I for one, love it.

Pvp isn't necessary to be qualified an extraction game.

Balance however, is super important for PVE extraction games. Ever moreso I think than PVP as to little challenge leads to boredom.

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 8 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

I would love to play any of these games if they didn't had any PVP.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 hours ago

    I like that they're adding options.

    Marathon will have PvPvE, a dedicated PvP arena mode, and now a PvE mode. That's a good amount of content in the base game.

    Arc Raiders I feel should also follow suit.

    A PvE mode will only help draw in players.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 16 hours ago

    I personally cannot stop playing No More Room in Hell 2

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (5 children)

    I don't love the genre but I have played The Circle, Arc Raiders and Marathon, plus the DMZ mode in CoD.

    I don't think PvE modes are a good thing and don't remove issues with griefing or bad behaviour.

    Arc Raiders for example was full of players waiting for a player with a key to come along so they could run in and grab loot from high value areas without any recourse.

    The positive vibes and community feeling you get in Arc is because the risk is there of someone shooting you on site, but the bond of trust feels so much more impactful when you get along.

    Obviously it's devastating when you get stabbed in the back, but to me it's like Dark Souls, Prepare to Die.

    Getting jumped is an issue in PvP, but that can be tweaked with Time to Kill adjustments and better game awareness.

    PvE just takes away the value of these encounters, or turns the game into a looter shooter?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 hours ago (4 children)

    Pvp is not necessary to make a good extraction game.

    Propper balance is.

    The issue with arc raiders pve were many, the first being that there was no separation between pvp and pve, which just meant all the toxic pvp players went into pve to grief anyways.

    Then as you said, people would wait there for keys because they'd farm items to take into pvp.

    You have to seperate and properly balance pve.

    There need to be less raiders per map in pve to make encounters feel more random, and stop 20 players being in matches all going for the same 5 key rooms.

    There are a ton of ways to fix arcs pve problems, you just have to be a little creative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (3 children)

    Without making the ARC infuriatingly hard to fight I don't see how you can balance it reasonably. Another part what PvP added to ARC was that you didn't want to engage the ARC unless you had to because it told everyone you where you were, it reduces your situational awareness because you're focused on the threat not the surroundings and makes you a prime target to get jumped because you're also stuck fighting the ARC. ARC left alone also turned into your alarm if someone else got caught by them.

    I'm PvE nobody cares, you just blast every ARC you see because the negatives of fighting the ARC are vastly outweighed by the positives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 hours ago

    Yea I don't disagree. The very first thing I'd do in a PVE mode is cap the players at 12 per raid.

    Right now it's anywhere from 12-25 depending and that's way way too many in a PvE lobby.

    That tips the scales completely in favor of raiders already and any adjustments made to Arc with that many players at the base would be stupid.

    There's definitely room to make pve work, there are plenty of things you can do especially if they make it a separate character altogether from PvP.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

    People also definitely feel safety in numbers because the default player count is way way too high, that can't be ignored.

    Also nah, Arc wouldn't need to be that much more dangerous to be in a good spot. There's plenty of room here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    Almost every ARC, including giant ones like the queen, can be solod. Big ARCs like the bastion can easily be killed multiple times in a round if you've prepped to take them down.

    If you know what you're doing ARC are not a threat.

  • source
  • parent
  • 10 comments in c/arc_raiders@jlai.lu view that post
    [–] 8 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

    I might finally buy it if this is true. Neither I nor my partner will touch anything PVP. It is toxic by design which is not fun.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

    Give it a month or two, I think news will be arriving soon.

    The test showed an obvious desire for the mode, and that's the way the winds are blowing for the other extraction shooters as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    i just saw marathon's announcement for a pve mode, embark has to follow or they'll bleed players imo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 22 hours ago

    Yep! Quite literally dropped the trailer as I was editing this video today.

    I stuck part of it in because yea I agree, PVE is fun!

    These extraction games create insanely detailed, atmospheric worlds and players want to play in them regardless of pvp or pve.

    I will absolutely be checking back in on marathon.

    Only reason I stopped was the player pool got so small I was skilled out lmao.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

    Oh man finally. I played it for like 3 weeks and tbh it's great even in the normal mode. Some really good interactions, but yea this games pve combat is too fun to force pvp

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

    Agreed.

    Balance it right for PVE and people will bring their friends lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

    I mean it kinda already is. ARK's downed me.plenty of times on friendly servers. I suppose to guarantee you for occasionally they could add a few more rocketeers in here and there lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    Problem is, Arc is between 12-25 players per lobby.

    That's far too many for PVE.

    Higher chance of key overlap, griefers being able to grief because of safety in numbers, and overall having that many raiders in game ruins the atmosphere.

    12 raiders for PVE should be the max imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    I actually hadn't thought about that, last I was there the community was pretty damn chill for an extraction shooter, but of course there's always gonna be outliers.

    I was more focused on the enemy ARC becoming trivialized by the constant teamwork and lack of pvp preventing you from announcing your position. Tho to be honest I haven't fought the queen or emperor successfully. So I might be off my rocker

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 9 comments in c/gaming@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 17 points 17 hours ago

    I was there 3000 years ago when the first Arc Raiders teaser dropped and brought us promise of a new PvE game from ex-Dice talent, perhaps channeling a new yet retro take on a Defiance-like experience, only to have my hopes crushed with the extraction rug pull. Oh how the turn tables.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 16 hours ago (1 child)

    PvP extraction shooters are generally awful because the nature of the genre is an extraction point which ALWAYS gathers campers who ruin the fun. PvE is the natural fix for the problem and helps the game feel more forgiving for new players.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

    Nikita Buyanov recently posted Tarkov's stats on twitter and PvE accounts for 60% of the playerbase. He's notoriously a PvE hater, but who better than him would understand that it's not that you're taking away from PvP, it's just a way to gain players and retain players that are tired of the PvP shenanigans.

    PvE is almost always a net positive, if handled correctly.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Well that's also because Tarkov effectively has no anti-cheat due to how the game was designed, so PvP has always been complete and total shit. If you're going to fight entities with aimbot you might as well fight bots since they can be designed to miss.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago

    I never liked the concept of these games, even when it was Battle Royale before that.

    The idea of having one life and if you mess up you have to wait for the game to finish or if you have teammates to revive you never appealed to me.

    I grew up on classic shooters like Quake 3, Unreal Tournament 99, Counter-Strike 1 and having Bomb Defusal and TDM is a staple to me, a shooter without those is like a joke to me that I fail to understand.

    Later on I played some Korean online shooters that introduced me to new game modes like Point Control, Escort/Payload that I only enjoyed and broadened my view of what can be a different fun way to experience a shooter, but since around 2018 when all shooters fell for the Battle Royale/Extraction fad I couldn't play anything new, because it wasn't what I wanted and I felt like I wasn't even the target audience.

    Even Korean shooters started doing this too and no more classic shooters were being released and the old online games I liked were either shut down or so bad it wasn't worth playing them anymore.

    I guess they are getting PvE mode because a lot of other players feel the same way as I do and people don't want to die for one little mistake and then have to wait or try to find a new match.

    What I wish to see is a resurgence of the classic shooters, even better if the developers focus on older graphics so the games aren't too demanding and take 50-100GB of disk space. I remember playing such shooters that were no bigger than 3GB and I had thousands of hours of fun in them. Now these new 50-100 and more GB games take me longer to download, install and update than I actually end up playing them.

    Such a shame. It may be a bit pessimistic, but I think mainstream gaming has gone down the drain and the only haven for gaming is indie gaming.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 18 hours ago

    Without new content, it will lead to boredom either way. I’d like to think more ways to play adds longevity but people usually lean heavily towards one or the other. Idk how many people are going to pick this up after this long. Lmk in six months if I’m wrong though.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 44 minutes ago

    The temporary PvE mode for ARC Raiders was pretty awful. They'll need to make a lot of changes to make it worthwhile

  • source