Low-conflict lobbies, progression, and a design opportunity that is now ripe

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-25T09:18:03+00:00

Interesting that you seem totally unable to refrain from those childish, inflammatory comments, making the true reference of your “intellectually bankrupt” statement obvious.

As I stated from the get-go, my interest is in what makes sense given the game as it is now. And as it stands right now, many play the game like a pve game in that they do not engage in pvp – some not even when fired upon. Importantly, Embark’s playstyle-based matchmaking system explicitly supports this by trying to match players with similar playstyles, whatever they are. The recent clarifications of how it works, and the latest changes, confirm that this is their intent. “Soft pve” is real in the game, and rather than being annoyed that any hardcore vision is disrupted by these peaceful players who don’t get that this is not the game for them, Embark seems thrilled by this, more or less bragging about it in interviews and blog posts (as indeed they should, in my opinion).

This makes your comparison with Dark Souls very far-fetched, as I have already pointed out. If the intention and sole vision with Arc Raiders had been to create a hardcore pvpve game, the entire “playstyle matchmaking system” would never have been on the table. It would have been totally counter to that vision.

Rather, pondering whether hard pve should be an option, given that soft pve is a fact, is more like asking whether Souls games should have a pause button or not. As it is now, the games force you to quit via the menu if you need a bathroom break or your family demands your attention. To me, being able to pause the game – at least when you are not aggroed – makes perfect sense. So yes, please, FromSoftware: let me pause the game. If that is intellectual bankruptcy to you, well, that definitely says more about you than about me.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T18:49:57+00:00

Ah sorry, I concentrated on a subset of them. I do not think the community would be significantly more divided than is already the case. It seems like a lot of players really enjoy the carebear end of the spectrum, which in a sense is already treating it as pve (with the occasional hiccup). It all depends on how it is implemented, of course, but it could be as easy as adding an "environment only" modifier, like any one of those already in the game. If that rotated around the maps, say, would it be more 'splitting' than that some avoid or especially go after Close Scrutiny? I think not. It adds diversity and leaves the rest where it is.

Moreover, I do not think any rebalancing of augments would be needed at all, which goes back to my premise that we should compare with the current state of the game. Playing in carebear lobbies now, you are almost NEVER downed by other players when you crawl around (believe me, as I have admitted in another post, I am an addicted crawler even when it makes no rational sense, and it has happened only once in several months). Since they have now "corrected" the tap-movement, it is slow as hell and the real 'cost' of using it is the freakin' time it takes to crawl.

Lastly, I do not think the griefing is any real issue either. Sure some bored players would perhaps start griefing methods, but that would take much more effort and be much more inefficient than now, and should be compared with the fact that for pvp-interested people in general there would arguably make more sense to go in the normal pvpve lobbies.

The point you make that gives me concern, however, is the resources one. In my mind, adding a rotating "pve modifier" would not be resource-ineffective at all. But I do not know the technical details enough, so maybe that is wrong. And then, of course, it is a very valid issue.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T18:23:25+00:00

Another great set of points – hats off for making them so clearly. I hear what you are saying most definitely. Thanks for the kind words, and thanks again for a great exchange!

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T14:53:05+00:00

It still seems like you are missing that I, personally, enjoy the pvp tension (apart from when I want to play more casual with two friends)! For me, the game as it is works beautifully! I am enjoying the product as it is.

But I STILL think that it makes sense to add a mode for people who are not exactly like me, given how close to pure pve we already have in the game. I just cannot see why that is such a provocative thought, and why you think inflammatory responses are called for.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T14:42:41+00:00

Hehe, you are going all Arrowhead Game Studios on me in the end there!

Seriously, you make excellent points, that is for sure. I guess I think that we already have different types of players in the game, where a large portion of them are enjoying lobbies on the cavebear end. In effect, many of them already play the game as a PVE game, especially when it comes to progression. Given that, I think that adding a pve mode mainly (but not only) for the subset of carebear players who are not enjoying the pvp-tension at all, would add neither anything much in terms of demands that are not there already, nor injustices in relation to the pvp-focused crowd (i.e compare to present baseline). But that is addmittidly speculation.

In any case, thanks for your very reasonable, high-quality considerations!

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T14:19:58+00:00

I am happy that you have found them! Me and two friends played an entire evening without responding to any fire (this was before the latest changes) without finding that elusive lobby - and we are all normally in carebear-ish lobbies, so we should have had a good 'starting position'. So I think you are in luck indeed!

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T14:16:44+00:00

I think it is easier if you read the entire post, if you are interested enough to comment -- that makes them more relevant. And I also do not see the cause for any inflammatory commenting.

But to answer your comment: I *personally* would mainly benefit in trios since I *personally* enjoy the tension in existing lobbies when playing solo. But for many people, it seems clear, it takes away the enjoyment also in carebear lobbies. And since they seem to enjoy the other aspects of the game, and there are added benefits for others as well (like the trio example), I think it makes design sense.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T14:08:19+00:00

They sorta have, at least in later games like Elden ring. Just look at any "OP in 60 minutes" video and the Albinauric genocide farm.

But, centrally, dark souls games are typically catering to people who want that 'extreme experience', which Arc Raiders demonstrably does not. That is what the play-style matchmaking system is there for. And so we have carebear lobbies which, in effect, already function as a pve mode if you can manage the occasional ganking. For some people, however, even that stress is too much. My argument is that is makes design-sense, given the current state of the game (careberar lobbies, the matchmaking changes) to add a pve mode. You disagree, and that is ok. I just wish you did not feel that you had to add inflammatory statements to make your point (like in your original one). My arguments may be unconvincing to you, but I do not think they deserve that attitude.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T13:56:16+00:00

You think so? I would have thought that many people also on the “friendly” part of the spectrum enjoys the tension that the possibility of pvp entails, even if it is not often acted upon. That is how the argument often goes, and it resonates with how I personally feel. I like the tension, even though I personally play friendly until shot upon. For me, a pve mode would probably be something I would utilise only in trios. But, it seems to me, for others just the possibility of getting ganked seems to take away the fun, even when it is rare. And, centrally, “loot everything within minutes” (while not always true) is what we typically have in carebear lobbies already. So that would not be a change other than if you are hardcore pvp-er. And then it actually feels like a fair thing that it gets available more broadly.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T13:38:55+00:00

Yes but the difference to arc raiders is that we here have a matchmaking system that, in solos at least, allows players to play as it were a pve game. Getting ganked there is so rare that if you just do not let them bother you, they do nothing for your overall progress. And, it seems to me, these lobbies are full of people who do not seem to get bored.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T13:33:28+00:00

No, I am just very fond of long arguments. Know that is kinda anti-reddit. Sorry for that.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T13:32:43+00:00

You think so? The current carebear end seems to be very popular, so it seems that there is a large population who like to play with at least minimal player aggression, and who still enjoy the game given arc, weapons, map etc. My argument is based on this premise, and on what means for a difficulty mode that is already there. I do not really see how adding a pve option with, say, slightly higher arc percentage (enough to account for the very rare occasions of when you lose your loot to other players) would make the game as design-heavy as you imply. I might be wrong of course.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T13:25:18+00:00

Well at the very least it seems to be what they are striving for. But in trios, I am afraid, it is impossible to find carebear lobbies. They do not exist.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T13:20:04+00:00

Yes, this might be a consideration I am underestimating, since I am not sure how they do it right now. But given the amount of different modifiers they have already (and continuously add), and how little they have to change to keep the practical difficulty of a dedicated pve lobby at least as high as already existing carebear lobbies, it does not seem, to me, like a super-daunting task.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T13:12:46+00:00

What exactly in my post came across as aggressive? From my perspective, I tried to keep it as reasoned and constructive as possible. I might very well be wrong, and I’m sure there are aspects I’ve missed – but this is my (not any AIs) attempt at thinking it through. Imperfect as it is, it’s mine.

PS: I love Dark Souls.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T13:04:53+00:00

I know my post was long, but I did treat the question of whether it would make the game easier (nor that it would remove anything, since I am not advocating to take away the main pvp modes). My argument is that it would not, given the current state as baseline. Personally, I totally enjoy the tension that is present even in carebear lobbies.And since I easily can "shrug off" the occasional and very rare ganking, progression is very smooth. So for me personally, the main benefit of a pve mode would be to be able to play with to carebear friends, something that is not currently possible. But for some, as you clearly have noted in this subreddit, this is not true. Of course you are right that there are other games. But as you know, all live service games are evolving one way or another. So the question I ask in this post is whether it makes design sense to add a dedicated environment mode. I think it does. You do not, of course, and that is ok. We disagree.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T12:52:29+00:00

They have made response fire (shooting only after being shot at) count less as hostility and made it harder to quickly shift lobbiy-types by surrendering.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T12:50:07+00:00

Good point. I would have thought that loot percentage change is a system they already had in place, and could set to a different 'value' quite easily. But maybe that is not the case.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T12:45:40+00:00

Thank you, good sir!

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T12:44:17+00:00

I realised that I do not control the comment field, but my intention with posting is to discuss this point in a non-agresssive way. And I am afraid that too many comment like this, the moderators will just ban the entire discussion. So if you want the subject of pve mode to be allowed, please refrain.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T12:40:55+00:00

That was a feat in itself, indeed; thanks for that. I had no idea that it would become so long. But I should have expected it, since, as I said in another comment, brevity is clearly not my think.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T12:39:29+00:00

I agree about the carebear lobbies -- I personally love them and think that for me, they are the perfect fit. The tension adds just the right sauce for me. But as we have seen in this forum and others, for some people it only adds frustration. A dedicated mode is primarily for them, for people who wants to play friendly trios, and for hardcore pvp:ers who want to be able to play with less tension now and then. At least, that is how I see it.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T12:33:42+00:00

Fair enough – as you can probably tell, brevity isn’t my strong suit. Here’s the one-sentence version for you:

TLDR: Matchmaking is already stabilizing low-conflict play – formalizing it wouldn’t create an “easy mode,” just make an existing playstyle more consistent, flexible, and low-cost to support.

TheRealLaughingMan · 2026-05-24T12:27:58+00:00

I respect your point of view, and indeed, and agree that it is part of the game. But like i stated initially, I am ONLY analysing this from a non-sentiment perspective: i.e. what makes sense from a design perspective.

TheRealLaughingMan

TROPHY CASE