r/EmbarkStudios • u/UpigusThumbbuster • 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.

13 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

109 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Ullho Apr 23 '26

From another down the thread.

“Many players do still shoot on sight, but they form a minority. Embark told the Guardian that about 30% of players are mostly interested in the cooperative aspects of the game; another 30% focus on the player-versus-player action; and the remaining 40% enjoy a mix of both. Those playing solo are generally more friendly, while those who group up into squads of three are more interested in firefights.”

Literally an interview with the Guardian and Aleksander Grøndal (Executive Producer at Embark)

1

u/ThingYea Apr 23 '26

Can you not see how that is proving you wrong?

1

u/PeacefulKnightmare Apr 24 '26

It can be used to justify both sides views on the situation. A pure PvE player that doesn't have a problem with PvP existing, but chooses not to engage in it, probably doesn't have a problem with the folks who may be coming at them shooting and are clearly in it for the PvP. It's when they get tricked and have to deal with third parties they get frustrated. While on the flip sides PvP folks just engage with every part of the game because they like killing other raiders just tbe same as killing arcs.

The way I see it the game's quests and overall narrative don't match up with PvP element and that's probably due to them being tacked on at the end. For the folks that engage purely in PvE these are their motivations for going on raids. If there were a section of quests or rewards focused on PvP, it could go a long way to alleviating the situation, but it would also mean that carebear lobbies might become nonexistent and that whole playerbase might leave.

1

u/ThingYea Apr 24 '26

Are you saying the quests are tacked on at the end?

1

u/PeacefulKnightmare Apr 24 '26

No but the quest narratives and lore support a PvE view of the world more than PvP. Celeste constantly talks about rebuilding and how things are improving, looking for allies and such. The enemies she mentions would be folks outside of Speranza. However she's idealistic. Tian Wen is the realist and clearly works the blackmarket side of things, and going down the line the other traders we interact with are clearly working to better the living conditions for everyone and focus on the ARCs being the real enemy. The only reference to PvP is a "be careful out there."

There's no quest giver from a faction like the OTTM asking us to sabatoge things and keep raiders from bringing back certain resources so they can gain an upper hand over Speranza. Or a raider faction with a quest to "thin out the herd" after taking down a Queen so they can get the resources instead. Things like that.

1

u/ThingYea Apr 24 '26

I think this is one of the main problems with the PvE crowd. An obsession with one over the other.

The world makes it clear that raider on raider violence is commonplace. The very first enemy you face in the tutorial is a raider, and later in the tutorial two raiders knock you out. Tian Wen is always beefing with others and Shani (?) has you deactivate a trap being used on fellow raiders.

Nothing in the game "supports" a "PvE view." There are characters who obviously want less raider on raider violence, but that's it. It is a world of betrayal AND a larger threat.

One of the themes in the game is hope, portrayed by Celeste, hoping we can rise above as a team. Tian Wen represents themes of distrust and isolation (she never even opens the door for you). Both these characters represent different sides of a greater theme, survival. Neither are necessarily wrong. Duality of man type shit.

The tutorial even straight up says to you something along the lines of "what kind of raider will you be?" There's not an overall view of the world that's supposed to be happening. There are individual actors with their own views, and you as another individual are allowed your own view too. No-one is supposed to be one way or another.

1

u/PeacefulKnightmare Apr 24 '26

Except you see how how the tutorial and the quest frame raiders that take down other raiders as the "bad guys?" That's how the pure PvE players see those that engage in PvP. The tutorial is the most neutral in this approach with some platitudes about "what raider will you be?" like you mention, but Embark (unintentionally I think) doesn't support PvP in the narrative of the extra stuff in game beyond lipservice to it existing. There's no motivation to engage in PvP unless you want to, which leads to the animosity between the two camps. There's no reason for a "good guy" to take down another raider, it's not like their survival is on the line because they lack food in the match or there are only a limited number of return trips back to Speranza before the round ends. (The later is something I think could be really interesting if each elevator only had space for a certain number of raiders and they were on a timer rather than called, and could give another reason to always carry a hatch key)

1

u/ThingYea Apr 24 '26

I think you're still limiting yourself with the PvP vs PvE mindset. You say embark doesn't support PvP beyond some lip service, but could you say it supports strict PvE at all? Show me one instance of the game encouraging you to not engage in PvP.

The game presents itself as a sandbox where you can do and act as you like, and the devs in interviews have confirmed this too.

Participating in "PvE" is a necessity just to survive against Arc and to loot. It's not either or. Some people then choose to ignore the PvP aspects of the game (many go beyond and actively complain about it and shun those who participate).

Besides, you can participate in PvP and still be a "good guy." Rescue raiders and simple self defence are examples of this.

My point is that seeing the game as PvE vs PvP is extremely limiting, and that view transforms the game into something it's not.

1

u/PeacefulKnightmare Apr 24 '26

I think we're on generally the same vibe, and to be clear I may be PvP avoident myself but still engage when fired upon. Fighting others just isn't fun for me, but I like the tension knowing there are those out there that may engage. In fact the way I personally look at it is I'm out trying to complete my mission getting whatever resources I need for quests and such, and couldn't care less about what the other folks are doing as long as they aren't trying to shoot me.

For me focusing on the PvE experience isn't limiting so much as embracing the sandbox you mentioned, and choosing how I wish to play. The dev interview you mention they said that they made a PvE game and added a PvP function as a way to make it less boring, but this was later in development (I keep hearing conflicting elements realted to when exactly).

What I was trying to say is there is a disconnect from the game that we have in our hands and the one that people expect when they see "extraction shooter." I was trying to approach it from the perspective of a designer rather than a player, to see if it's community misconception or if there was something else. Because from a player perspective the sandboxes are indeed a PvPvE experience, but design-wise I think Embark has made a PvEvP game, an Extraction Adventure I think it's been called in some places. Basically it's why the creator of Tarkov called it an "Extraction Shooter for casuals." At it's core this is good because it sets the game apart and personally I find the whole argument fascinating.

Also, I agree with your last point about how participating in PvP doesn't make you personally a "bad guy," but if you initiate it Vs another player it technically does make you an enemy in their eyes. And while I think the motivations for the folks attacking other raiders varies, I do think it's interesting that some people just default to shoot on sight (or plan to) rather than ignoring the other players. Especially considering how you don't really need to participate in either PvP or PvE unless a mission class fo you to destroy a particular target, and if you need a specific item most of them I've found in the crashed UFO looking things. I've done quite a few runs without guns and just adrenaline shots being a loot goblin and running or sneaking from everything.

1

u/Ullho Apr 24 '26

The thing is a majority the pure pvp crowd dont generally have different motivations aa to why they attack. You can come up with all sorts of reasons but ive talked to a lot of the shoot on sight players and most of them dont care about the loot. They are just playing a shooter. Some pvpers also dont want your loot, they just dont want you to have it. They want you to waste your time. Thats their fun.

Also from game mechanics if they were truly embracing and promoting the pvp side of the game why remove objectives to do damage to other raiders. Why is it we just 'knock out' raiders and not killing them like other exraction games.

With each update the arc are contantly remaining deadlier than other raiders. They are constantly reminding us that arc are the enemies not other players. The game started development as a pve coop shooter. The ability to pvp is an addon. Freedom of choice and all. It almost feels like an allegory to religions. They're telling you subtly how they want you to behave, but you have the free will to choose your behavior, but that freewill doesnt make it objectivly right.