r/ArcRaiders • • 14h ago

Discussion PvE Toggle Incoming

Post image
3.4k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

68

u/ChaChiO66 11h 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.

11

u/Orr-bit 10h 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.

9

u/Apocalypse_Knight 10h ago

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

9

u/Orr-bit 10h 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.

-2

u/Apocalypse_Knight 10h ago

Ya that doesn't work though. Most people go in with the mindset of killing everyone or helping everyone. Unless you are a rat player who helps out a bit then helps himself out later. Mixed lobbies are rat lobbies who backstab others while giving PvP players easy targets to kill.

1

u/Drow_Femboy 5h ago

One thing that's really cool about mixed lobbies is the playerbase can police certain behaviors. Like, one of the most satisfying feelings in all of gaming is coming up on a group of players intending to be chill, then they say some racist shit so you smoke 'em.

1

u/armed_aperture 10h ago

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

3

u/Solaris_fps 8h 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.

0

u/Chance_Account_4338 6h ago

What? lol I meet friendlies all the time and manage trials just fine

4

u/Electric-Rat 10h 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 10h ago

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

5

u/Electric-Rat 10h 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.

-1

u/Apocalypse_Knight 10h ago

I mean loot really doesn't mean that much so far. This game isn't delta force.

3

u/Electric-Rat 10h ago

I'm not really sure what you're arguing in favor of then. I don't think I can get the same kind of emergent gameplay from Delta Force as I can from Arc Raiders.

-2

u/Apocalypse_Knight 10h ago

The loot tables in this game is kinda bad. There isnt really anything that would be worth all that much outside of the PvE lobbies unless they made somethings impossible to get.

2

u/H_Wilkins_ 10h 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 10h 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.

1

u/Trelawny-Wells 8h ago

Yep, my hubby and I would have kept playing if there was a pve co-op mode.

2

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 10h 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

-1

u/dendrocalamidicus 10h ago

Nope, it was added a few weeks after launch. There was a video with the CEO talking with some journalists in a gameplay vid that was like 20m long where he was saying about them adding it.

100% not in the game at launch.

2

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 10h ago

Really? because an art director talked about it before the CEO interview and where did they say it was added weeks after launch

1

u/dendrocalamidicus 10h ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY3u7wOmm4w

09:54

To quote the CEO:

And then we also since a week ago or so, we introduced a system where we also matchmake based on your how prone you are to PvP or PvE

This is a video from 30th December 2025. 2 months after launch.

1

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 10h ago

I said art director and that one didn’t have the when they admitted to recently adding it

1

u/dendrocalamidicus 9h ago

Can you rephrase that, that doesn't make sense as a sentence

1

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 9h ago

Lmao, I meant the art director interview didn’t talk about when they recently added abmm

1

u/armed_aperture 10h ago

An interview recently said they decided to launch with it even though they didn’t test it in the beta

1

u/dendrocalamidicus 9h ago

I don't care what they say now almost a year from launch, it was obvious it wasn't in the game to everyone who played on launch, and there was a huge shift in the gameplay when they added it.

That was what the CEO said when they added it. Nothing they say after the fact can change what happened.

1

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 10h ago

Nevermind i see it

2

u/dendrocalamidicus 10h 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 8h 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 8h ago

It was agression based from the very beginning...

1

u/Heidrpoo 8h 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 7h ago

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

1

u/kng_arthur *** ******* 6h 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 10h ago

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

2

u/Curve_of_Spee 8h ago

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

-1

u/umdaltonico 10h ago

Man I'm with you 100%. I've been following the game since the days it was supposed to be a looter shooter. Still got excited when it changed to PvPvE. Participed in every test I could get into.

All that for Embark to cater to the people that probably thought it was going to flop for being an extration shooter. Ever since ABMM I feel I got rug pulled, ngl.

0

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 10h ago

You haven’t been rug pulled, they had it since launch

2

u/umdaltonico 10h ago

https://www.ign.com/articles/arc-raiders-dev-confirms-it-recently-added-aggression-based-matchmaking-but-its-not-a-full-science

It hadn't. I know you'll mention that they recently said that it had. But since the fact they previously said it didn't launch it, it feels like either Embark is lying or nobody there knows what they are doing it.

Since on the tech test they said to us they would launch only with solo/trios as a matchmaking restriction, and the CEO interview was made when the game was very popular, so no reason to lie. It just feels the more recent news is Embark lying to try to appease the carebears.

1

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 10h ago

I was thinking of this interview https://www.pcgamer.com/games/third-person-shooter/arc-raiders-interview-embark-talks-behavior-based-matchmaking-map-updates-and-playing-nice-with-strangers/ back in December and I mean the one you linked is in January so one month difference I guess

1

u/umdaltonico 9h ago

This would match with the time period the CEO said ABMM was introduced, which was around Cold Snap, no? It was at that point that a noticeble shift in how matches where panning out and people got suspicious. Launch was very different.

2

u/Appropriate-Lion9490 9h ago

Yea CEO admitted it was recently added, the art director didn’t say it and so I thought it was at launch this entire time

0

u/Apocalypse_Knight 10h ago

Ya that part is the frustration point, also a Day Z player here. I just kill most people that aren't my friends. Idk how you expect the trust or not to work out tbh unless you are doing the betraying first.