u/ClockworkSoldier

Seeing as how the PvP population has been stagnant since launch, but the PvE population is actively growing, I think we have our answer on which content in the game is actually more fun. You can thank Embark themselves for openly providing that information as well.

There was lots of people shooting first and asking later at launch. But there was also a much larger player base to get matched with, including both PvP and PvE players. But based on the information the devs have shared with us, where PvP player numbers have remained steady since launch (not growing or shrinking), we lost a ton of PvE players during the first big dips.

Since the addition of ABMM, the PvE player base has grown steadily, and the PvP population has remained the same. So ABMM isn’t pushing PvP players away, and is actively attracting new PvE players. That certainly doesn’t sound like it’s ruining the game to me. If anything, the stagnating PvP population in this game is the exact same thing that happens with every other high stakes PvP game. High stakes PvP is still a small niche compared to most other PvP games, and it attracts far smaller crowds.

So you're speaking with authority, without actually looking at the data Embark shared publicly, and has been spoken about regularly on this sub?

Also, the "absolutely zero effect" comment is in regard to the suggestion of this specific Reddit post. A box giving players the option to return some lost gear to other raiders has absolutely zero impact on the way you play the game. On the other point, introducing a PvE mode may have minor effects on queue times on the PvPvE servers in the long run. But during the PvE test there was no indication of anything changing, and we also saw many primarily PvE players that still are very much interested in playing on the PvPvE servers, and not PvE only.

And finally, the premise of the game is fighting the Arc, looting materials, blueprints, etc, upgrading equipment, and so on. PvP is an add-on feature to help increase the pressure on players, but it is not the main premise of the game.

https://arcraiders.com/news/pve-toggle-beta-test

This conversation isn’t about PvE mode, it’s about an innocuous system that gives players the option to return lost items to other raiders, of their own free will. Players can’t expect others to return their gear, but it could be a pleasant surprise. Some players already go out of their way to try and return items to other players who weren’t able to make it to extract, by getting in touch through DMs, or other means. This is just an expansion on that.

But if you do want to talk about PvE mode, I’d be happy to. Queue times saw absolutely zero change during the PvE test, and it is in Embark’s best interest to focus on systems that cater to PvE players from a business standpoint. The PvP player base has stagnated, as shown by Embark’s own internal data, while the PvE player base has continued to grow. So if you have anyone to blame, it’s your own PvP community.

And since a lot of PvP players like to blame ABMM for their issues, I’ll preemptively dispute that argument as well. PvP player numbers had already stabilized, without any new growth, before ABMM was added, and didn’t see a decline after its addition. PvE player numbers have seen an increase since its addition though. And many of these players would not be playing if they had to be a higher aggression lobbies to begin with. So if you’re a higher aggression player, you wouldn’t notice any change in the players, or queue times, that you’re used to.

And now you just magically invalidated one to two thirds of the weapons in the game, light shields and possibly medium as well, and any augment that can only equip light shields and possibly medium. That’s not the negative effect you want to have on a game.

As the guy who supposedly “wrote some bullshit”, I’m happy to answer that for you.

Embark’s own internal data has shown that PvP player numbers have stagnated. They haven’t dropped, but they also haven’t grown either. Whereas PvE player numbers have been rising steadily. So you can sit here and whine about the PvE debate all you want, but PvE players are the ones actually increasing the player population, and increasing their profits.

As for your actual comments, the game being marketed as PvE from the get go, actually does matter a lot. We were shown a game with exceptional enemy design, which far surpasses most other games, especially with their AI, and hunting players. The game also had fantastic world, and sound design, and also a good backstory. All these things encouraged us to pick up the game, even after it was turned into a PvPvE extraction shooter. PvE players were willing to deal with those mechanics, in order to experience the others.

Embark has understood this very well since the beginning, and once that initial surge of players started to dwindle, they introduced ABMM to stop the PvE player numbers from dropping, and to even bolster it. ABMM has been successful in its intended purpose, with PvP player numbers not dropping, but the PvE player base actually growing.

I’ll also point out something I’ve mentioned to a few others as well. You all pretend as if the devs decision to switch from PvE to PvPvE was a permanent choice, and they somehow cannot change their position again. However, they’ve already changed their stance multiple times, between the switch from PvE to PvPvE, and also the inclusion of the ABMM system, to help cater an experience towards PvE players, and now hosting a PvE beta test. Remember that initial switch from PvE to PvPvE was also only made after their friends and family testing, which is a microscopically small amount of the potential player base, and now we have a majority of the community being polled, and asking for a PvE mode.

And yet this change would have absolutely zero effect on anybody who wouldn’t want to engage with it. It’s an entertaining optional system that players could choose to engage with, or just as easily choose not to. Way too many of you are all too eager to be butthurt over things that would have no effect on you personally.

Trios were quite hostile long before ABMM was introduced.

Arc Raiders was first announced at the Game Awards on December 9th 2021, and was being marketed as a PvE game. It wasn't until May 16th 2023, that the game director finally came out and announced that the game was shifting to PvPvE, nearly a year and a half later. This was just under a year and a half before release, which was on October 30th 2025. Development on the game started in 2019, meaning that the game spent nearly 4 years as a PvE game, and only around a year and a half as a PvPvE game, which is pretty close to launch in development time frames, especially when making such a large change.

So, feel free to continue sitting here spewing all these incredibly ignorant "facts". The actual proof, and data, is very clearly not on your side.

Edit to add: ABMM was added because the devs clearly saw a large less aggressive portion of their player population leaving. They knew they had to make changes to keep them interested, or bring back those that had already left. This is why their own data showed that their PvP player base largely remained the same, while their PvE player base has continued to increase. And in the midst of this all, PvPvE was never actually removed, no matter how many times you whine about it being removed from the game.

You're more than welcome to go look up the old trailers, and interviews with developers, about the game, but I get the feeling you'll just bury your head in the sand.

This game has been actively marketed towards both PvP and PvE players. The inclusion of ABMM further reinforces that. You pretend that the devs are infallible for their PvP marketing, but ignore the fact that it was originally marketed as a PvE game, and then also ignore that the supposedly infallible devs (if the PvP marketing is to be believed) are now somehow wrong for catering to multiple playstyles.

So what’s the deal? If the devs were absolutely correct in their choice of making a PvPvE game, and cannot be questioned, then why is their calculated decision to add ABMM so controversial?

Sounds like you simply cannot come to terms with other players wanting to play differently than you.

Except the whole claim that the game lost a substantial amount of players to ABMM in the first place, is completely false. Embarks own data also showed that the PvP player numbers have remained stable, not growing OR shrinking from their averages, even once ABMM was introduced.

If that’s true, it just further reinforces my point that they didn’t understand what they themselves were making.

Considering that the majority of players polled by Embark were in favor of a PvE mode, I already have my answer.

The game was originally marketed as a PvE game. A small bit of testing with a limited group of friends and family was what changed their mind to change it to PvPvE. That tells me that they actually didn’t even understand what they were trying to make in the first place, and changed their minds on the whims of a microscopically small portion of the potential playerbase.

Getting upset that now over half of polled players want a PvE mode, is just absurd.

A lot of the players I talked to in PvE lobbies hopped back into the game when the new content dropped, in anticipation of the PvE beta. They didn’t simply come back only for the new content. PvE was the whole reason they jumped back in, and the new content was just a treat to top it off.

ABMM filters players into lobbies based on their normal gameplay. Rats have to alter their normal gameplay in order to end up in low-aggression lobbies, for a single match killing unsuspecting players, then need to spend all that time altering their ABMM rating once again.

But no matter how many times I describe it, and in what ways, it’s clear you don’t actually care.

“If you have a problem with how other people play the game (besides cheating), that’s your own problem.

Ratting in low aggression lobbies requires players to exploit the game, but it also does not qualify as cheating. Saying that it’s players’ own problem, for being upset about people exploiting the game, is a pretty absurd take, and is not something covered under your initial comment.

And in regards to players being in favor of adding a PvE mode, your comment only serves to state that you believe the game should only be played how it is currently presented, and no other feedback is acceptable, eagerness of how reasonable it may be.

All you’re doing here is making a simple, misguided comment, which you think is a gotcha, just because you also disagree with other peoples’ opinions on the game, making you quite the hypocrite.

But Arc and Tarkov both present players with entirely different expectations. Arc’s ABMM is designed to give PvE players their own space, while aggressive players get their own as well. Tarkov only presents one experience, and that’s to expect any number of types of players in any match.

Players who go around actively trying to shoot others in the back in low aggression lobbies in Arc, are generally the ones who have to game the system to end up in those lobbies alongside non-aggressive players to begin with. Sure, it’s not impossible that a PvE player might want to up their aggression rating once in a while, or need to complete a challenge, etc., but it is certainly not the norm.

Your opinion misses multiple important points. There are plenty of players who don’t mind PvP, but also just want a more relaxed PvE experience. This camp includes both PvP and PvE players alike. It also ignores the fact that rats in low aggression lobbies have to go out of their way to game the ABMM system to end up in those lobbies in the first place, in order to take advantage of unsuspecting players.

5,000 hours in ASE PvP, with nearly 10k in both PvP and PvE.

Except that when you come in with a statement saying that your take is 100% the only correct take, you’ve already set yourself up for failure.

I’ll happily farm downvotes for this one.

If this was a low aggression lobby, then this was absolutely, unequivocally, a rat. ABMM groups players of similar playstyles together because the devs understand that they have different types of players who enjoy their game. Some may argue with how it works, but it’s that simple. The types of players who naturally get filtered into these lobbies are not the players who run around shooting other players in the back. This is someone actively gaming the ABMM system, to take advantage of unsuspecting players, because they’re not skilled enough to hold their own in a proper PvP lobby. If that’s not rat behavior, then nothing is.

This comment is brought to you by someone who has over 5,000 hours on Ark PvP servers, where you have exponentially more to lose, and substantially worse trolls and griefers.

They're entirely different tiers of weapons to begin with, so the comparison makes absolutely no sense. The Hullcracker was very clearly way too powerful as the standard launcher. Now we have the Rascal as the entry level launcher, and the Hullcracker is a clear upgrade. there's zero reason at all that they should be on a level playing field, except possibly once both are amplified, but even that's arguable.

Look at society, and just how entitled, and self centered, people are these days. Now realize that being in a mostly anonymous online space gives people the courage to express their inner selves with no, or very little, filter.

While I think it's a cool system, and could work in Arc Raiders, it's definitely not going to curb griefing and ratting. EVE Online has had this type of bounty system for literally decades, and it doesn't reduce the amount of PvP at all. Lots of players actually compete to get as high of bounties as they can.