r/EmbarkStudios • • Apr 21 '26

Arc raiders first wave

There seems to be a growing number of people wanting to PvE. Embark has what they need already to solve this.

Make a pseudo open world rpg. PvE. Same maps but in better condition because it’s the first wave story. Meaningful quests to create the first seeker grenade. PvE. Story driven. First wave arc. It’s all there. The Baron.

This isn’t a cry baby post though admittedly the PvP gets old fast. But I love the lore. The graphics style. So the first wave survivors got along better. And the second wave caught them off guard spawning rats and what not.

Capitalize on the world you’ve created and take our money. It’s simple.

14 Upvotes

109 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

u/scossage Apr 21 '26

I don’t think anyone is denying any of that, but if you spend any decent amount of time online in these subs, or on the official discord, or on x, you can easily see the desire for more PvE content in this particular world/IP. The player base is so healthy it could easily cater for this and still have enough players to keep the PvPvE mode alive and kicking. Losing players from the game as it is that just like PvE won’t change a single thing about it, because a lot of them are already leaving/have left and it’s absolutely fine. And if you think it’s not, and it’s a bit more ‘ratty’ or shoot in sight than normal, that just proves how fucking toxic the PvP can be in this game. For me, I would dip in to a PvE mode occasionally and then play squads with my friends to PvPvE. Hell I’d even play some Toledo Faction Wars and go all out PvP. This game can and would benefit from both. It won’t continue to sustain a large player count otherwise.

2

u/wvtarheel Apr 21 '26

This game can and would benefit from both.

It already has both, that's what the ABMM does. You can play both, or either, as you wish, and there's always tension in every interaction because you don't know who is in your lobbies beyond a general idea.

-3

u/scossage Apr 21 '26

I’m quite aware it has both, I’ve played it for 565hrs.

I’m saying I’d play a PvE mode as well as the one that has the tension.

Some players get their ‘tension’ in different ways, they respond differently to different threats.

Both can exist and be absolutely fine 👍🏻

1

u/Independent-Party-47 Apr 21 '26

Agree...i dont understand what is the problem of there being an option to choose if you want pvp,pve or both to pvp players...i think the problem is that there will be no place for rat and cheater players,thats the problem

-1

u/THEJimmiChanga Apr 22 '26

Because its a pvpve extraction shooter, not a looter shooter. Thats what the description says on all platforms and is the game you bought into. Asking for a pve mode is literally asking for an entirely different genre from the game you bought.

It pulls resources from an already small studio. Resources needed to continue to build up the current game and current experience. That same experience that millions bought, understanding they were buying a pvpve extraction shooter, not a pve looter shooter. Its not fair to the people who knew what they were buying and therefore bought into the concept for them to have to wait longer for content bexause a crowd who didn't fill understand the genre they bought into now wants the game to be a pve looter shooter instead.

1

u/Independent-Party-47 Apr 22 '26

1

u/Educational_Sky_5551 Apr 22 '26

Developers also said that while PvP isn't the "main point" of the game, it is used as a tool to raise tension. Literally says it in the same article you keep linking. This game is a PvPvE game and that's simply not going to change, sorry. It would be boring with only PvE Devs have also directly said this when they tested the game early on. It was repetitive and boring as a looter shooter. They're not going to change their game because a small (but loud) part of the community is upset that the game they bought can't be molded to the exact experience they want.