Are non-toxic open world PvP games possible?

[Gladiator]

In 500 hours of playing MO2 I can count the toxic people I have encountered on the fingers of 2 hands.
This is because, generally, the target audience of this game is people around the ages of 25-35, the game is generally made up of middle aged men that have gotten over their Fortnite careers.

This is the main reason that this game is not that toxic.

If you play Rust for instance, people are much worse, much, muuuch worse. You will find that most people in rust are actually extremely toxic, will call you all manner of ill intended words over and over. This is because Rust has a target audience of literally starting at 6 years old. They're kids.

Now, to say that a game is toxic because the game itself allows toxicity is wrong. People are toxic, generally younger people with plenty of frustrations, generally teenagers that hate the world for whatever reason will take revenge on their hormones by calling you names and spawn camping you and whatnot. Its not the game's fault.

 

[Haegemon]

As long as it ain't RL threats or stuff like that I dont care or even consider it toxic.
They bring content and you have enemies you can hunt. Lying, manipulation, trash talk etc is all part of this game and I wish we had more people like that, creating drama and a living world instead of the standard 'Do PVE, Go to sewer do PVP, Lets tame horse, now we log off''
Think outside of the box.
Find enjoyment in hunting/killing them with your friends and by that create content yourself.

Some of you need to grow a spine and stop whining about it.
It's a hardcore game and with it you get hardcore players and yes some of those are evil do'ers/ne'er do wells.

 

[Gulith]

in a world where moral is devalued second after second, the keyboard warrior syndrom cannot be cured.

 

[Deleted member 44]

I don't get what you mean. What is toxic? I don't have voip on and I don't talk in chat. Is PvP toxic?

 

[Kaemik]

In 500 hours of playing MO2 I can count the toxic people I have encountered on the fingers of 2 hands.

I think if you avoid politics in games like these the toxicity is avoidable too. It's there though. Almost every major guild in this game that has lasted more than a year has undergone at least one guild split or other major drama and half of them are formed through guild splits. Name a guild that's avoided that, and it's definitely a guild that's had no major impact on this game. And the lying isn't contained to in-game issues. Usually, it's attacking the person's character and thus bringing in IRL issues as they can.

If lying about people's lives outside the game to try to get an advantage in-game isn't toxic, I don't know what possibly could be.

 

[Jatix]

Short answer. No. Meaning the genre cant succeed. Toxic can mean many things. All that matters to me is that the games never do well.

Theres a reason that everything devs do to try and make a game succeed, makes the game worse at being an open pvp sandbox game. The two things are opposites. Open pvp sandbox with high freedom, specializes in making players quit. Theres no way around it. The players will always kill the game, and the game revolves around player interaction to survive. The only way to try and make the game do well is to remove the open pvp and the sandbox. Which then just makes MO2, which is a game thats bad at being a open pvp sandbox, and bad at being not an open pvp sandbox.

Its not the players job to keep a game alive. "dont kill new players". In an open pvp game that people play to kos players and take their shit. Only way to fix that is removing killing nubs and taking their shit. Which leaves you with every other mmo that has a good player base.

 

[Grey]

It's not like non PvP games dont have toxicity like spawn camping, kills steal etc.
It is not possible to tell why PvP as genre fail because every single PvP game had milliard other problems - performance, bugs, bad design, public relation, premature birth.... you know.
Personally I'm not so much upset when I get pked but with bad design and performance. For example:
- Bad friends/foe design. Its important to have friend/foe ID but its unnecessary overcompensated by hard to read tags, separate ID on mounted, no alignment, short criminal flag, no alliance system and of course bad server performance
- Roll/Reroll. MO2 has The Most complicated char. builds and while its possible to make a lot of adjustment the best way to find what you really like to play is alts. At list 2 char per account. I find excuses that SV gives for single char per account just this lame excuses.
Responsibility? Make single ID/Alignment for account.
Trade? Limit trade per account if its hard then 2 char per account wont cover all crafting needs and IMHO level up craft on two char counterproductive anyway

 

[Kaquenqos]

Short answer. No. Meaning the genre cant succeed. Toxic can mean many things. All that matters to me is that the games never do well.

Theres a reason that everything devs do to try and make a game succeed, makes the game worse at being an open pvp sandbox game. The two things are opposites. Open pvp sandbox with high freedom, specializes in making players quit. Theres no way around it. The players will always kill the game, and the game revolves around player interaction to survive. The only way to try and make the game do well is to remove the open pvp and the sandbox. Which then just makes MO2, which is a game thats bad at being a open pvp sandbox, and bad at being not an open pvp sandbox.

Its not the players job to keep a game alive. "dont kill new players". In an open pvp game that people play to kos players and take their shit. Only way to fix that is removing killing nubs and taking their shit. Which leaves you with every other mmo that has a good player base.

I agree on some general points, but you are making a lot of extrapolations that are very convenient but probably not true. For example, if it rains constantly for the 3 days that you are in a city, this does not mean that the only weather this city gets is rain... Just so, because full loot PvP games have not done well recently, that does not necessarily mean it is because they are full loot PvP. Seeing a correlation in a trend doesn't mean that this correlation is necessarily the cause.

Game-design is not a binary, 'this or that', 'black and white' thing. You could conceivably have a game that both has deep formative social game-mechanics, and be a open loot PvP sandbox. I'd argue that all good sandbox games in fact do have very formative underlying mechanics. (Albion Online, although not a perfect game for myriad reasons, at least had some sensible mechanics to give shape to the context of PvP-- for example it had tiered resources-- the best ones were in full PvP areas-- that's a type of mechanic to mitigate grief & guide PvP, although it's not necessarily an 'ideal' one) Sandbox does not mean no underlying guiding mechanics, it means the ultimate result of content is determined by the players' actions. All good sandbox games have game mechanics determining what can and cannot be done. The essential component is that the player is guided to create the results, not that there are no parameters that the player must work within. For that matter MO already has many underlying guiding mechanics, and some could and should be reformed.

The problem MO2 has is that everyone thinks like you suggest, that there is no way they could possibly add mechanics that give the PvP, community/society & economy more form and function without 'killing muh freedoms...!'. Super narrow-minded, any time anyone suggests anything that could actually give the game some very badly needed substance/shape they get shot down by people who are scared they won't get to grief blueberries as frequently/mercilessly if things changed... Don't get me wrong, you should be able to murder-- obviously-- but murdering unsuspecting people, in what is ultimately a slow-moving MMORPG, should not be the only defining feature and main content of the game... That's just bad design for a game this slow, and there are other games that do it better and in a more fair/balanced/fast/fun way; e.g. Mordhau, Chivalry, Rust, etc. People don't come just for killing, they come to be immersed in a world, and the in game society should be a major component of the game but is sorely lacking in terms of actual mechanics, and suffering from certain bad ones.

The answer isn't "oh just make more content for the 10 active guilds to RPK zerg more lul"... it's just not. That won't appeal to the large echelon of people that love the concept of the game and are let down by the elitist RPK community. The reason people like this game is because of the immersion. Murder is a part of that immersion, but it is not what makes the immersion on its own, and not the purpose or draw of the game as a whole. The appeal is the same appeal DnD or UO had back in the day.

Make content that engages people with the world around them. When you leave Haven and enter Myrland, you should have a place in the world. Make people have to work together, like a society. Facilitate institutions, through mechanics, that force people to interact in ways they do irl; commerce/war/politics/etc.. It's all fine and good to have the odd guild doing such things, but that leaves out 99.9999% of people from these activities, not to mention without mechanics supporting these activities there are a variety of challenges in terms of time/organization etc... Guilds are a bad answer as the only social mechanic in a game like MO2 where so much depends on player interaction.

Players need recourse and ability to retaliate, not the 'consequences' that reds can't use blue priests lol... Great, now the murder victim player is probably going to quit the game eventually, and the only consequence for the PKer is that their game is now more tedious. Not a good solution. Bounties are a failed attempt at the kind of mechanics I'm talking about. Even just a default 'city guild' that everyone that spawns in a certain city is in before they join another guild would be something...

The truth is, no matter how much certain people whine about it, RPK is just a part of the game, and not the actual design objective or ultimate purpose of the game. If you leave every little piece of society 'in the hands of the players', void of even the normal amount of social mechanics, and throw in a broken PK system, the game will die. That's all I'm saying. The PK/MC/Flagging system needs a rework because it does not achieve what it sets out to, and no matter how many mechanics like bounty hunting you dogpile on top it will still be bad.

 

[Jatix]

The truth is, no matter how much certain people whine about it, RPK is just a part of the game, and not the actual design objective or ultimate purpose of the game. If you leave every little piece of society 'in the hands of the players', void of even the normal amount of social mechanics, and throw in a broken PK system, the game will die. That's all I'm saying. The PK/MC/Flagging system needs a rework because it does not achieve what it sets out to, and no matter how many mechanics like bounty hunting you dogpile on top it will still be bad.

I feel like RPK is the main factor tho that separates open pvp games from not. And is the make or break for 95% of players looking at the game. As you stated, theres way more things the game can do to improve and make the world not boring and dead. and these would all help the game be better and retain more players. But. Theres still so many players who cannot tolerate open pvp, regardless of criminal system in place, and will quit regardless of if the rest of thje game is good. And that is why I feel like open pvp games are virtually unsustainable. Albion isnt true open pvp, it has zones. But the game is doing much better. If MO wanted to ditch being true open pvp, and have pvp zones, it would do much better. But its now ditching open pvp. Which is why I feel like open pvp games cant work. Every game that is even slightly successful in the current gaming landscape (gaming has changed heavily over the years. Something that worked back in the day like UO wont work if it came out today), ditches true open pvp.

 

[Tashka]

Albion isnt true open pvp, it has zones.

The actual game happens in black zones anyway. There could be a safe-ish island which players can visit, very limited resource wise, i.e. only basic stuff. But i don't think that'll help just like i don't think that zones is the reason why albion succeeded. I didn't play much but i don't remember a single bug that was serious enough to notice. I don't remember unfinished features that were added months ago and then forgotten. They do balance patches often. It just doesn't look amateurish.

 

[Tea]

The only "non-toxic" games I've seen have pretty heavily muzzled the playerbase's ability to communicate, like some online CCGs or Final Fantasy PVP where you can only use premade chat phrases. Even then, people get nasty as best they can (and they do in PVE games, too).

I'd argue it's impossible to have a sandbox without toxicity because playstyles will always clash and people will always choose to instigate to some degree. Games that tried to monitor emote spam, etc, created a space where people are nervous to communicate lest it be interpreted as toxic.

You either take away all freedoms or accept some degree of toxicity.

 

[Kaemik]

I'd argue it's impossible to have a sandbox without toxicity because playstyles will always clash and people will always choose to instigate to some degree.

Definitely need to qualify that one with PvP sandbox. Wurm is the truest sandbox of any MMO and the PVE servers are possibly the least toxic community of any MMO. The PVP servers are good for a PVP Sandbox but can still be quite toxic at times.

The difference is Wurm PVE servers are a haven for crafters where the sandbox part is expressed through creativity. I've found this to be a recipe for an insanely friendly and welcoming community. When craft/trade is the pillar of a community it is even less toxic than a community that focuses on dungeons and stuff. When PvP is the pillar of a community... well...

 

[Emdash]

Yes, depends on your definition of toxic. Is non toxic facebook possible, forums? Sure... but are there gonna be toxic people, yea. Can they do almost anything to grief you, yeah, but there should be a limit so it doesn't overflow from the GAME.

Like I said before I play... NBA gam on ps4. I'm still slow 2 next gen, but the pop is healthy. People are just toxic in general, but counter intuitively the ability to hash out your differences thru pvp (if people aren't HACKING etc) is GOOD for the life of the game. You get a game like NBA where 1 player wants to ruin the whole game and they can. 10 people can have to waste 30 min because 1 guy got upset. That's toxic.

People are gonna do toxic stuff in these games if it shows it will affect you because it's PVP. That's PVP. You can still be cool w/ people, but in the end they have the tools to do proper pvp in a lot of cases and most of it is just whining. PVP is in the gates, outside of the gates, the whole world. And most people aren't taking it that seriously. I'd bet most of the people who get really toxic just took a really big L or something.

It'll never measure out in terms of gear value imo, or minmax. It'll always hit that point of least investment for most returns. That's the gaming part tho.

 

[ThaBadMan]

When you can be anonymous and not receive consequenses some amount of toxicity will be present.
Most humans out there are not raised right as well so that simply builds upon the giant problem that is humanity.

 

[Kaquenqos]

I feel like RPK is the main factor tho that separates open pvp games from not. And is the make or break for 95% of players looking at the game. As you stated, theres way more things the game can do to improve and make the world not boring and dead. and these would all help the game be better and retain more players. But. Theres still so many players who cannot tolerate open pvp, regardless of criminal system in place, and will quit regardless of if the rest of thje game is good. And that is why I feel like open pvp games are virtually unsustainable. Albion isnt true open pvp, it has zones. But the game is doing much better. If MO wanted to ditch being true open pvp, and have pvp zones, it would do much better. But its now ditching open pvp. Which is why I feel like open pvp games cant work. Every game that is even slightly successful in the current gaming landscape (gaming has changed heavily over the years. Something that worked back in the day like UO wont work if it came out today), ditches true open pvp.

I mean, you're kind of moving the goalpost here. Albion is full-loot pvp.

Are you arguing that full-loot pvp, with no meaningful mechanics to direct how it takes place, will kill a slow-moving MMORPG that takes a long time to build a character that is not considerably weaker than full-built characters, who also have the added protection/muscle/wealth of guilds behind them? Then yes, of course that is true.

That's kind of what I'm getting at here. If you want just full pandemonium KoS pvp with no mechanics that protect people, you at least need to level the playing field a bit. So, I guess I agree with you there. A slow moving, huge open world, character progression based MMORPG is destined to fail if it has full loot pvp with no meaningful mechanics that direct where and between whom it takes place.

Imagine if you launch Chivalry or Mordhau and for the first 60+ hours you do 1/10 damage, and take 10x the damage, until you read extensively on what direction to build your character, farm tons of material, all the while learning how to even play. That would be terrible. Why should it work here? And that's what I'm saying, the allure and greatness of MO2 & games like it is not simply that it is full loot KoS PvP. The two games are not the same, and a game like MO2 benefits greatly from having guiding mechanics under the hood to define the PvP arena.

The type of game that can have KoS full on PvP is not the type of game that has a slow moving character progression, and game world that takes hours to travel across. The type of game that focuses on immersion & slow moving character progression in a massive static world needs mechanics that immerse & guide the player while providing a tolerable level of risk/reward.

 

[Tashka]

The type of game that can have KoS full on PvP is not the type of game that has a slow moving character progression

Character progression is fast in MO2. If you spend a little time in Haven, you can leave it with a combat-ready character which will only be marginally worse than a fully built one.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Character progression is fast in MO2. If you spend a little time in Haven, you can leave it with a combat-ready character which will only be marginally worse than a fully built one.

I agree compared to some MMOs progression is fast. But the thing is most MMOs are not full-loot KoS PvP with no meaningful mechanics to direct it.

Progression is not fast enough, nor is a fresh character close in power enough to a full built character, that you are only 'marginally worse' after a 'little time' in Haven. If you spend 20-40 hours you can have a character that has 80-100 in some combat & full attributes with 10ish clade... With no possibility of being proficient in heavy armor, advanced riding, many types of magic etc. etc... Not to mention, you will likely have minimal if any access to full plate & top tier weapons to begin with, have no horse, and no material wealth to boot.

And that's if you even know what you are doing. Which, if you are actually new, you won't.

My point is that, games that can succeed as no holds-barred full-loot PvP with no meaningful guiding mechanics for how it takes place =/= Games that take hours and hours of character building in a massive, slow-to-traverse, open world with complex & somewhat convoluted skill systems

I refute the assertion that full-loot PvP anarchy is what draws people to MO2 and games like it. Again, it is the world-building & immersion factor that pulls people (which the potentiality of full-loot RPK is a part of, to be sure). That immersion & classic MMO 'building a virtual fantasy world' mentality is what a game like MO2 offers that no other game can offer; it is the unique feature & main draw. All I'm really saying is that, ideally, SV could have mechanics that still allow for the potentiality of full-loot RPK, but don't allow it to undercut the main draw of the game which will always be the allure of a realistic, immersive, MMO fantasy world. To me, bolstering the social mechanics & guild systems & changing the MK/flag/reputation system to something that meets the goal of giving substance to RPK would be ideal.

It only seems like it's just & only the full-loot PvP anarchy that people play it for because the people who came for it are the only people that will remain for long with it in effect.

 

[Tashka]

I agree compared to some MMOs progression is fast. But the thing is most MMOs are not full-loot KoS PvP with no meaningful mechanics to direct it.

Progression is not fast enough, nor is a fresh character close in power enough to a full built character, that you are only 'marginally worse' after a 'little time' in Haven. If you spend 20-40 hours you can have a character that has 80-100 in some combat & full attributes with 10ish clade... With no possibility of being proficient in heavy armor, advanced riding, many types of magic etc. etc... Not to mention, you will likely have minimal if any access to full plate & top tier weapons to begin with, have no horse, and no material wealth to boot.

And that's if you even know what you are doing. Which, if you are actually new, you won't.

My point is that, games that can succeed as no holds-barred full-loot PvP with no meaningful guiding mechanics for how it takes place =/= Games that take hours and hours of character building in a massive open world with complex & somewhat convoluted skill systems

I refute the assertion that full-loot PvP anarchy is the main mechanic that draws people to MO2 and games like it. Again, it is the world-building & immersion factor that pulls people (which the potentiality of RPK is a part of, to be sure). That immersion & classic MMO 'building a virtual fantasy world' mentality is what a game like MO2 offers that no other game can offer; it is the unique feature & draw. It only seems like it's just & only the full-loot PvP anarchy that people play it for because those are the only people that will remain for long with it in effect.

Most people don't wear armors that need maxed HAT. Steel weapons are pretty much what most players use, but flakestone is enough to beat them. You are at a disadvantage, but it's not a 250gs character meeting 500gs character in BDO or something. "Newbies" in MO2 are not people who don't have a fully built character, but those who aren't experienced in game, especially in PvP. And the only way to get better at PvP is to go out and PvP. This is why i don't think there is a need to "protect the noob", by doing that, devs doing them a bad favor.

Immersion and "unique feature & draw" is highly subjective. Open world PvP is something written in the description, it's a concrete feature that draws people in. There isn't much "building a virtual fantasy world" going on either. Player-driven economy is in a very sad state, RP features are lacking, PvE is mediocre at best, lore is meh compared to TESO or WoW, hell we don't even have boats. Lifeskills have very little depth to offer except maybe alchemy and fishing.

It seems like it's just & only the full loot PvP anarchy because there isn't much else here. Everyone gets suck into it once the novelty of having a huge empty world to traverse with no fast travel fades away (don't get me wrong, i love the huge empty world and no fast travel). It's like pixel art games. Good pixel art may draw people into a game, but it's the actual "ok so what do i actually do in this game" is what makes them stay or leave. And after some time, there isn't much to do in MO2 except PvP.

 

[Kaquenqos]

but it's not a 250gs character meeting 500gs character in BDO or something.

Immersion and "unique feature & draw" is highly subjective. Open world PvP is something written in the description, it's a concrete feature that draws people in. There isn't much "building a virtual fantasy world" going on either. Player-driven economy is in a very sad state, RP features are lacking, PvE is mediocre at best, lore is meh compared to TESO or WoW, hell we don't even have boats. Lifeskills have very little depth to offer except maybe alchemy and fishing.

All things are subjective to some extent, friend. I'm just saying that the world, the classic MMO 'virtual fantasy world', in which the RPK takes place in, is what pulls eyes to the game. The RPK is part of this bigger system/feature. If all you want is to kill people & loot them, you could just play any number of games that allow you to kill & loot other players, of which there are many (battle-royals come to mind, Rust, Conan Exiles etc.)... So why play MO2 instead? The reason people want to, IMO, is the MMORPG game world based on immersing/realistic sandbox mechanics. The potentiality of having a second life in a brutal dark fantasy setting.

...As for BDO, it isn't a full loot, RPK, 'GvG', PvP MMO, & is P2W death-by-grinding garbage that I don't think any dev in their right mind should be emulating the PvP mechanics of, or really anything aside from maybe the world-design. The two games are pretty much comparing apples to oranges. Let the 'PvE focus' MMO focus on mechanics that promote a perpetually moving goalpost of ilvl creep, grinding & p2w, let games like MO2 focus on creating dynamic sandbox mechanics for players to participate in.

I really think we agree that the player-driven societal end of the game is lacking atm. The way to revitalize it would be by implementing actual in-game mechanics that give the sandbox, including PvP systems, that give needed shape/direction. Otherwise, things are destined to feel 'empty' no matter how many more continents or skills you implement.

"Newbies" in MO2 are not people who don't have a fully built character, but those who aren't experienced in game, especially in PvP. And the only way to get better at PvP is to go out and PvP. This is why i don't think there is a need to "protect the noob", by doing that, devs doing them a bad favor.

Newbies in MO2 are both people who don't have a fully built character AND are not experienced in the game, especially PvP. A newbie is someone that is new to the game and creating their first character. Let's not mince words, a new player in MO2 has both the disadvantage of a statistically weaker character with worse gear AND the disadvantage of less personal experience. Your assertion that an ACTUAL NEW PLAYER, can just waltz out of haven after a couple evenings and compete on paper with a full-built character is fantasy. If you're going to succeed, you basically have to join a guild and mooch off them for mats/protection until you finish your build, while honing your pvp skills in duels or the occasional open world PvP where you will be annihilated 90% of the time. This is a social mechanic to be sure, but imo not the most fun possibility. City-wide mechanics would do wonders here. Flesh it out so it's not just a place that you can spam '/guard', but also a place that has meaningful social mechanics in place.

I agree that PvP should be a focus of the game, and 'protecting the noob' is not necessarily the best way forward. What I have instead been arguing for is giving systems that allow noobs to hone their skills, or ideally, even compete on some level in terms of PvP. Give substance to the new player experience, and guide them to PvP. Some kind of city-guild/reputation rework that has safety nets for middling gear etc. would be one way to do something like this. Delineate reds from blues from greys in a way that offers meaningful PvP for each playstyle. As of now they are all just the same RPK system with slightly different timers & respawn locations, and none of them are very fun as the only defining mechanics are ones that impose down-time on the player. Change the mechanics so the game isn't just 'Either go red and KoS everyone but have to res walk further, or be blue & farm rep and watch your MC timer.'

It seems like it's just & only the full loot PvP anarchy because there isn't much else here. Everyone gets suck into it once the novelty of having a huge empty world to traverse with no fast travel fades away (don't get me wrong, i love the huge empty world and no fast travel). It's like pixel art games. Good pixel art may drive people into a game, but it's the actual "ok so what do i actually do in this game" is what makes them stay or leave. And after some time, there isn't much to do in MO2 except PvP.

I agree, and I'm just saying that mechanics that create an immersive sandbox PvP system, for example, fleshing out social mechanics of cities, city-state guild alliances, artisanal guild/factions that offer crafting progression & work-orders for city-sponsored safety nets, PvP arenas in cities with betting, things of this nature, would be the best way to give more meaning to the main allure of having an immersive 'open world' RPG with RPK. These are the types of mechanics that would make the game great. Now, I'm not saying wardecs, guild territory, & proper alliance systems are not necessary, but they should just be a portion of fleshing out the sandbox mechanics of the game.

I'm not saying 'kill RPK', I'm not saying 'put guards everywhere', or 'make certain areas non-RPK like Haven'. I'm not saying RPK isn't one of the main allures of the game, just that RPKing is not THE allure, and there are a number of ways you can implement RPK that would be better. I'm saying rework RPK in a more inclusive way that focuses on the societal end of Myrland; create more 'tools' for the sandbox for everyone to participate in. Actual war mechanics would be awesome, for a start. If mechanics that guide the experience aren't implemented, it's impossible to overcome the same drawbacks that hamstrung MO1 or, for example, Darkfall

 

[Grey]

IMHO main problem with PvP games is toxicity of ... (pause for drums)... Dev. team.
IMHO most of PvP games fall because Dev. did not want adjust their point of view to majority needs.
IMHO a lot of Dev. blame total fall of game on genre while in fact game had a lot of bugs, performance and simple to fix balance issue.
MO2 has a very complicated char. design and new players have to spend considerable amount of time to learn game, try different styles of combat and play style, learn gathering, craft etc and all this on one char per account? Not even public test server? Why? Its obviously huge irritant for many players.
I wont be surprised if some quit because reroll. What do you think happen with new professions and significant changes (nerfs) to old professions?
Its just stupid
How about ID system? Its important function friend/foe but the way its work atm is atrocious. Tags is hard to impossible to read when mounted. Why game has separate ID Tag on horse and rider? IMHO Player riding horse ought to have double health bar his own and his mount but single tag.
IMHO game is on beta stage and Dev release premature baby and it will reflect negatively on its longevity this toxic decision is main factor and not genre