Arc Raiders

[bigmike20vt]

Wouldn't this be open to false flags?

I think the game is fine as is, anyone not happy with it has as you point out purchased the wrong game.

false flags? why? it isnt us, the player who flag the enemy it is the game and the character who would report back on them. presumably it is not difficult for the game to record who fired 1st , obviously there would be a bit of flexibility a stray bullet would not ruin a character rep for an entire season, neither would a 1 off accidentally attacking the wrong player, but a continual pattern of play would be recorded..

This isnt me against PvP, however it is me trying to come up with suggestions which do not always put the primarily cooperative player on the back foot. if a person wants to role play as a murderhobo type of character then they should get the ingame rep to go with it. I get that as a species we are pretty rubbish and will sometimes take greed over the greater good.... however imo in a setting such as this i do think we would be primarily cooperative against a common foe, with dodgy psychos existing but in a minority.

Which doesnt preclude having clans in the game living in different areas which are against each other who would automatically be flagged as enemies.... but all of us in this underground base that we live in together, but then go out to scavenge before returning back, with utter anarchy at the surface knocking each other out and robbing each other with no consequence but then underground living together? that just feels all sorts of silly to me.

The game was advertised sa a PvPvE... i dont think that precludes any balancing to try to make betrayal not the "easy" way to play.

 

[Livewire88]

Not knowing if the person around the corner is either going to shoot you, or drop you a blue print is part of the thrill in this game for me. I play the same way. Sometimes I will shoot a player in the back, sometimes I will ask what they are looking for and help them find it. Walking into the unknown is what makes this game great. I hope the developers don't change a thing in regards to the PvPvE balance, this game is perfect as it is IMO.

So much better than playing mind numbing COD, when you basically know the pattern of the game will be kill, die, spawn and repeat.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

false flags? why? it isnt us, the player who flag the enemy it is the game and the character who would report back on them. presumably it is not difficult for the game to record who fired 1st , obviously there would be a bit of flexibility a stray bullet would not ruin a character rep for an entire season, neither would a 1 off accidentally attacking the wrong player, but a continual pattern of play would be recorded..

This isnt me against PvP, however it is me trying to come up with suggestions which do not always put the primarily cooperative player on the back foot. if a person wants to role play as a murderhobo type of character then they should get the ingame rep to go with it. I get that as a species we are pretty rubbish and will sometimes take greed over the greater good.... however imo in a setting such as this i do think we would be primarily cooperative against a common foe, with dodgy psychos existing but in a minority.

Which doesnt preclude having clans in the game living in different areas which are against each other who would automatically be flagged as enemies.... but all of us in this underground base that we live in together, but then go out to scavenge before returning back, with utter anarchy at the surface knocking each other out and robbing each other with no consequence but then underground living together? that just feels all sorts of silly to me.

The game was advertised sa a PvPvE... i dont think that precludes any balancing to try to make betrayal not the "easy" way to play.

Not to be disrespectful, but I think you've bought the wrong game mate.

People complaining about the humans not always being friendly, well, that's real life. I just worry that changing this in the game will change the game for the worse. By false flags I meant bad actors reporting legit players for whatever reason, but maybe I've misunderstood what you meant there.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

Not knowing if the person around the corner is either going to shoot you, or drop you a blue print is part of the thrill in this game for me. I play the same way. Sometimes I will shoot a player in the back, sometimes I will ask what they are looking for and help them find it. Walking into the unknown is what makes this game great. I hope the developers don't change a thing in regards to the PvPvE balance, this game is perfect as it is IMO.

So much better than playing mind numbing COD, when you basically know the pattern of the game will be kill, die, spawn and repeat.

Agree 100% with all of this.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

it isnt us, the player who flag the enemy it is the game and the character who would report back on them.

Right, now I get what you mean. Even then, given how much I see AI and computers in general get things wrong, I wouldn't trust such a system.

Game's fine as is.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Not to be disrespectful, but I think you've bought the wrong game mate.

People complaining about the humans not always being friendly, well, that's real life. I just worry that changing this in the game will change the game for the worse. By false flags I meant bad actors reporting legit players for whatever reason, but maybe I've misunderstood what you meant there.

Perhaps i didnt word it well... i am fine with players not being friendly.... however i just think that if players are not going to be friendly they should be gain a reputation in game.

i absolutely do NOT think actualy players should be able to report however because like you say that could be hugely open to abuse with groups of players deliberately mass reporting for lols. it should be the game which records stats and gives you rep accordingly imo.

if a player wants to role play being a bad guy then they should have the reputation to go with it imo.

edit just saw your 2nd reply sorry i wrote the above before i saw it

 

[Distracted]

Which leaves his argument a little moot as its pretty much defacto primarily PvP anyway.
Recent weeks have shown its become pretty much this as it stands regardless. Its incredibly rare where we dont get involved in some sort of confrontation. We go in expecting it and we leave expecting it.
I aint hating on the PvP aspect. I enjoy it in the squad setting. A raider flare pop is an incredibly satisfying thing!
Its just nice to have options. A PvE option even in a limited setting would certainly be welcome in my opinion. If only to dampen the impact of consecutive PvP encounters, it gets costly after a while.

You're confusing a "high chance" of combat with a "guarantee." The mindset is totally different.

The gap between "This guy might shoot me" and "This guy is definitely here to kill me" is exactly what makes the game work.

The uncertainty creates tension, and the ability to choose what to do (and the agency that gives us) makes every encounter meaningful. Even the bad ones.

Even if the split of hostile to friendly encounters is high right now, that uncertainty, whether to shoot, hide, run or trust the other player is core to the game.

If you feel like your only option in squads is PvP then ask embark to adjust the balance. Don't ask them to change the identity of the game.

Making shields tank raider dmg without altering how they deal with arc dmg would make PvP riskier and give friendlies a chance to respond to getting ganked, for instance. Not getting one-shot for being friendly would make losing out on that opening shot much less of a bitter pill to swallow.

Adding dye packs that explode on attackers, either when they loot your body or on your first successful return shot is also an option, although this is more open to abuse than the shield adjustment.

The point I'm making is that the game works because of the PvP, not in spite of it. The risk is what gives friendlies the thrill they need, while also catering to people that want to gank.

A PvE mode won't add anything that doesn't already exist. What it will do is remove players from the PvPvE pool and worsen the (as you said, already poor) balance there. It runs counter to what you are trying to achieve.

 

[Ravenger]

Maybe you could have a Looting augment that triggers an Arc lure or snitch scanner if your body is looted, to call down Arc on your body position, to make it more risky for PVPers. This would only trigger if you're downed by a player, and maybe would time out after a few minutes.

 

[bloodiedathame]

I did wonder if the devs had thought about implementing some sort of 'visual identifier' which suggests if a player has been doing lots of killing, based on, say, the last 5 rounds. If they just go out mainly to PvP and are ruthless, have killed loads, maybe they're covered in blood? That way, you could identify if someone is more likely to be a threat and either engage or avoid. A couple of kills across 5 games, maybe some light blood staining or something. They'd probably be too far away to see, but it'd be quite cool.

Personally, I treat everyone like a potential threat.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Practically I don't think reputation would work, even if you could track it with some accuracy which I think is going to be hard, and you avoid all the abuses, also hard. I think any kind of in game decision based on that would be useless anyway, a PvPer will just shoot first, while you're processing their icon or whatever HUD element you have that shows if they're friendly or not, you would have been shot.

My overall point of view on this hasn't really changed, I'd be completely fine with them adding a PvE mode despite being a mix of a PvP and PvE player, but the most important factor is that I don't think that would give people what they want. It would remove almost all struggle from the game, looting would be boring as sin with no real threat. You'd get bored PvEing the same enemies over and over. All the focus testing of the game early on showed the devs that what they had intended the game to be was actually not that fun.

The problem is fundamentally that people don't always know whats good for them, they want the easy path, but by opening that up they also destroy any risk and reward from the game, and thus any tension or excitement. I don't think the PvE crowd would ultimately be happy if you just gave them that, they'd play for like 1-2 more weeks and then get bored and go do something else. That's not patronizing, I think people in general don't always consider the upsides and downsides of whatever they claim to want, it's why there's always so many unintended consequences of decisions in real life. The game is bitter sweet, but people are demanding they just get the sweet, I don't think it works like that.

 

[steve45]

You're confusing a "high chance" of combat with a "guarantee." The mindset is totally different.

The gap between "This guy might shoot me" and "This guy is definitely here to kill me" is exactly what makes the game work.

The uncertainty creates tension, and the ability to choose what to do (and the agency that gives us) makes every encounter meaningful. Even the bad ones.

Even if the split of hostile to friendly encounters is high right now, that uncertainty, whether to shoot, hide, run or trust the other player is core to the game.

If you feel like your only option in squads is PvP then ask embark to adjust the balance. Don't ask them to change the identity of the game.

Making shields tank raider dmg without altering how they deal with arc dmg would make PvP riskier and give friendlies a chance to respond to getting ganked, for instance. Not getting one-shot for being friendly would make losing out on that opening shot much less of a bitter pill to swallow.

Adding dye packs that explode on attackers, either when they loot your body or on your first successful return shot is also an option, although this is more open to abuse than the shield adjustment.

The point I'm making is that the game works because of the PvP, not in spite of it. The risk is what gives friendlies the thrill they need, while also catering to people that want to gank.

A PvE mode won't add anything that doesn't already exist. What it will do is remove players from the PvPvE pool and worsen the (as you said, already poor) balance there. It runs counter to what you are trying to achieve.

I'm not confusing anything. I also dont have a problem with the PvP element especially in squads. We rarely initiate, however if a squad wants the good news we are happy to send it. Not every encounter, but the overwhelming majority of rounds we play result in PvP.
I'm not asking for a fundamental change to the core identity of the game. They already have multiple different in game events that differ from the main game loop, nothing wrong with another safer time limited loot scaled option and its something I'd be open to. It wouldnt in my opinion knock the balance out much at all as its not something that would be available all the time. It would indeed add something, a safer place for some low level resource farming. It would probably be pretty boring as well.
Either way I'm not "asking" for it at all, I'm just discussing on a discussion thread about the game on how such a PvE mode could be implemented.

 

[Buddy]

Last night I played a game on the dam. There was a forest fire (first time I've seen it) and it was incredibly atmospheric with smoke and wind. Foreboding , I wonder what they are about to announce on top of the snow effects.....

 

[xaldub]

A PvE mode won't add anything that doesn't already exist. What it will do is remove players from the PvPvE pool and worsen the (as you said, already poor) balance there. It runs counter to what you are trying to achieve.

Players who are clamouring for a PvE mode will remove themselves from the game in due course anyway. The existing pool of players is not going to stay as it is ; it's already shrinking.

 

[Gazanimal]

Last night I played a game on the dam. There was a forest fire (first time I've seen it) and it was incredibly atmospheric with smoke and wind. Foreboding , I wonder what they are about to announce on top of the snow effects.....

That's been in since launch. Very atmospheric for sure, especially as the sounds disturb your natural ability to hear Arc or other Raiders.

 

[Thekwango]

Players who are clamouring for a PvE mode will remove themselves from the game in due course anyway. The existing pool of players is not going to stay as it is ; it's already shrinking.

And the ‘wipe’ will see more players drop out. I imagine there’ll be those that voluntarily wipe hoping the get that ‘new’ feeling again only to play a couple of hours and realise it’s just rinse and repeat and don’t bother again. That’s just the nature of extraction looter/shooters.

 

[BS Dave]

And the ‘wipe’ will see more players drop out. I imagine there’ll be those that voluntarily wipe hoping the get that ‘new’ feeling again only to play a couple of hours and realise it’s just rinse and repeat and don’t bother again. That’s just the nature of extraction looter/shooters.

I think arc breaks the mould a bit, so to an extent all bets are off. The devs will want to keep player numbers high, so who knows what they decide on.

 

[bigmike20vt]

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. yes all the above is possible but if the Devs keep adding more content , a new arc mech here, a new area there, along with keep adding in different missions or even different seasons or environmental effects.

yes people will move on ..... and the initial storm of numbers probably will settle down but if new people keep coming in it's not so bad.

and if people get 100 hrs out of it then get bored it's not such bad value imo.
Helldivers 2 I think is a good example. people come and go but since launch there has been a steady flow of new content to keep people coming back.

 

[xaldub]

I think arc breaks the mould a bit, so to an extent all bets are off. The devs will want to keep player numbers high, so who knows what they decide on.

That's the thing. I don't think it breaks the mould at all. In my mind it's a case of bait & switch with a heavy dollop of FOMO / FotM thrown in. The PvE component has been grossly overstated.

 

[Tombstone]

And the ‘wipe’ will see more players drop out. I imagine there’ll be those that voluntarily wipe hoping the get that ‘new’ feeling again only to play a couple of hours and realise it’s just rinse and repeat and don’t bother again. That’s just the nature of extraction looter/shooters.

I'd go further and say its the nature of most games, take Helldivers 2 for example, a highly rated game, yet it lost 90% of its userbase in the first few months (despite being PvE) because people get bored and something else shiny comes along. I actually find that PvP games often have a longer lifespan than outright PvE games purely because of the unpredictability of human opponents compared to AI opponents (who quickly become no challenge once you suss them out and thus get boring). As with many games, fresh content is king , just look at that dross Fortnite (another game that started out as a purely PvE game and switched to PvP), they keep piling new content in and it keeps the numbers up. If Arc keeps banging in new content it will keep being the no.1 game in the genre

 

[BS Dave]

That's the thing. I don't think it breaks the mould at all. In my mind it's a case of bait & switch with a heavy dollop of FOMO / FotM thrown in. The PvE component has been grossly overstated.

We'll i'm no expert, I've looked at extraction games before and decided against them, so it could just be clever marketing...but it's made me think this is a bit different.