with this idea.
@Gothix Right, I like the argument I am only going to attack (and kill) green flagged players because I was mining and they came along and mined more than I could, or I was going to mine but they were already there.
Where did you ever see me say I would attack "only" green players?
I would attack anyone not in my guild regardless of color. And in a resource limited game, this is how it should be.
Also it doesn't really matter if another player has already gathered the resources, or he is about too. He is there, therefore he is a threat to the resources, and when he gathers them it is already to late, because you can only get %resources back if you kill him. So, in fact, it is better to kill him before he has managed to gather something.
In a resource limited game, attacking and killing people should not be punished at all.
However I would still be ok, with punishing only killing of much lower levels, or griefing - prolonged killing of same target over and over.
That being said I would LOVE if process of gathering flagged people PURPLE. That way, you gather, you become legit target, and you can not EXPLOIT gathering with low level character to protect yourself. You also can not keep gathering non stop as green, and just staying there harvesting whole forest while other players are destroying their gear on you having to kill you constantly.
Make process of gathering, flag you purple for 30 minutes. That would solve a LOT of issues.
Yep, that would definitely remove a lot of the PvE players from the game, great solution. We all know how much time PvP players spend gathering, crafting, selling, trading, so they would be able to handle the Economic Pillar of the game while producing enough resources to keep the nodes up and making sure they are progressing.
Ashes should just be a PvP game.
Everyone should have to play in a way that accommodates others, even if no one is willing to accommodate them.
Right. Attacking anyone not in your guild regardless of flag color is the reason there is Corruption. Because Ashes is an RPG; not an FPS. And Ashes is a PvX game; not a PvP-centric game.
You are still free to attack anyone not in your guild regardless of flag color. You will just have to accept the consequences of your choice.
I am pretty sure that devs does not want to promote open world PvP more than what it is at the moment. I am personally happy with current corruption system and imo it fits perfectly to Ashes gamedesign and needs no changes. That is why i voted no.
This suggestion was not bad after it was taken out of that buff idea and it could work fine with some other game. With that buff idea it was broken at first place, because it would force players to PvP and that is not IS intend for sure.
I will also focus on PvP side of Ashes and i am really interested of castle/city sieges, guild wars and ambushing caravans. I am also sometimes going after other players in open world, but still i prefer for current rules.
Yep, that would definitely remove a lot of the PvE players from the game, great solution.
As you often like to say "this is not a PvP game but PvX", now I will also say - "this is not a PvE game but PvX".
If PvE players wish to play PvE game they can go look somewhere else.
You are basically saying current system is good because it's keeping PvE players in the game, and it doesn't matter that it's in same time removing PvP players from the game (and it is).
But we will never be able to discuss things normally, because you (and few other particular people) want a PvE game, and not PvX game. You want to be protected from PvP when you feel like it. And some other people (no need to name them) want this even more than you.
System should work like this:
1. NO corruption gain unless for killing 5+ level lower players than you or for killing a SAME green player over 10 times in 60 minutes. 2. ANY gathering action flags you purple for 30 minutes 3. killing ANY mob flags you purple for 3 minutes
Now, if you just want to walk the forest minding your own business (and no - gathering limited resources is NOT minding your own business) then you can walk around green, and if anyone kills you too often they will gain corruption.
But as soon as you start gathering limited resources, you go purple and become a legit target. Deal with the risk.
Yeah I know you will be against this, since you want to be protected. You don't need to tell me this, I know.
I am just hoping that lead people in Intrepid Studios will see some light before they loose the PvP community, and retain only PvE crowd, at which point they may as well make server "PvE".
Hardcore PvP players might indeed go play some other game if they don't like the Corruption system. Just as we casual players might go play some other game if the Corruption system isn't sufficient for us.
If PvP players want a PvP game they can look elsewhere. Your logic, not mine.
Oh believe me if I suggested a PvP game, my suggestions would be a lot different:
1. no corruption at all for anything 2. full resource loot on kill (not only percentage) 3. exp gain for killing citizens of other nodes, and other rewards based on PvP kills 4. more PvP activities, including more open world PvP activities ...
@Azathoth Believe me what I suggested previously are suggestions for PvX game, not for PvP game.
Imho it is just so vain to try suggest changes to current open world PvP rules. There are few reasons. It is against Steven's, Jeffrey's and generally IS vision of the game. Changes are against the marketing and how the game is designed. If IS would now change open world PvP to more hardcore direction, it would automatically be a turn off to most of the current playerbase. It would also be false marketing at the first place and i dont think IS wants to deceive their current backers and supporters. People have paid a huge amount of money, because the promised core mechanics of Ashes.
I have been so many times in similar discussions like this one. Not only in AoC forums, but in other games too. There is always players who wants to change the core mechanics to cater better their personal intends and vision of the game. This is basic problem f.e. in Albion Online where time to time players wants full loot PvP to be less punishing. Those players wont never get devs to change the main core of their product. Its the same story here, but just opposite way.
I like also to play full loot PvP games, but with mmo's where it belongs and feels right. I might test out Legend of Aria, Gloria Victis and Chronicles of Ellyria, where world is designed around hardcore PvP and even full loot. Ashes is different. It wants to cater PvP players, but from different point of view. Ashes is not designed for certain types of hardcore players who like games i mentioned before. I am interested of Ashes PvP even its not where i am recently used to. I will enjoy and focus to other aspects what AoC offers.
So i personally respect Steven's and IS's gamedesign and i really hope they wont bend with this one or they will loose much more than what they can get.
Oh believe me if I suggested a PvP game, my suggestions would be a lot different:
1. no corruption at all for anything 2. full resource loot on kill (not only percentage) 3. exp gain for killing citizens of other nodes, and other rewards based on PvP kills 4. more PvP activities, including more open world PvP activities
That isn't a description for a persistent PvP MMORPG, that is a description for a game with a maximum viable life of 3 months.
Also, resources in AoC are effectively unlimited, so most of what you have posted in this thread is invalid.
Having hardcore PvPers, casual PvPers and non-PvPers all playing in the same space is going to create a lot of tension. Almost no one is going to be happy. We just have to hope that it's not so frustrating that very few people continue to play.
Having hardcore PvPers, casual PvPers and non-PvPers all playing in the same space is going to create a lot of tension. Almost no one is going to be happy. We just have to hope that it's not so frustrating that very few people continue to play.
I totally agree.
There is something a few people in this thread seem to be forgetting though - not all hardcore PvP'ers are at all interested in killing some random player to take the flowers he just picked.
I know a fair amount of players interested in this game from Archeage that just want a game with a quality siege system. These are players that likely will spend all their time in game preparing for a siege (whether attacking or defending). Their entire game will revolve around the siege aspect of PvP combat.
These are hardcore PvP players - far more hardcore than someone stealing flowers.
In fact, I would say that players claiming to be hardcore PvP'ers yet not spending their time working towards siege content are the PvP version of the PvE player claiming to be a "hardcore solo'er". They are vocal, but seeing one in the wild is so rare they are rumored to not actually exist outside of forums.
Imho it is just so vain to try suggest changes to current open world PvP rules. There are few reasons. It is against Steven's, Jeffrey's and generally IS vision of the game. Changes are against the marketing and how the game is designed. If IS would now change open world PvP to more hardcore direction, it would automatically be a turn off to most of the current playerbase. It would also be false marketing at the first place and i dont think IS wants to deceive their current backers and supporters. People have paid a huge amount of money, because the promised core mechanics of Ashes.
I have been so many times in similar discussions like this one. Not only in AoC forums, but in other games too. There is always players who wants to change the core mechanics to cater better their personal intends and vision of the game. This is basic problem f.e. in Albion Online where time to time players wants full loot PvP to be less punishing. Those players wont never get devs to change the main core of their product. Its the same story here, but just opposite way.
I like also to play full loot PvP games, but with mmo's where it belongs and feels right. I might test out Legend of Aria, Gloria Victis and Chronicles of Ellyria, where world is designed around hardcore PvP and even full loot. Ashes is different. It wants to cater PvP players, but from different point of view. Ashes is not designed for certain types of hardcore players who like games i mentioned before. I am interested of Ashes PvP even its not where i am recently used to. I will enjoy and focus to other aspects what AoC offers.
So i personally respect Steven's and IS's gamedesign and i really hope they wont bend with this one or they will loose much more than what they can get.
Ashes was marketed as a PVX game and that's what we're trying to get out of it. This isn't a full loot pvp game and hopefully never will be. Noaani said:
Oh believe me if I suggested a PvP game, my suggestions would be a lot different:
1. no corruption at all for anything 2. full resource loot on kill (not only percentage) 3. exp gain for killing citizens of other nodes, and other rewards based on PvP kills 4. more PvP activities, including more open world PvP activities
That isn't a description for a persistent PvP MMORPG, that is a description for a game with a maximum viable life of 3 months.
Also, resources in AoC are effectively unlimited, so most of what you have posted in this thread is invalid.
While the amount of resources may be "unlimited" the resources are limited and mobile (you can Deplete a site) according to the Devs. If you can control a resource in one node location you can potentially create a monopoly by forcing others to bring in external ore via caravan which you can also attack and loot. I'm not looking for anything extreme it just doesn't make any sense to me to have a player driver economy and no way to protect a resource you found.
There is something a few people in this thread seem to be forgetting though - not all hardcore PvP'ers are at all interested in killing some random player to take the flowers he just picked.
I know a fair amount of players interested in this game from Archeage that just want a game with a quality siege system. These are players that likely will spend all their time in game preparing for a siege (whether attacking or defending). Their entire game will revolve around the siege aspect of PvP combat.
These are hardcore PvP players - far more hardcore than someone stealing flowers.
In fact, I would say that players claiming to be hardcore PvP'ers yet not spending their time working towards siege content are the PvP version of the PvE player claiming to be a "hardcore solo'er". They are vocal, but seeing one in the wild is so rare they are rumored to not actually exist outside of forums.
I feel like you are trying to trivialize all resources as meaningless "flowers" which is silly. They have said that all resources will be useful at all stages in the game so even the "flowers" are going to have value. If they have value, then denying them from your enemy will have meaning. Attacking an enemy node's resource gathers will be a way to weaken the node's economy. There is more to pvp then fair fights.
This is why i don't really think anything needs to be done for pvpers. Raiding resource gathers will probably be a popular activity for people who enjoy pvp. The death penalty and flagging system already encourage it. Add in the fact that you might run into a caravan on the trip, should be a lot to do.
While the amount of resources may be "unlimited" the resources are limited and mobile (you can Deplete a site) according to the Devs. If you can control a resource in one node location you can potentially create a monopoly by forcing others to bring in external ore via caravan which you can also attack and loot. I'm not looking for anything extreme it just doesn't make any sense to me to have a player driver economy and no way to protect a resource you found.
This is all absolutely true, you can deplete a given source of resources, at which point it respawns somewhere else.
The thing is, for this to be effective, it works on the assumption that people will stick to a node.
If a node isn't working out for someone - say, a crafter that wants ore but can't get it - they will just move to where they can get it.
This is why resources are not limited, and why any points based on limited resources don't really hold up very well.
Ashes was marketed as a PVX game and that's what we're trying to get out of it. This isn't a full loot pvp game and hopefully never will be.
Ashes was marketed as a PVX game and thats what it is already. Steven has said it so many times, that they focus to meaningful conflicts what it comes to PvP side of this game. He means by that castle and city fights/sieges, guild wars and ambushing caravans. So the game focus wont be in arena or open world PvP, even those two features are also in the game. And yes i know Ashes wont ever be full loot PvP game and i dont want that either.
There should be no flagging.. If this is an open world MMO, why would you punish a player experiencing his open world Pvp? Hes playing your game properly.... Why would you punish him... If you dont want players getting attacked in certain areas, then just simply turn off PvP in that area, it may be a questing zone, or crafting zone, thats fine, but dont be confusing about it where if i attack you, now i have to pray that you attack me back, or i am getting punished because i thought u wanted to fight and you didnt, or everyone runs away so there is no PvP without huge punishments...
Usually with flagging and PvP punishments you get PvE players griefing the PvP players more often then not.
At the end of the day, no crafting or gathering should be risk free in higher tier zones, if i see a high lvl guy, gathering a node that i wanted to gather, i should have all the right in the world to kill him and get that node, or die and he gets that node, without the fear of being punished for it, that same player returning 2 minutes from now and killing me, and ontop of my death and time wasted i get a PvP penalty punishment of losing Xp and or Gear... beyond ridiculous.
There is something a few people in this thread seem to be forgetting though - not all hardcore PvP'ers are at all interested in killing some random player to take the flowers he just picked.
I know a fair amount of players interested in this game from Archeage that just want a game with a quality siege system. These are players that likely will spend all their time in game preparing for a siege (whether attacking or defending). Their entire game will revolve around the siege aspect of PvP combat.
These are hardcore PvP players - far more hardcore than someone stealing flowers.
In fact, I would say that players claiming to be hardcore PvP'ers yet not spending their time working towards siege content are the PvP version of the PvE player claiming to be a "hardcore solo'er". They are vocal, but seeing one in the wild is so rare they are rumored to not actually exist outside of forums.
I feel like you are trying to trivialize all resources as meaningless "flowers" which is silly. They have said that all resources will be useful at all stages in the game so even the "flowers" are going to have value. If they have value, then denying them from your enemy will have meaning. Attacking an enemy node's resource gathers will be a way to weaken the node's economy. There is more to pvp then fair fights.
This is why i don't really think anything needs to be done for pvpers. Raiding resource gathers will probably be a popular activity for people who enjoy pvp. The death penalty and flagging system already encourage it. Add in the fact that you might run into a caravan on the trip, should be a lot to do.
They have said they will have harvester systems that require group activity to use and deploy. That means gathering is a collaborative process and not a competitive one. So the 'he took my flowers' and must die argument is null and void as they arent 'your' flowers. They are the groups flowers.
The node itself requires mutual collaboration of people rather than competition against each other for the node to prosper. So killing your own nodes players has to be the epitome of stupidity.
Lastly, if you arent competing with you own nodes players, who are you competing with that requires PvP ? Other nodes. Nodes you can declare war against where corruption is disabled. Nodes you can siege, where corruption is disabled.
So yes it is trivialising individual flower collecting for personal gain as a demand for PvP because individual flower collecting for personal gain is irrelevant and not the objective. Therefore... it serves no purpose other than griefing. Which takes us back to the difference between community games based on collaboration and solo (as long as I'm alright jack) games based on full competition and each to their own.
We are under no obligation to have loyalty to a node. If your playstyle is to be part of the node no one is going to stop you. Guilds and individuals can act independently from nodes. Your "own node" may not hold meaning to people and to blanket people calling them the "epitome of stupid" only looks bad on you. Do my actions in this ZOI effect the node? Yes of course, but ultimately we are only looking out for our selves.
Individual crafter gatherers aren't trivialised by any means other than your interpretation of the system. It's in our nature to be competitive... Any "flower" in your pocket is one that's not in mine. If your gathering a resource I'm collecting in my eyes your open game... Its not griefing to have a competitive field defend your find.
Player driven economy's give a large amount of control and influence on price to those who have more money. Oligarchys alone are based solely on money. So to say this is a collaboration and not competitive is either misleading or ill informed.
As to harvester systems (I couldn't find anything on them) a group of friends is more likely to establish something like that instead of a general populice.
Comments
Right, I like the argument I am only going to attack (and kill) green flagged players because I was mining and they came along and mined more than I could, or I was going to mine but they were already there. If that was how everyone approached the PvP aspect (or at least the killing greens part) that would be great.
When PvP players start targeting, and killing, random greens because "they have resources" (even though the other player would have no way of knowing) that is unfair targeting. Players would just be, in that case, targeting and killing random greens as RNG loot boxes.
As far as progressing your character that's nice. I mean, as a green gatherer I am trying to progress my character. It's nice others have the option to slow my progression because they want to progress their own character. Luckily as a green gatherer I can slow their progress as well by mining before they get there and hoping they don't want to risk the corruption.
It's nice that the corruption system is there to prevent my progress from constantly being slowed for no reason. It's a bad mechanic that killing gatherers is the only way for the PvP crowd to produce gold/materials.
Either way, I still like the "long-time purple flag" option. Those gatherers that love PvP can make themselves more readily available targets, and the guys that might want to kill me hoping to get some random resource drop shows up on my radar. I'm still good with this idea.
Where did you ever see me say I would attack "only" green players?
I would attack anyone not in my guild regardless of color. And in a resource limited game, this is how it should be.
Also it doesn't really matter if another player has already gathered the resources, or he is about too. He is there, therefore he is a threat to the resources, and when he gathers them it is already to late, because you can only get %resources back if you kill him. So, in fact, it is better to kill him before he has managed to gather something.
In a resource limited game, attacking and killing people should not be punished at all.
However I would still be ok, with punishing only killing of much lower levels, or griefing - prolonged killing of same target over and over.
That being said I would LOVE if process of gathering flagged people PURPLE. That way, you gather, you become legit target, and you can not EXPLOIT gathering with low level character to protect yourself. You also can not keep gathering non stop as green, and just staying there harvesting whole forest while other players are destroying their gear on you having to kill you constantly.
Make process of gathering, flag you purple for 30 minutes. That would solve a LOT of issues.
Ashes should just be a PvP game.
Everyone should have to play in a way that accommodates others, even if no one is willing to accommodate them.
Attacking anyone not in your guild regardless of flag color is the reason there is Corruption.
Because Ashes is an RPG; not an FPS. And Ashes is a PvX game; not a PvP-centric game.
You are still free to attack anyone not in your guild regardless of flag color.
You will just have to accept the consequences of your choice.
This suggestion was not bad after it was taken out of that buff idea and it could work fine with some other game. With that buff idea it was broken at first place, because it would force players to PvP and that is not IS intend for sure.
I will also focus on PvP side of Ashes and i am really interested of castle/city sieges, guild wars and ambushing caravans. I am also sometimes going after other players in open world, but still i prefer for current rules.
As you often like to say "this is not a PvP game but PvX", now I will also say - "this is not a PvE game but PvX".
If PvE players wish to play PvE game they can go look somewhere else.
You are basically saying current system is good because it's keeping PvE players in the game, and it doesn't matter that it's in same time removing PvP players from the game (and it is).
But we will never be able to discuss things normally, because you (and few other particular people) want a PvE game, and not PvX game. You want to be protected from PvP when you feel like it. And some other people (no need to name them) want this even more than you.
System should work like this:
1. NO corruption gain unless for killing 5+ level lower players than you or for killing a SAME green player over 10 times in 60 minutes.
2. ANY gathering action flags you purple for 30 minutes
3. killing ANY mob flags you purple for 3 minutes
Now, if you just want to walk the forest minding your own business (and no - gathering limited resources is NOT minding your own business) then you can walk around green, and if anyone kills you too often they will gain corruption.
But as soon as you start gathering limited resources, you go purple and become a legit target. Deal with the risk.
Yeah I know you will be against this, since you want to be protected. You don't need to tell me this, I know.
I am just hoping that lead people in Intrepid Studios will see some light before they loose the PvP community, and retain only PvE crowd, at which point they may as well make server "PvE".
Just as we casual players might go play some other game if the Corruption system isn't sufficient for us.
Oh believe me if I suggested a PvP game, my suggestions would be a lot different:
1. no corruption at all for anything
2. full resource loot on kill (not only percentage)
3. exp gain for killing citizens of other nodes, and other rewards based on PvP kills
4. more PvP activities, including more open world PvP activities
...
@Azathoth
Believe me what I suggested previously are suggestions for PvX game, not for PvP game.
I have been so many times in similar discussions like this one. Not only in AoC forums, but in other games too. There is always players who wants to change the core mechanics to cater better their personal intends and vision of the game. This is basic problem f.e. in Albion Online where time to time players wants full loot PvP to be less punishing. Those players wont never get devs to change the main core of their product. Its the same story here, but just opposite way.
I like also to play full loot PvP games, but with mmo's where it belongs and feels right. I might test out Legend of Aria, Gloria Victis and Chronicles of Ellyria, where world is designed around hardcore PvP and even full loot. Ashes is different. It wants to cater PvP players, but from different point of view. Ashes is not designed for certain types of hardcore players who like games i mentioned before. I am interested of Ashes PvP even its not where i am recently used to. I will enjoy and focus to other aspects what AoC offers.
So i personally respect Steven's and IS's gamedesign and i really hope they wont bend with this one or they will loose much more than what they can get.
Also, resources in AoC are effectively unlimited, so most of what you have posted in this thread is invalid.
We just have to hope that it's not so frustrating that very few people continue to play.
There is something a few people in this thread seem to be forgetting though - not all hardcore PvP'ers are at all interested in killing some random player to take the flowers he just picked.
I know a fair amount of players interested in this game from Archeage that just want a game with a quality siege system. These are players that likely will spend all their time in game preparing for a siege (whether attacking or defending). Their entire game will revolve around the siege aspect of PvP combat.
These are hardcore PvP players - far more hardcore than someone stealing flowers.
In fact, I would say that players claiming to be hardcore PvP'ers yet not spending their time working towards siege content are the PvP version of the PvE player claiming to be a "hardcore solo'er". They are vocal, but seeing one in the wild is so rare they are rumored to not actually exist outside of forums.
While the amount of resources may be "unlimited" the resources are limited and mobile (you can Deplete a site) according to the Devs. If you can control a resource in one node location you can potentially create a monopoly by forcing others to bring in external ore via caravan which you can also attack and loot. I'm not looking for anything extreme it just doesn't make any sense to me to have a player driver economy and no way to protect a resource you found.
This is why i don't really think anything needs to be done for pvpers. Raiding resource gathers will probably be a popular activity for people who enjoy pvp. The death penalty and flagging system already encourage it. Add in the fact that you might run into a caravan on the trip, should be a lot to do.
The thing is, for this to be effective, it works on the assumption that people will stick to a node.
If a node isn't working out for someone - say, a crafter that wants ore but can't get it - they will just move to where they can get it.
This is why resources are not limited, and why any points based on limited resources don't really hold up very well.
Usually with flagging and PvP punishments you get PvE players griefing the PvP players more often then not.
At the end of the day, no crafting or gathering should be risk free in higher tier zones, if i see a high lvl guy, gathering a node that i wanted to gather, i should have all the right in the world to kill him and get that node, or die and he gets that node, without the fear of being punished for it, that same player returning 2 minutes from now and killing me, and ontop of my death and time wasted i get a PvP penalty punishment of losing Xp and or Gear... beyond ridiculous.
Sandbox means free to do whatever you wish - but Ashes is a themebox; not a sandbox.
That means gathering is a collaborative process and not a competitive one.
So the 'he took my flowers' and must die argument is null and void as they arent 'your' flowers.
They are the groups flowers.
The node itself requires mutual collaboration of people rather than competition against each other for the node to prosper. So killing your own nodes players has to be the epitome of stupidity.
Lastly, if you arent competing with you own nodes players, who are you competing with that requires PvP ? Other nodes. Nodes you can declare war against where corruption is disabled. Nodes you can siege, where corruption is disabled.
So yes it is trivialising individual flower collecting for personal gain as a demand for PvP because individual flower collecting for personal gain is irrelevant and not the objective. Therefore... it serves no purpose other than griefing. Which takes us back to the difference between community games based on collaboration and solo (as long as I'm alright jack) games based on full competition and each to their own.
Individual crafter gatherers aren't trivialised by any means other than your interpretation of the system. It's in our nature to be competitive... Any "flower" in your pocket is one that's not in mine. If your gathering a resource I'm collecting in my eyes your open game... Its not griefing to have a competitive field defend your find.
Player driven economy's give a large amount of control and influence on price to those who have more money. Oligarchys alone are based solely on money. So to say this is a collaboration and not competitive is either misleading or ill informed.
As to harvester systems (I couldn't find anything on them) a group of friends is more likely to establish something like that instead of a general populice.