The Cohhilition

I've read hundreds of discussions on Reddit, Steam, Discord, as well as watched dozens of streamers and content creators analyzing the game with their communities.
The picture is clear: there is enormous confusion about what ARC Raiders truly is and what it should become.
For this reason, it's important to establish some fundamental points.


Premise for PvP players

ARC Raiders MUST NOT become yet another competitive PvP FPS.

The market is already saturated with pure PvP-focused titles:
- Call of Duty
- Battlefield
- Apex Legends
- Valorant
- Fortnite
- Escape from Tarkov
- The Finals (from the same Embark team)

These are games that live on TTK, recoil patterns, movement tech, and competitive gunplay - and they already dominate the scene.
Creating another clone would be useless, and above all, it is not in the foundations of ARC Raiders.

A pure PvP game inevitably brings:
- ultra-rigid meta
- exaggerated skill-gap
- loss of atmosphere
- obsession with the "perfect time to kill"
- predictable gameplay (everyone seeks fights, always)

ARC Raiders was not made for this.

It's like expecting Hunt: Showdown to become Call of Duty - it would destroy its essence.


Premise for PvE players

ARC Raiders is NOT a pure PvE game, nor should it become one.

A pure, story-driven PvE experience belongs to games like:
- Warframe (although it is instanced)
- Destiny 2 (from the start designed as a looter-shooter with builds)
- Monster Hunter
- Helldivers 2 (which is also not open-world and lacks PvP)
- Pure PvE works when:
- the world is instanced or session-based
- matchmaking is calibrated around the group
- enemy levels are scaled
- mechanics are designed solely for player → AI interaction

ARC Raiders, instead, is designed as a persistent open-world multiplayer, where squads meet, compete, collaborate, and clash while facing a common external threat.

Pure PvE does not work in a shared world.
And in PvPvE, the ARCs must be strong enough to force players to make intelligent decisions.
Not walkable immobile targets.


Fundamental premise for EVERYONE: ARC Raiders is PvPvE

A real PvPvE game has an identity-defining feature:
> AI enemies are a more threatening force than the players themselves.

Perfect examples:
- Hunt: Showdown: Grunts mean nothing... until they slow you down and make noise, revealing your position.
- Escape from Tarkov: Scavs are barely dangerous... until you face a Raider or a Boss with aim-bot and monster HP.
- The Cycle: Frontier: another case where PvPvE failed because devs nerfed mobs too much and catered too much to PvP players → result: dead game.
- Dark and Darker: mobs are a real threat, sometimes more lethal than players.

The concept behind PvPvE is simple: AI must influence, punish, interfere, surprise, and dissuade.
If it doesn't, it all turns into a boring deathmatch on a massive map.

ARC Raiders in its original intent is exactly based on this principle: ARCs dominate the world, not players.

If they become weak, passive, or predictable...
- the "PvE" aspect dies
- only PvP remains
- and the game becomes something that already exists, done better elsewhere


We are all instinctively resistant to change - and that's normal. But ARC Raiders needs exactly that: open-mindedness.

Another crucial point is the natural resistance to change that many players (and we ourselves) have when approaching new mechanics or an unfamiliar game structure.

Humans have always tended to cling to routine. It's a psychological protective mechanism: what we know seems simpler, safer, and "right."
Just look at what happens every time a social platform or game changes something:
- when Facebook or SoundCloud changed their interfaces, everyone complained; one month later, the same users said "actually, the organization is better."
- in Clash Royale, when Supercell buffed Witch and Executioner on community request, there was an uproar... and then the community itself asked for a revert.
- in Destiny 2, entire communities opposed the introduction of systems like mod 2.0 or Sunsetting weapons, only to later recognize that some changes were necessary for the game's evolution.
- in Warframe, every major rework - from Melee 3.0 to Railjack - was initially met with panic, only to become a fundamental part of the game's identity.

This illustrates one simple truth: the first reaction to something new is almost never the most rational.

And this is exactly where ARC Raiders comes in.

ARC Raiders offers a hybrid, fresh, and different experience, a PvPvE that cannot be understood if viewed only through the lens of "classic PvP" or "classic PvE."
It requires a minimum of openness, a willingness to step out of a routine that other titles have imposed for years.

If we want the game to grow, we must be willing to embrace new things that - yes - may seem frightening or unbalanced at first, but can create a unique and lasting identity in the long run.
And just as in many other games, what today seems "weird" or "different" can tomorrow become what makes ARC Raiders special.

In short: the true strength of the community is not defending the past, but having the courage to support the future.


THE PROBLEM: a noisy community and overly accommodating devs

There is a phenomenon taking over:
- instinctive complaints
- requests based on bias ("too hard," "too strong," "I don't want to die like this")
- desire to transform the game into something else
- devs reacting too quickly instead of observing long-term data

This mix is exactly what killed The Cycle: Frontier.
And it risks doing the same here.

People forget that a videogame does not have to adapt to every emotional request of individual players.
Otherwise, we enter a cycle of:
nerf → complaint → more nerf → flattening → abandonment


The parallel with Supercell (Clash Royale, 2019)

The Supercell case is didactic and perfect to cite.
- The community requested extreme buffs to two cards.
- Supercell obliged.
- The meta exploded into total chaos.
- The same community complained.
- Supercell publicly apologized and did a full revert.
- They wrote in black and white that following the community too closely leads to disaster.

The same is happening here, except instead of buffs, we have a flurry of nerfs made on direct request of the loudest voices.

And it is extremely dangerous.


The "Security Locker" problem is a symptom, not the disease

A skill that costs 37 points must be strong.

If after a brutal nerf it's still the best choice, it means only one thing:
> the other skills are not competitive.

Balancing is not about nullifying what works, but bringing alternatives to the same value level.

Reducing the reward from purple to gray weapons is not balancing: it's a death blow to the build system.

An end-tree skill must provide rewards proportional to its cost.


The problem isn't strong skills: it's weak skills

Currently:
- many abilities are insignificant
- other branches feel like placebo (+1 space, -1 encumbrance, +2% something)
- there are no meaningful trade-offs
- no truly recognizable builds
- everyone converges on the same skill "because everything else is useless"

This annihilates specialization, diversity, and personal style.


Better few strong skills than many irrelevant ones

Examples of games that work precisely because skills are strong and have real trade-offs:
- Hunt: Showdown: abilities with huge impact (faster ADS, silent killer, fanning, etc.)
- Dark and Darker: each class has abilities that radically change gameplay
- Borderlands: each skill tree leads to a unique playstyle

ARC Raiders should not fear skills that change gameplay.
It should fear the opposite: irrelevant skills.


Blueprints: a huge ignored problem

The current blueprint drop rate is so low it creates:
- disincentive to participate in wipes
- frustration in completing loadouts
- gray markets and illegal trades (inevitable when scarcity is excessive)

When progression is too slow or arbitrary, players circumvent the system.
It has already happened in:
- Escape from Tarkov (RMT)
- The Division (illegal markets)
- Warframe (external rare mod sales)

If we don't intervene now, the same will happen in ARC.


Empty red zones = broken gameplay

Another huge issue is the lack of content in red zones on certain maps.
This inevitably leads to:
- glitches
- exploits
- player funneling in the same spot
- gameplay stagnation
- reduced variety of matches

A red zone CANNOT afford to be empty.
It's supposed to embody tension, risk, reward, and constant pressure.


CONCLUSION: ARC Raiders must regain its identity

A PvPvE game lives and dies based on three pillars:
- AI must be dangerous
- Skills must create diversity and specialization
- Choices must be difficult, not obvious

If everything is nerfed, everything is flattened, and the PvPvE structure is ignored:
- the game loses identity
- it loses uniqueness
- it becomes just another generic FPS
- the player base melts away in a few months

Devs must do what few have the courage to do today: lead the community, don't chase it.

Steam discussion: