Arc Raiders developer Embark Studios is bowing to the pacifists and trialing a PvE mode in their extraction shooter. If you play between October 13th and 20th, you'll be able to flick a toggle that means you load either into the traditional world of Arc Raiders, where human players vie for the valuable scraps left behind in a ruined world watched over by killer robots, or a slightly safer version where the machines are still deadly but the humans can't hurt you.

"We’re seeing a large and growing group of Raiders who come to the Rust Belt for the co-op and the ARC, not fighting with other Raiders," Embark say in the post announcing the trial. "That group has become a core part of our community, so it’s important we learn how to support them properly rather than leave them working around the game."

To back this up, the studio share some data they've collected, showing that there are now more players that play only friendly co-op and never attack other humans than the merciless pure PvP bunch. Apparently the PvP group has remained at a stable 34% since the game's launch, but the number of mixed players, who spend most their time being affable members of the post-apocalypse society but occasionally dabble in wanton homicide, has shrunk, with most opting to become full-time peaceniks.

all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 41 points 1 month ago (1 child)

This might get me to pick the game up again.

I bought it to play with friends because the robots and story setting seem great. But then quickly realised group play is (essentially) 100% PvP which avoids the reason I thought it was interesting.

I tried solo play because I heard the community playing solo were more PvE oriented but: 1. It’s not as fun without friends and 2. After a couple of bad encounters I was kind of over it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I knew it was a risk when I bought this game intending to play solo. About the 9th time that strangers killed me during extraction after being "friendly" through shared firefights, I uninstalled the game.

    This mode might get me back in, if for no other reason than sunk cost.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    I basically detested the whole game. The core loop is just sneak and loot trash. Carry trash to extraction where someone will try to grief you. The guns felt meh. The AI voice thing was just weird.IDK if there was a story in there, but after 5-6 hours I was completely over it. Even with PvE I have no interest in the game itself because at its core it just felt like a shit version of fallout.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Good developers pave desire paths when they appear.

    Bad devs try to force the players to "correct" their playstyles because they are enjoying the game "wrong".

    It is mind-boggling how much more common the latter is.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I’m not sure how I feel about this. I don’t hurt other people and I think most don’t but I feel like that what makes other people feel nice, knowing they could hurt you but choose not to. If I’m in trouble I think most people are more likely to help than hurt me. A little bit of danger makes it exciting.

    This happened with Ultima Inline years ago, they made two servers, one for people who wanted PvP and one for those who don’t, and you could switch between them relatively freely. The PvP side ended up being a total death trap where you would get PKed instantly while the other side felt too safe.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    I'm also unsure that a PvE mode will be good for the game. I know there are some people who don't want anything to do with PvP, but I think what the majority are tired of when it comes to PvP is deception. Players acting friendly but then killing you when you least expect it.

    I think what the Chinese dev team is doing might be a better fix. That or a faction system, so you can immediately see if another player will be hostile

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Once again proving for the 903486362527484th time that "always on but optional" PvP is a stupid game mechanic which attracts exactly two kinds of players - griefers and people who really just want to play PvE.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Is it a genetic thing that about a third of people just want to fuck everything up for everyone else?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    While there are plenty of people like this, there's more to PvP than that.

    PvP is, first and foremost, about an unpredictable kind of danger. You can learn the behaviors of NPC mobs, and while you'll look very cool dealing with 'em all, you may lose a thrill and adrenaline rush that comes with engaging the enemy you don't know. And you don't always know what the other person is up to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Part of the core design was the risk that maybe another raider could turn on you. The devs continuously hammered home that this was a core part of the game which couldn't be changed and would result in a lesser game. So was that a lie or is the PvE mode going to be a fundamentally worse game?

    Each PvE only match is going to be a foot race to see who gets to the loot and extract first with zero risk; the bots pose so little danger that you could run around with an empty loadout and not worry about losing anything. Conversely, each PvP enabled lobby is going to be a deathmatch with no looting because you have nowhere else to use your weapon loadouts and you have the PvE mode for looting.

    Looting with no risk gets super boring super fast; unless they provide some steep incentives for NOT queueing up in PvE only, this game is going to fall flat on its face.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Looting with no risk gets super boring super fast; unless they provide some steep incentives for NOT queueing up in PvE only, this game is going to fall flat on its face.

    This is a fascinating take. You feel adding an optional extra mode will make the game fail? Not adding it will allow it to succeed?

    The goal is increasing the user base, right? I'm someone who never plays PvP. I'll never play Arc Raiders without a full PvE option. You seem to be full in PvP. You're already playing. If they add this mode, I'll likely buy it and play the PvE maps. I suppose the question is, will you stop playing PvP?

    Concerning your statement about risk, it's completely your opinion. I find games like Power Washing Simulator incredibly boring, but they're successful enough to inspire sequels and clones. The solution is simple: I don't play them. If someone finds PvE boring, they can elect to never play. I find plenty of challenge in other PvE games like Helldivers 2, Deep Rock Galactic, Borderlands, and a myriad of other dedicated co-op (no PvP or "versus" mode) games. So for someone to say "I don't like this mode so I don't think it should be there" is a nonsensical response to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • You feel adding an optional extra mode

    If it doesn't have a separate progression system, it's not really optional—not in the way that you imply. It changes the incentive structures of the game as a whole, which means the whole game must be played differently.

    As a basic excercise, let's think about a game with a dark hallway that has scary monsters. Most players don't want to walk down a dark hallway with scary monsters, so how do you get them to?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    They could make the robots much harder or change the extraction more risky.

    I have not played this game, only watched some videos but there are ways to rebalance a game without ruining it. It is up to the devs to figure out how they will do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    It was originally supposed to be a coop PvE game, but turned into PvPvE along the way.

    The PvE and PvP lobbies are basically like that already. I have carebear lobbies for solo and trios are pure PvP. People literally do naked runs where of they don't get the right spawn, they surrender and try again until they get the right spawn, then run straight there and loot, throw the thing in their safe pocket and surrender. The only time people fight arc in the PvP lobbies is if they are stopping them from looting the players they just killed.

    Night raids, Hurricane, Locked Gate, etc. are all not eligible for PvE lobbies in the new system, and the loot value is reduced if you do PvE.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Aside from the official page, has there been any clarification for things like harvester and queen events being eligible for PvE only? They seem to be the events most requested to have PvP removed but where the risk from PvP seems impossible to avoid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    RogueProphet brought that up in his most recent video, i guess the devs did a Q&A, and they said something about having separated trials, but it seemed to be in early talks. I need to watch the Q&A, but here's the highlights.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I think they'd have been better off putting in a pve only event for people to do like a horde mode or something. I tried to stick to PVE when I played but without the PVP aspect you lose the tension and the warm fuzzy feelings that come with encountering other friendly players. Yeah being murdered and losing all your shit sucks but it's not that hard to get back. The real problem for me was the cheaters.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Dunno, with the prevalence of cheating online these days I’ve mostly given up playing anything vaguely competitive.

    Had zero interest in the game until the fully option toggle is added. Now I’m interested in trying it out.

    What’s nice about it is it creates the option to play the game how you want. Traditional players who want to continue in the PvP side can do just that. If you like the thrill of “will they won’t they”, just leave the toggle off.

    Not sure how this will hurt the game if I’m honest.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    There's always an XKCD: Borders

  • source
  • 20 comments in c/gaming@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 21 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Really the game I want to play is helldivers before they nerfed all the fun out of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (7 children)
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    It's a fully PvE game, but the devs kept finding any fun, strong weapon and nerfing them for 'balance'. But then that just took your favorite weapons, made them suck, and didn't have any other fun guns to use to replace it. So the game went from being awesome to kind of sterile and boring.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Thank you, that’s sad to hear :/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    As an avid Helldiver. I disagree. There is so much fun to be had. And balancing weapons doesn't mean that everything sucks. It means you have a wider variety of viable loadouts in Super Helldive.

    Wasnt that long ago they literally buffed every single primary across the board. Because people felt like they were useless compared to support weapons

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    Nothing. Well, not what they are complaining about anyway. Helldivers does have problems, but they just want to use unbalanced super weapons until they get bored and never play it again because of the lack of balance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    This article echoed my sentiments on the pve servers. I find it more engaging when we as players are actually making a choice to be friendly. It's also very satisfying to win a fight in self defense.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I always like what I've seen of this game but have zero interest in PvP, so I'd definitely check it out if this becomes a thing.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Who are these people that pay money for a game that is explicitly pvp, play it, find out there's pvp, then complain bitterly until the developers change the game for them? It's so bizarre

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Wasn't Arc Raiders a PVE and PVP game from the start? Players can choose to team up or fight each other, there are no explicit rules on how to handle an objective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Originally, if memory serves, the game was supposed to be pve only, they only did a swivel chair to pvpve towards the end of development

    I vaguely remember it being mentioned in a dev diary video about that too

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What's wrong with people playing a game, and then going eh it's okay but it would be nice if it had this other feature. Then devs listen to players and make it more fun for everyone, more games sell to those who held off because it lacked the other feature, and everyone wins.

    Except the people who play exclusively PvP, since all the easy targets leave for PVE and they actually have to play only with other more experience players 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Because this feature is fundamentally opposed to a very large part of why the game is fun to begin with. It's like asking to start death stranding with a super atv with infinite storage. Its even worse because it affects other players too.

    It's possible this quarantines off the most boring players and let's low aggression lobbies shine (making emergent interaction a bigger part of the game than it currently is). It's just as possible that it forces everyone to pick between playing online single player or playing with deranged 4channers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I mean they basically built in griefing as a mechanic, which isn't fun for anyone who isn't a griefer. Acknowledging that most people find that tedious is the least surprising development in the history of developments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I bet this makes the game worse, but i suppose it could go either way

  • source