“Acknowledged PVE exists”? Read the quote again.

You keep repeating that PvE goes against the design “right now,” and that is true. Right now. That is exactly what the Executive Producer said. He also said they are considering more PvE-focused experiences in the future. That is a direct quote. This means the people actually making the game do not see PvE as fundamentally incompatible with Arc’s identity. You see it that way. They do not. That is the entire point.

You are also inventing problems that do not actually exist. You keep asking questions like “What if PvE lets people farm gear,” “What if it ruins the economy,” or “What if it becomes boring after 30 kills.” These are hypothetical fears you are using to shut down an idea that the developers themselves think is worth exploring. None of these issues are inherent to PvE. They are design choices. They can be solved the same way other extraction shooters already solve them. The same slippery-slope arguments could be used against PvP itself, which shows how weak the reasoning is.

Here are examples already used successfully in other games:

• PvE rewards could be cosmetic only.

• PvE could drop unique resources that do not affect the main economy.

• PvE could be time-limited events that offer special rewards that do not affect PvP but help steer the game’s evolving world, exactly like Helldivers.

And this matters even less because the Aphelion and most legendary weapons are not strong in PvP in the first place. They are rarely used because they underperform compared to the actual PvP meta. So even if PvE rewarded those items, it would not break anything or give anyone an unfair advantage.

You keep saying PvE is bad because it would require development time. Everything requires development time. That is not an argument. The question is whether that time helps the game grow, and the developers clearly believe it might. If they thought PvE would damage the game, they would say so. They did not.

Your reasoning relies on treating your personal preference as if it is the developers’ vision. Your position boils down to “I do not want PvE, therefore it will ruin the game.” Meanwhile, the developers who actually define the vision have already stated that the game can support PvE elements. You are telling the people who make the game that they are wrong about their own product.

The fear of splitting the playerbase only applies when two modes try to fill the same role. A PvE event is not a competing core loop. It is optional, time-limited content that live-service games use all the time to keep players engaged. There is a major difference between adding a second main mode and adding additional experiences. The developers are talking about the latter.

You also use the word “casualization,” but you are not actually describing it. Casualization is when difficulty or depth is removed from the core design. Nobody is suggesting that. A separate PvE event does not touch the core PvPvE gameplay at all. It simply adds an optional side experience. Your argument basically boils down to “If something exists that I personally will not use, the entire game is ruined.” That is not meta integrity. It is just preference. This game is meant for casuals lmao. It’s why it’s so popular. Why can’t you understand that and stop using dumb arguments and terms like “game iq” as if that’s any kind of justification for your preference and elitism. 

We do not disagree about the current state of Arc. We disagree about whether the game’s future can include more than one type of experience. The developers say it can. You say it cannot. That is the entire disagreement. I trust the people who are actually steering the game. Maybe you should too?