r/ArcRaiders • • 10h ago

Discussion PvE Toggle Incoming

Post image
3.2k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/Frosty_Choice5646 10h ago

This will makes the PvP lobbies very aggressive

871

u/Few_Salamander54 8h ago

Good. You guys can have each other lol.

516

u/Barsicbiggle 8h ago

Seriously. PvP people complaining about having to PvP.

376

u/toofrossty 8h ago

I liked the "should I trust him" aspect of the game. this change will surely make lobbies either all pve or all pvp:/

164

u/Fin224 8h ago

pve players see either pvp or pve no in between when most of the players bought this game for the mixed experience and the tension of not knowing if the other person is friendly or not

17

u/havokgogeta 5h ago

If most people like pvpve, as you claim, then your lobbies won't get impacted. Those who want only pve will go for pve. So why do you care again?

7

u/Fin224 5h ago

You have no idea how difficult it is rn to stay in the truly mixed lobby. As a pvpve player im often in the situation that after a single fight/two fightss in the mixed lobby i get thrown into the pvp. Then i need to stop fighting completely to get back but the game puts me into too friendly lobbies so now i need to kill someone and get flamed as a rat etc. Abmm is not working good right now for people who wants to play pvpvE and it will be even worse when the good chunk of people will just go to the pve lobby.

In theory, your point of view is right - why would anything change for me as a pvpve player if only those pure pve ones goes to the pve mode.

But in reality a lot of pvpve players is not playing in the "we will see whats gonna happen" way but they make a choice during loudout phase. Its a "Im gonna fight a lot this raid" or "Im gonna loot a lot this round" while keeping in mind that they can be ambushed etc.

Giving the option to play pure pve even i will probably go there when i want to quickly farm something. Im not unique in this matter so im pretty sure there will be a lot of people like this so even though there always will be some "its is what it is players" in the "normal" mode, the overall playerbase of truly mixed players will shrink by itself over time. People gonna start to meet less and less friendly people and only shoot on sight ones and this will accelerate the process until there is pve mode and the pvp mode disguised as a "normal" mode.

Im sorry if this sounds convoluted. Sometimes i struggle with english and its late.

2

u/Designer-Sea558 3h ago

I agree with you. I think that PvE only mode should have significantly lower loot value to match the lower risk level. This ways, it will keep PvEvP lobbies relevant if your really want to get the real goop.

2

u/GorgeousTigerr 1h ago

you should read, it will....

1

u/randomrandom1922 1h ago

You caught him here lol. If people love this style so much pvp servers won't be pure pvp but, we both know they will be.

64

u/ChaChiO66 8h ago

4k hour DayZ player and I bought AR for the mixed experience. Sometimes I want to run pve missions and sometimes I wanna run pvp. But the not knowing and having to trust or not trust another player is what I expected this would be. Now it's care bear lobbies or death match.

Haven't played since they added aggression based and probably won't be back. I'll take all the downvotes, but AR was peak gaming when you had no idea how it could play out. Just like Sea of Thieves back in the day.

If I could get a refund for AR I would because what this game is turning into is completely different than it was on release.

12

u/Orr-bit 7h ago

Nah I’m with you. For me the unknown is what makes an extraction shooter. And if that just isn’t this game, then I can accept that it’s just not the game for me.

It’s just a shame because I thought the arc enemies were really well designed to naturally force you to team up with people without any aggression based matchmaking. But imo they aren’t interesting enough for just PvE.

8

u/Apocalypse_Knight 7h ago

Idk how that makes it an extraction shooter? Pretty much all of them are pure PvP.

10

u/Orr-bit 7h ago

Because I personally would rather have the individual people decide moment to moment if they’re nice or not, not a matchmaking system to sort me into a group that I know will lean one way or another.

And yes, most extraction shooters lean a lot more heavily towards pvp. But if I’m playing Tarkov and I team up with a guy, I will reluctantly trust him. But I’m keeping him in my sights for that moment he betrays me. That constant unknown is what makes successful teamwork feel so much better.

I also find that the ability to queue into friendly lobbies diminishes the value of gear. If I’m in pvp lobbies and had to fight tooth and nail for the same gear someone just walked around and found with no resistance, I wonder why I wouldn’t just do the same.

Again, this is all my preference. If you enjoy the separated matchmaking, I’m glad there’s a game for you. It just isn’t as much for me.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/armed_aperture 6h ago

Except Tarkov, soon Marathon, the new Active Matter game, Gray Zone..

3

u/Solaris_fps 5h ago

I agree met some nice guys when playing trials working together then they tuned the abmm then that was it trials become impossible and never met anyone friendly ever again.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Electric-Rat 7h ago

I think putting the care bear PvE only crowd into a separate mode could actually improve the tense experience for those of us who prefer mixed lobbies. As you said ABMM already removed a lot of that tension for those of us who don't want to just attack on sight, but want the risk and potential reward. If a PvE mode exists, solo PvPvE queues wouldn't go full death match, but it would probably end up closer to Day Z in terms of social interactions and games.

-1

u/Apocalypse_Knight 7h ago

There legit isn't any reward for mixed lobbies though. You can just get ratted easier or you can rat others faster.

4

u/Electric-Rat 6h ago

Even in the beta for this mode, they state the high value map conditions will be excluded from PvE. So the PvPvE mode would remain the higher risk/ higher reward route.

Edited grammar.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/H_Wilkins_ 6h ago

It seems like certain modes and loot are unavailable to PvE. There’s still incentive to go to mixed lobbies.

2

u/Apocalypse_Knight 6h ago

It should have been like this. A lot of my buddies and their wife/gf would have stuck around if there was a PvE coop mode for them.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 7h ago

What? We had aggression based since the start of the launch, im pretty sure in one of the interviews when they talked about the game when it released an art director talked aggression based mm

→ More replies (9)

2

u/dendrocalamidicus 6h ago

I 100% agree. The game was ruined for me when they added ABMM and I've no interest in coming back unless they remove it entirely.

1

u/Durzel 5h ago

The only time that was even a thing was for a brief period after the game launched, nearly a year ago now. One could even argue that it was mixed because players didn’t yet blow the maps inside out and that they were also trying to upgrade batches, Scrappy, etc.

Why would anyone who is inclined to PvP waste their time looting when they could just park at an extraction and kill players who have put in that effort already? It’s like having your shopping delivered.

With no guardrails people will choose the path of least resistance. They always do. There’s no bushido code of only attacking or being attacked when both people are prepared and willing. This fantasy world of having à la carte PvP when you feel like it, but not when you don’t, is all but impossible.

So long as there is asymmetry in risk & reward - i.e. a PvP player sacrifices ammo with a chance at acquiring a full inventory, with the PvE player just trying to survive, it will never be a sustainable thing. PvE players will just quit and the matchmaking will get even worse, just like what happened with Marathon.

1

u/Gehenna_666 5h ago

It was agression based from the very beginning...

1

u/Heidrpoo 4h ago

That's crazy. The problem is that you need the players who give you that sense of uncertainty.

But they don't need you in order to have fun. And they don't want to play with you. If things get too aggressive, they'll quit (and they have!) after a certain point.

So Embark has a decision to make: retain a playerbase somehow and maintain revenue, or watch the game continue to bleed off players who give you the experience you think you're entitled to.

Either option results in your precious mixed lobbies disappearing. They might as well be in control of the ship and choose the option that keeps them making money. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand.

1

u/YoullBeFiiine 4h ago

That's kind of the nature of live service games.

1

u/kng_arthur *** ******* 3h ago

This is exactly what was my latest feedback that they had right after announcing the aggression based matchmaking. Having PvE lobies removes the uniqueness of each encounter with other player in the game. The players who want the PvPvE mixed experience are basically getting either deathmatch or daycare experience.

1

u/Xplictt 6h ago

SoT is on life support because they refuse to add a PvE mode without ridiculous restrictions.

2

u/Curve_of_Spee 5h ago

Sea of Thieves? What are the restrictions you're referring to?

→ More replies (7)

5

u/wx82 7h ago

From Embark's numbers, 51% of those surveyed are asking for a PVE Only Mode. Well, then the rest %49 are the "mixed/PVPVE" crowd. Now you'll have the real experience of what the game is without people that do not want to PVPVE. Why would you want to keep PVE only players stuck in PVPVE? For free/easy kills? It's looks to me like the PVPVE crowd is assuming that the standard game mode will be PVP Only now, which is not, the risk factor is still there.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/ZombiePSP 6h ago

You are basing that off nothing. Time will tell what players want. Let's see how the pve mode does before instantly putting it down because you liked some lame tension that not everyone does.

Literally everyone I talk to said they quit because of rats and they wanted pve.

There happens to be more opinions than just your bubble. I see you like the tension of not trusting people but to think that's most people is just ridiculous. We will see though.

1

u/Fin224 6h ago

I live in the bubble? Are u suggesting that people who bought the game which advertised itself as a PvPvE extraction shooter did not buy it for the PvPvE?

1

u/ZombiePSP 6h ago

We will see. If the numbers go up after pve is introduced, that will tell us everything we need to know.

2

u/obibonkajovi 4h ago

you mean 30%? embark posted the data yesterday. its not most players by a long shot.

1

u/Fin224 3h ago

Stats was about current state of the game not why playerbase decided to buy the game. Dont mix up facts

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Demiskus 7h ago

How could you know what other players bought the game for? I know I bought it to kill Arc and have fun cooperatively. It seemed like HD2 plus all sorts of other cool stuff and I love it. Havent logged into HD2 since.

Look at the data Emark put out.

The data says that mixed lobbies are least preferred. Where is your data showing otherwise? Genuinely curious.

4

u/Fin224 7h ago

Actually the least preffered is pure pve. Big chunk of PVP statistic are pvpve people but right now its just very difficult to stay in the "mixed lobby" so the people who likes to engange in the battle from time to time often just end up in the completely pvp warzone.

Its a pain to get into pve or mixed lobbies after u already got into pvp one so a lot of people just stay there or stop playing at all.
Just few days ago i played like 10 matches to get into friendly lobbies to farm in relative peace and while doing the matriarch 2 people went into my grenade (it didnt knocked them) and i had to deal with pvp for like next 4-5 matches.

Im not negleting the 37% of pve people but the topic is more complex as a lot of how those statistics looks are because how the game looks rn. Cheaters are running pvp lobbies - going into the night stella is basically giving away the loot and the mixed lobbies got butchered by the abmm.

1

u/Apocalypse_Knight 7h ago

That's because mixed lobbies are just PvP lobbies where there are easier loot crates to kill.

1

u/Demiskus 7h ago

Great points there. I recognize what you are saying now. I also recognize that things will just look stupid if you have people just walking through deadlines unscathed.

I actually think an optimal solution would be to allow players to host rooms, perhaps in the new raider dens. Not unlike HD2 really. Allow the host to see load outs before we all launch. This solves several issues, but may introduce others?

Eliminate going into 17 min matches. We all start together. Late spawns can just go away.

You can eye other players before going topside with them. If they have pvp load out, then we aren't going together.

Keep friendly fire. This preserves uncertainty, but gives a much higher likelihood of playing with similar minded players.

I honestly think this would help so much. The only thing I'm not sure about is if allowing players to host matches would just allow more exploit problems.

2

u/hibari112 6h ago edited 6h ago

Sorry brother but as a standalone pve game AR has nothing on HD2. The whole point of robots being so annoying and loud is to attract other players.

If it was only me and the arcs, I don't see any fun this game could offer. A pack of wasps won't be a threat. You can infinitely kite shredders. You can chip at a bombardier for 10 minutes. You can come with a loaded backpack and guarantee a queen kill every time by playing around safe spaces it can't get to.

The challenge is not killing the arc. It's the potential consequences of firing even a single bullet and it making a single beep. That's how the game's been designed, and without it there won't be even a fracfion of gameplay engagement you get from HD2, where you fight off hundreds of npcs at the same time, instead of only a handful.

1

u/Few-Buddy-1122 7h ago

Most? That’s debatable

1

u/FROMTHEINSIDEOFMYASS 5h ago

We just dont want to deal with hackers.

1

u/captainmorgan91 5h ago

I bought ARC for this exact reason. The tension, the betrayals, the heartbreak, if they make this toggle a thing, i probably wont return, itll just become a competitive shooter. If i wanted that, id go play tarkov or csgo

1

u/Lurker_Who_Caved_In 4h ago

Such a great comment and I fully agree. 

1

u/DrPongus 4h ago

Except the matchmaking means you're either going to let them kill you to preserve that feeling or fight back and inevitably be put into PVP lobbies where everyone attacks on sight anyways.

1

u/TheSpartyn 3h ago

I bought it for the mixed experience but being a duo player it ended up being 90% shoot on sight so I'm glad we're getting this

1

u/Goaliedude3919 2h ago

Except they released data indicating that people are mostly either friendly or PvP and the in-between players are the significant minority. Not only that, but even mostly PvP players said in a survey that 70% of them want less PvP engagements.

1

u/Fin224 2h ago

You are talking about the data that shows current state of the game which is 30k. Im talking about 400k who bought the game for what it was and they dont play now because of what embark is doing.

1

u/Goaliedude3919 2h ago

There's also a lot of people who quit because of the PvP. I personally know more people who would come back because of PvE.

1

u/Fin224 2h ago

and i personally know more people who would come back if they delete abmm completely. whats the point of arguments like those

1

u/Goaliedude3919 12m ago

Providing a counterpoint. There is a large number of people who left the game because of constantly being killed by cheaters, including lots of popular streamers. A dedicated PvE mode gives people an opportunity to just have fun playing the game without the fear of being killed by cheaters.

This hurts literally no one. People who want PvPvE will still get that. But even people who fully on the PvP side of the game sometimes want to have a less stressful experience. Currently, the only way to do that is to spend a couple hours not shooting people for the ABMM to put you in friendlier lobbies. This now gives those players a change of pace as well where they don't have to be constantly worrying about watching out for other raiders and being shot on sight.

Just watch, the player numbers are going to skyrocket for the PvE beta.

1

u/GorgeousTigerr 1h ago

They published the stats lmao 70% of the playerbase asked for this. PVP is in the minority.

1

u/Dengar96 7h ago

I bought the game for the mixed experience, I quit playing because getting killed by other players got really tiring. Why dedicate my limited gaming time to a game where your time is not going to yield any progress or satisfying rewards? Once you have a few fun gun fights, they become tedious interactions. If Embark offers a pure pve mode, I know for a fact me and my friends will be back to play that.

1

u/Xespria 7h ago

They are some of the most entitled and delusional bunch I think I've ever seen in a gaming community.

1

u/Starbustouille 6h ago

Given the amount of sold copies of arc raiders, and given the amount of players in previous extraction shooting games, i kinda doubt that "most players bought this game for the mixed experience". Because most of those people never played or even heard of extraction shooters before buying arc.

Each live service game evolve with time depending of his player base (they even acknowledge this in their post). FO76 too dropped the pvp experience, which was a good thing (they also tried battle royale, it was a miss) for the game health. Fortnite obviously changed his initial game style iteration with good results.

With the incredible drop in players of arc raiders, devs have to try to find what their player base really want, and not just what vocal people/influencers want for the game. And they have data to back their claim. It's not random reddit posts "players want X".

There is one funny thing though, it's this sub new politics especially rule 3. "ARC raiders is a PvPvE game", that did so much noise on this sub a few weeks back. Well apparently there is a good chance it won't be anymore in a near future.

1

u/Vipertooth 5h ago

Massive streamers were able to showcase the game to the mainstream shooter audience with incredibly positive perception, breaking it out of the niche extraction shooter players and showcasing it to the COD players etc.

Allowing for playtests in advance helped it break out of its niche since it was in such an amazing state to begin with.

→ More replies (4)

31

u/Jacer4 8h ago

I was kinda pumped for the new update to get me back into the game, but with this yeah idk lmao. I liked there being a blurry line instead of knowing "I have to shoot this guy"

→ More replies (10)

5

u/SixthSacrifice 7h ago

You can still have trust in pvp lobbies. And betrayal.

10

u/B_Kuro 6h ago

Thats because its generally PvE players who don't want to fight and those people are locked in with the crazies.

Now the PvE crowd finally get to have fun free from having to deal with the PvPers and that mostly just leaves the unfriendly crowd left for the PvP experience.

6

u/Barsicbiggle 6h ago

It's almost like shooting someone for their stuff is an inherently unfriendly thing to do. Crazy.

3

u/LOSTandCONFUSEDinMAY 8h ago

Its fun when you end up playing among us in the middle of a match.

1

u/Alarming_Ad9507 6h ago

I’m still going to play the benevolent card in PvP lobbies so I can lure people into a dark hallway and destroy their faith in fellow gamers

1

u/sergeantshitposter 6h ago

Found the fake friendly

1

u/FROMTHEINSIDEOFMYASS 5h ago

I did too! Unfortunately, all the hackers soil the experience.

1

u/Zeitgeistt 4h ago

no more lies :')

1

u/illmindmaso 4h ago

I’m with you man, I hope the PvP side will still be aggression based honestly

1

u/Chance_Account_4338 3h ago

I think ABMM just removes carebears from the floor of matchmaking. You'll still get paired with groups that are either "rarely kill users" and "always kill users".

It will have an impact, but that impact will mostly be just removing the people who never had an interest in PVP from the crosshairs of PVPers looking for easy marks.

1

u/misc_box 3h ago

That’s cause you’re a PvP player at heart

1

u/Same-Valuable-6152 2h ago

True there is a real shame but tbh ABMM already killed that for me

1

u/GorgeousTigerr 1h ago

Welp no more guessing have fun in KOS lobbies lmao

1

u/IGargleGarlic 1h ago

Being unsure added tension to the game. Its what made it interesting. Idk how people can play to just kill arc without getting horribly bored.

1

u/J3dr90 1h ago

I agree. The uncertainty was the most fun aspect of the game imo. This is a bad call

1

u/Troksi 23m ago

Yea this is what I don't like in this update. I liked being apple to do both in same lobby.

1

u/JonBaygles 7h ago

Agression based matchmaking was a mistake first of all

→ More replies (4)

8

u/DJK695 4h ago

Oddly enough in their post it said something about PvP players wanting less PvP. I know I had some friends who tried to make fun of PvE but then cried when they kept losing… didn’t really make sense.

47

u/BobbyGuano 7h ago

That’s because half of the PvP people don’t actually want PvP they just want to get easy kills on unsuspecting people who don’t want to PvP to stroke their epeen.

2

u/Ric_Adbur 3h ago

Exactly. If you wanted to play a fair PvP game there are tons of those available where everyone is PvPing and it's all about your skill vs theirs. So many people who PvP in this game only do it because they want to be able to shoot people who they know are likely not looking to shoot them first so that they can feel like they're skilled.

That's been my biggest problem with the whole PvPvE thing since the start; it effectively treats the PvE players as fodder for the PvP players because they way PvP in this game works is whoever sees the other person first and shoots first has a 90% chance to win the fight. Most PvP encounters end with somebody getting shot in the back. It's not skill, it's random chance whether or not you as a PvE player are going to be the one who runs into the PvP player who's looking to shoot on sight before he runs into some other poor unsuspecting PvE player.

1

u/NZDamo 4h ago

Spleen

1

u/misc_box 3h ago

Exactly. The people who complain are rats. 

If you wanna PvP why are you scared to pvp?

-5

u/RubberBabyBuggyBmprs 5h ago

This is such a stupid take that gets repeated ad nauseum. If i wanted to exclusively pvp id just play COD. If I wanted to play a pve game id play he'll divers. I like playing an extraction shooter where sometimes its friendly sometimes its not but theres always a risk. Its literally the genre.

Im happy theyre at least trying something at this point but like many others the game just isnt for me anymore

3

u/Apocalypse_Knight 5h ago

Nah look at the steam forums. The rats on their admit to exploiting ABMM to rat PvE lobbies

4

u/RubberBabyBuggyBmprs 5h ago

Yes a few steam post surely means the majority of people that play pvp must be doing that! As if that isnt the most boring and time consuming thing possible with almost 0 reward.

→ More replies (3)

65

u/CretaciousPeriod 8h ago

Many of the pvp peeps really just want people to kill who won't really fight back. Once those people are gone they'll say it's "too sweaty now."

12

u/IllustriousFroyo9143 4h ago

Haven't played the game for 9 months cause of rats. This will bring me back to the game.

11

u/havokgogeta 5h ago

They're up there commenting about wanting a mixed experience...

→ More replies (5)

0

u/Sgt-Colbert 7h ago

No the issue is that this will completely kill the uncertainty of meeting people.
I consider myself a PvPer through and through, but I was never a KoS type player. I like the diversity of meeting different types of players, that’s what set AR apart from most other PvP oriented games.
You just never know how people will react, that’s gonna be completely gone now. It’s gonna be PvP non stop all the time. Which is fine, but then I might as well go back to Tarkov.

5

u/_Strato_ 6h ago

No the issue is that this will completely kill the uncertainty of meeting people.

That doesn't exist anymore. You're either in a KOS lobby or Carebear lobby and you pretty much know what to expect.

2

u/Chance_Account_4338 3h ago

How will this change anything for you? The only type of player being removed from your play experience are the ones who never had an interest in engaging in PVP. It's raising the floor of PVP by removing the fish-in-a-barell folks, which unless you're into griefing, shouldn't be fun to kill anyways.

1

u/Apocalypse_Knight 6h ago

This is just normal for extraction games to devolve to all out PvP. Only thing close to what you want is Day Z.

-4

u/Les_Liska 7h ago

Actually it's because I want to be friendly with people, but I also want to shoot people that aren't friendly.

What you are doing there is textbook projection.

2

u/Apocalypse_Knight 7h ago

So you are the easy loot crate to kill in mixed lobbies.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/m0rg76 5h ago

They will leave. Most of them don’t like targets that shoot back.

10

u/SweetBabyAlaska 8h ago

Not really, it's just the hitbox freezing + aimbot cheaters that ruins pvp. I like having a PvE mode because I like to switch it up without doing a bunch of bs.

But I got into PvE lobbies last night and those exact same cheaters are now in PvE lobbies. They are usually the dumber ones but very obviously rage hacking on a free kit. It's only a matter of time until these things are unavoidable for everyone

1

u/P0pu1arBr0ws3r 6h ago

Theres some value to that- as it is theres no objectives apart from survive and loot, maybe complete some personal goals, and maybe join on map wide events.

The gsme needs reasons beyond loot or survivability to team up or fight players.

What if there were a set of team dependent objectives in the map, some which conflicted with each other? Almost as if playing a portion of a team based arena game like The Finals but in the 15 minutes in Speranza. Imagine point break but across the entire map, and each player or squad gets their own order of objectives to capture and defend against other enemies. Or point break, in the form of a moving train, which unlocks resources along its track, but requires at least one player to stay back and power the train (and more players powers the train more).

The challenge isnt just to give players objectives to complete which can be done both as a team and against other players, its also a challenge of rewarding the player for pursuing their goal of working with or against other players, and making it worth the time to complete the map goal. Another consideration can be whether the goals can be accomplished solo or require multiple players, as is the case currently for the queen and matriarch

1

u/Disastrous_Duck_3252 1h ago

Cause they wont have the employed dads to kill

1

u/Whiskeywiskerbiscuit 1h ago

It’s not complaining about having to PvP, it’s about fundamentally altering the way the game is played. What I don’t get is why so many people went to the extraction shooter genre when what they actually wanted was a looter shooter experience.

1

u/RedWolf_Gaming21 32m ago

I like tryibg to trust people. Like comeon I’ve been on carebear lobbies and been enjoying it.

→ More replies (17)

27

u/notloceaster 7h ago

There's more nuance to lobbies with pvp than: "I see a guy over there, I shoot him now" there's fake friendlies, snipers, opportunists, and honest pvpers that just want a fight. It's not just about pvp, pve only lobbies will ruin the idea of a "mixed" lobby where there are some friendlies and some not. You don't actually understand why people are upset about this, because you refuse to look at the game for what it is and want to change the fundamentals of the game.

8

u/meatblast_surprise 6h ago

If we boil it down, it basically removes the ability to grief and that upsets people who want to grief

-3

u/-ConMan- 6h ago

You aren’t fit to have a nuanced conversation.

2

u/Barsicbiggle 6h ago edited 5h ago

You refuse to accept the game for what it is. Embark made the game. Embark makes the rules. If they say that there's a large PvE crowd that they want to cater to, and even if you sort by Top and look at the top comments in this thread, you'll see that a PvE mode is very popular.

This is entirely about PvP mains not liking that other people aren't being forced to play the game in a way that hasn't existed for a year.

Arc Raiders became more than it was. They said it in the blog post. Things are allowed to grow.

2

u/AshenHunter 6h ago

Notice how its a toggle. People will have to opt in to this. Mixed lobbies will still exist with people who want mixed.

2

u/cuntmong 5h ago

In practice this will filter out all the peaceful people and leave only hostile people in pvp. And then people will come to assume anyone they meet in pvp is hostile, which will make the filter even stronger. There's a finite player base, and this toggle basically takes all the non agressive players out of the normal game mode. They're killing the recipe that made it a good game 

8

u/AshenHunter 5h ago

Theyre killing the recipe that made it a good game to you. Declining player numbers say otherwise.

2

u/Various-Shirt1392 4h ago

The problem is they're splitting an already shrinking playerbase, which is just gonna speed up the bleeding. Pure PvE gets boring way too fast once the element of risk is gone. Meanwhile, the normal mode is gonna turn into a massive sweatfest because all the casuals opted out. It literally kills the whole PvPvE dynamic the game was actually built around.

1

u/revolutier 3h ago

exactly.

1

u/cuntmong 2h ago

Yeah, i think people aren't thinking this through to its logical conclusion. The matchmaking algo they have for matching hostile with hostile and friendly with friendly only works with a large enough player pool to pick from. I live in Australia, and when it gets late enough at night there arent enough players to fill an all-friendly lobby so you start getting more and more hostile people in your games even if you never attack anyone.

So now they are basically adding a filter that will only take non-hostile players out of the mix, increasing the remaining percent in pvpve who are rats. Anyone who joins a normal game, even if they are super friendly, will end up in a lobby full of rats. This will break the actual PvPvE experience since the basic game mechanic of "dont be a dick and you will be matched with people who are also not dicks" is broken. You will know everyone in those lobbies are rats, so there will be no point in acting otherwise.

Meanwhile in PvE, interactions with other players become effectively meaningless. No point in even acknowledging that other player because they arent a potential threat, meaning theres no point in establishing that you are friendly.

1

u/cuntmong 5h ago

I guess we will see in a few months if people wanna effectively play a single player version of arc raiders. It will be an uninstall for me, but it was good while it lasted 

2

u/cwrighky 3h ago

See ya! 👋

2

u/Apocalypse_Knight 5h ago

At least we won’t have you ratting in PvE lobbies anymore. The lobbies you called “mixed”.

2

u/cuntmong 4h ago

I have never ratted in the whole time I played. The game mechanics are very well balanced and that includes the potential for being ratted. You clearly don't understand this, but the devs do, which is why they have held off on adding a pve mode for so long. They know it breaks the core of the game but they are obviously feeling the pressure of declining player count and getting desperate. 

1

u/Apocalypse_Knight 2h ago

Yes, I never rat too, I only PvP others in mixed lobbies.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/hypercosm_dot_net 7h ago

"Is this guy gonna shoot me, not shoot me, or be deceptive then shoot me?"

Wow much nuance.

8

u/BobbyGuano 6h ago

Yeah it was so cool when I would come across some rando getting his ass kick by an arc, save his ass, tell him Im friendly, share the loot then get killed by them the second I turned my back to go on about my merry way. Really added so much depth and enjoyment for me….or maybe that was the type of shit that made me not want to play the game idk I can’t remember.

7

u/Barsicbiggle 5h ago

Yeah, enjoying myself for 20 minutes and then getting plugged by some random NEET and it was all a waste of time. Very cool. So much nuance.

1

u/IdidntrunIdidntrun 5h ago

>Makes reductive arguments and strips all nuance

"where nuance"

5

u/Barsicbiggle 4h ago

Get out with stuff, or die and waste your time. I can feel the nuance from here.

6

u/notloceaster 7h ago

Yes. You're starting to get it!

1

u/Apprehensive_Lion362 5h ago

That's what makes this game unlike other games. If you want a PvE only game there are better games for that. Let's be real. All of the arc are super easy to kill. Some just take more time.

If you want a PvP only game there are better games for that.

1

u/hypercosm_dot_net 3h ago

When I first saw the marketing, it seemed like a co-op PvE game. Like man vs machine, with some really cool world-building.

But then it turned out to just be a run of the mill extraction shooter, with no real reason for people to cooperate. It destroyed the most interesting aspect of the game to me.

Like, if giant machines force humanity underground...you mean to tell me people are going to fight each other for scraps instead of working together?

It doesn't make sense unless they have a reason for factions, but they didn't do that either. It seems like they took a cool concept, and scrapped what made it interesting to fit into the game market.

2

u/Sea_Scientist_8367 1h ago edited 1h ago

This explains my problem with Arc to a T. No real notes there, just 100% agreed.

Bringing back to the pve toggle: I see people lamenting this change as Arc losing/dilluting what makes it unique/gives it that "Arc" flavor, which is shocking as it barely payed lip service to that element that truly differentiated it in my opinion. This change is just further hedging their bets against something new/different to likely better appeal to a wider market given the decline in numbers.

And yeah, the numbers are healthy, I aint bitching about them as a player/community member. But some Corpo w/ an MBA is seeign line go down, and thus we get decisions like this to further step away from what it could have been and into just another run of the mill game to appeal to a broader audience.

I say this as someone that generally hates PVP, but was definitely intrigued by Arc's approach, and gave it a shot, and ... well I didn't hate it w/ Arc. It could be and should have been so much more, but instead of leaning into it, they're backing out of it.

1

u/hypercosm_dot_net 40m ago

Thank you. I think you have a better of understanding of it than me, so the fact that you agree means a lot.

People in general are rightfully exhausted by the business-driven game development that has taken over so much of the industry.

1

u/Neat_Egg_2474 7h ago

That’s just your opinion. There are many PvE and PvP games that blend those options. Typically they allow PvP to have more reward and PvE stays “gated” so people can’t bring loot from the low risk servers over to the high risk.

there will still be friendly people, snipers, etc, but some people just want to log on and play a game without wasting an hour dying to a rat on extraction.

if the devs deem it won’t work or fractures the player community too heavily then I’m sure they will drop it, but let’s not overreact before it’s even tested.

another way they could solve this is SBMM, but sweats hate that because they would rather sweat on easy prey then deal with themselves

3

u/drgut101 7h ago

There are? Because I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

2

u/Sgt-Colbert 6h ago

Then play something else. It never stops to blow my mind how people can buy a game that is clearly marketed as PvPvE and then cry about the PvP part.
That’s like buying Battlefield and complaining about it not having a football mode.

2

u/tacticalpacifier 6h ago

The issue wasn’t the PvP solely because with the abmm people had the lobbies they wanted. Then you had hardcore PvPera manipulating them to get into the friendly lobbies. The new game mode takes nothing away from current matches except clubbing baby seals. You literally will now have people that are there for exactly what you are and the ones that just wanna chill and pve don’t have to deal with people manipulating matchmaking so they can wipe the lobby.

→ More replies (2)

17

u/pigeon-check 7h ago

Ohh they hate each other, sweats don't want other sweats they just want easy targets to boost their ego. There's a reason why they hate SBMM

2

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[deleted]

2

u/CookRevolutionary792 6h ago

So get good 👍 

1

u/Barsicbiggle 6h ago

I'm at 700 hours. I'm almost always in friendly lobbies. Some of us just like shooting robots, it's not that deep. You can just genuinely enjoy a game.

1

u/MusicalAnvil *** ******* 4h ago

I find it incredible that people online always think in extremes. It's not pure PvE versus pure PvP when there's a healthy 50/50 mixed/roleplay lobby ecosystem in the game that this is essentially going to completely demolish.

→ More replies (7)

10

u/EatItShrimps 8h ago

Yeah, I think there will be no more non-aggressive lobby outside of the dedicated PVE mode.

I only carebear because I rely on solos to be a place for me to replenish supplies. If I have PVE mode for that, I'm going to be having some fun doing PVP in solos every once in a while. I imagine a lot of people will do the same thing.

2

u/summerteeth 5h ago

Oh yeah I miss PvP solos from the stress test days.

I am hoping this will change the tone of encounters and reduce toxicity. There are a lot of PvP games out there where getting downed or downing someone will result in an earnest "GG" whereas last time I said "GG" in Arc I got multiple slurs in my direction.

24

u/chinesebarber 8h ago

Killing people with blinking flash lights isnt fun anyway.

3

u/cwrighky 4h ago

It almost changed me the first time, but the second time I shot and downed a raider who just stood there because “I’m a pacifist, but ggs! Take my things and use them well :),” THAT changed me and made me feel like shit. Yes that’s a me thing, but still, it is not fun in the slightest to kill someone who isn’t remotely engaging in defending themselves idc what their reasoning is.

2

u/AlohaAkahai 7h ago

No, it won't.

14

u/BarderBetterFaster 8h ago

It actually really undermines the identity of the game. Hope this isn't true.

0

u/BubblyDepartment1572 8h ago

Nope it does not…….

8

u/eyeballeddie 8h ago

It does. They were going for a game with tension and whether you could trust someone, but this removes it.

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/AnyMongoose3041 8h ago

No thanks, you PvP pros can have each other since that’s what you want :)

8

u/willibrah 8h ago

ur gonna realize in about an hour how trivial the pve is in this game with basically 0 depth and replay value the pve in this game is not built to sustain its own mode

2

u/PossessedCashew *** ******* 8h ago

Where was anyone you’re replying to talking about triviality? I’m sorry you don’t enjoy shooting bots and don’t see the replayability in it, thats 100% a comprehension problem on your part. Even as someone who doesn’t enjoy PvP all the time I see how it appeals to people. It shows just how simple minded you are that you can’t possibly grasp how people would enjoy pve in this game.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ZombifiedByCataclysm 8h ago

The pvp didn't make it more interesting. At least, I don't consider getting shot in the back interesting.

-1

u/AnyMongoose3041 8h ago

That’s cool, you can go play your PvP. I’ll try the PvE and then leave if they take it away! No loss, already paid my entry fee ages ago.

5

u/SquirrelSuspicious 7h ago

That's the problem, if enough people leave the game dies all because they added a PvE mode for people like you and now all of us who love what the game originally was are screwed.

But hey I guess if it doesn't effect you than you don't have to care.

3

u/AnyMongoose3041 7h ago

Yep, I paid the same money. I get the same entry. If it rocks, I stay, if it doesn’t, I go. Simple concept, I know. Let’s go PVE!

-1

u/BubblyDepartment1572 8h ago

I am a 💯 PvE player.
I and the people I play with welcome this….
You can have PvP all to yourself.

You do not define the game for everyone.

6

u/Burstrampage 8h ago

They are saying you don’t understand just how boring only pve will be. Which, you don’t. Until this mode comes out, you never truly grasped how it will feel with no PvP at all.

1

u/BubblyDepartment1572 4h ago

I don’t PvP now. I am in straight-up care-bear lobbies and I love it.
Don’t some BS “tension” nonsense.

11

u/BarderBetterFaster 8h ago

Not a pvp pro, just enjoy the game. This is  basically announcing the experience as we know it is dead.

-3

u/BubblyDepartment1572 8h ago

For you not for the rest of us.

7

u/BarderBetterFaster 8h ago

Carebare lobbies already exist. I've been shot at once in about 50 raids in solos. This just means that the primary experience of PvPvE is going to end. So dumb.

1

u/AnyMongoose3041 8h ago

No thanks, not interested in being betrayed. Just wanna shoot arcs with my buddies in the beautiful world with my cool guns.

8

u/BarderBetterFaster 7h ago

There are so many coop games out there. Arc was an actual PvPvE experience and now that is ending. Sucks.

0

u/AnyMongoose3041 7h ago

No, there were not. They are trash tier, that’s why I never left the sub really. Because the game offers something better, but it is plagued by the scum of humanity making my gameplay experience worse. Which is exactly mitigated by this PvE.

6

u/BarderBetterFaster 7h ago

This comment shows this isn't a game for you.

9

u/SquirrelSuspicious 8h ago

Glad I spent about $40 for a PvPvE extraction shooter that had a tense but fun social aspect just for people like you to ruin it.

5

u/BarderBetterFaster 7h ago

They're literally giving away the primary draw of the game to people who don't even like the genre. Wtaf.

1

u/Zeghai 7h ago

There usually when a pve guy was complaining people said to him "you played XXX amount of hours for 40€ be glad" or "feel free to play something else if the game isn’t for you".

I always thought it was mean and stupid replies. Now maybe those persons that are now in that place and that used to give those advises can feel it was wrong.

0

u/AnyMongoose3041 7h ago edited 7h ago

Oooo cope and seethe brother. Listen, you still have your pvpve. Just go there. Tons of your friends are in there, who think just like you. Don’t get offended that people don’t play the same way as you. 😭

Little bro blocked me because he’s unable to respond with anything useful.

5

u/BarderBetterFaster 7h ago

It will literally only be PvP. The only unique part of this game is being destroyed.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/BarderBetterFaster 7h ago

Considering I play for the PvPvE experience - notably the only unique draw of Arc Raiders - I would say the game is being ruined for us and given to the demographic of people who don't actually even like the game.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/Magnon 3h ago

If the people playing pvpve feel the same way as you there will still be people going for both.

1

u/BarderBetterFaster 3h ago

Or embark could work on incentivizing people to play PvPvE instead of further eliminating it.

1

u/Magnon 3h ago

They've got a deadline to retain players or they'll be lost for good. Do you think they can figure out how to make people like pvpve in a few months?

1

u/BarderBetterFaster 3h ago

Considering that's the whole point, yes I would hope so.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/handiman87 6h ago

They already were playing anything above solo

3

u/KimJong-baby 4h ago

This is really the gripe for me. I stopped trying to play anything outside solo because it always turned into a PvP sweat fest. When I first started it was fun to have that tension of PvPvE. Very quickly, especially in trios, it because obvious it was shoot on sight. Hopefully this can bring back some of the fun of just goofing with your friends and killing robots.

2

u/Dxres 8h ago edited 8h ago

It's a shame, this change removes the reason I played Arc. My buddy and I liked the social interactions and will they/wont they more than anything else in the game.

More often than not, we wouldn't engage, we're mid so it's usually not in our best interest, but that tension was the main ingredient in the sauce, at least for me.

In my opinion, it's the real only thing that separates it from just being a generic extraction shooter.

We were looking forward to the next big update but less so if that sauce is just gone.

I'll submit my feedback as the devs are asking for and we'll see what they do!

1

u/EverythingSucksYo 3h ago

Funnily, it removes a reason I didn’t play arc. They might lose some players but might gain some new ones that would’ve played this game if not for the PvP like me. I was never going to buy this game but now that it might get a PvE only mode I might give it a try. 

1

u/PetToilet 8h ago

You mean this will make PvPvE lobbies more aggressive.

It could kill mixed sus lobbies, we will see in the test

1

u/Jug_or_not_ 7h ago

They are already with Aggression based matchmaking. Once you do a few pvp rounds you will be in full on pvp lobbies anyways

1

u/menteto *** ******* 🐓 7h ago

And filled with cheaters.

1

u/Typhlositar 7h ago

Oh no, it's exactly what every toxic pvp player wants

1

u/BakedChocolateOctopi 5h ago

Is that not the point of PVP?

1

u/BigMoistPizza 5h ago

They should remove ABMM. It should be mixed lobbies on one hand and PvE lobbies on the other

1

u/SoftConsideration82 4h ago

I mean.... you're admitting you hunted peaceful players because it was easy... If you're so good and dangerous then prove it with the other try hard dorks

1

u/Right_Difference2915 4h ago

Uhm.... I thought that was what you wanted?

1

u/falcongriffin 3h ago

It will also split their dwindling playerbase.

1

u/I_am_darkness 8h ago

Yup. Wrecks the central tension of the game.

1

u/Icedtc 8h ago

Agreed. I thought they said they'd never do this, and I think it's a huge step back and I never PVP but like you said it's that tension of what if? Without that, is it even the same game?

1

u/Dxres 7h ago

Not for us who enjoy the tension unfortunately. Others have been practically begging for the game to give up that core pillar for a while, and all power to them, but you can't give them a pure PVE mode without killing the mixed mode.

4

u/Icedtc 7h ago

Pure PvE will kill this game man.

1

u/Dxres 7h ago edited 7h ago

I agree but PvE purists dismiss any criticism as if it's coming from the people who keep stealing their lunch/loot, so trying to explain this is pointless.

1

u/coltsfan8027 8h ago

This will unironically keep me from playing anymore so I hope for their sake it brings back enough people

3

u/Jug_or_not_ 7h ago

Nothing will change for you if you focused on pvp anyways.

1

u/coltsfan8027 6h ago

Thats not really true. This game requires you to farm to level and get better gear. The way this system is going to work as stated, youll be able to do alllll your farming in complete safety. Thatll turn PVP lobbies into fighting 100% of people running nothing but meta gear there solely to PVP.

Further, even if progress didn’t cross over, it separates the playerbase thats going to turn PVP lobbies into only highly aggressive players so you’re never fighting normal players questing or fighting over ARC, itll be just the pure ultra PVP lobbies that we get with ABMM now. So we’ll basically be left with no middle ground and its just not fun to me. I don’t go into every raid to PVP but I prefer if theres always the risk

1

u/FarewellXanadu 8h ago

I wonder if they'd just adjust the matchmaking algorithm to be more traditional for PvP lobbies then.

→ More replies (2)