Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Embark Derangment Sydrome (top guy)
Weird 11k average Steam CCU is dead guy (bottom)
You love to see it. Embark will likely be responsible for the two best games of the generation. That's some Nintendo type sh**.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
ARC RAIDERS New Beta Gameplay Demo
- Thread starter HeisenbergFX4
- Start date
Weird 11k average Steam CCU is dead guy (bottom)
You love to see it. Embark will likely be responsible for the two best games of the generation. That's some Nintendo type sh**.
mayham2199
Member
lol dude you've lost your mind over this.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Embark is the From Software for chads.
Last edited:
Solarstrike
Member
Heading to the surface 
is it safe?
is it safe?
ultrazilla
Gold Member
I don't play Tarkov but cool, glad it works for you.
Adding a toggle for both 2D/3D options for vendor/home would seem like a logical middle ground for those who want to have a quick turn around(you) or those of us who want to be immersed in the world(me).
realcool
Member
So, if the doorway is not a fatal funnel in first-person, and you've already admitted that the doorway is not a fatal funnel in third-person, either, then why specifically does third-person make this combat scenario significantly more interesting?
And that's unrealistic, yes?
You refuted your own analogy, then moved the goalposts. You've put it to bed, not me. You've turned the fatal funnel into an effect with an ambiguous cause.
Observational viability sounds like consequence-free intel gathering. And if it's not that, then what is it, and what makes it unique to third-person?
Viable options already exist for lower skilled players to best higher skilled players. This is not unique to third-person.
Watch this for about 3 and half minutes:
Your narrative:
I wish you would, because it's objectively true.
It gives all players of all skill levels and play styles an opportunity to exploit an unintended mechanic. The advantage is based around consequence-free intel gathering. It's unbalanced.
This is a skill issue, not a camera flaw. However...
...in third-person, if you reverse the roles in this same scenario, and the "high twitch player" is now unseen and watching the choke point without risking his safety to watch said choke point, what is the attacker going to do? And don't say, "uninstall, and wait for ARC Raiders to come out," because he won't escape the issue there, either.
The fatal funnel works as intended in first-person. The fact that a higher-skilled player can risk his life and be rewarded for killing a lower-skilled player does not disqualify the viability of the tactic in first-person.
Refusing to acknowledge why third-person perspective transforms the doorway in your analogy into a risk-free power position, which is objectively true, is what has us talking past each other.
You said, "Brain dead playstyles have no place in a tactical shooter like this," implying the fundamental necessary actions in shooter games—aiming and shooting, whether moving or not—are brain-dead play styles. If you're not just talking about players who are leveraging their skills and reflexes by moving, aiming, and shooting, then what are those other "brain-dead play styles" and why are they unique to the first-person perspective?
All players of all skill levels and play styles can exploit this flaw. 3-peeking isn't rocket science.
Chess? The game where higher-skilled play is rewarded and lower-skilled play is punished? That chess?
The reflection of a proverbial mirror doesn't actually appear in the proverbial mirror, but away from the proverbial mirror. The reflection relocated and no one will acknowledge why.
They'll be restocking the inventory at the glue factory soon. They might have a surplus.
Shmunter
Member
As expected, I've had my fill of the genre from the beta. Purchasing such a game, or even playing for free is just dead time to me. While there are similarities to battle Royale or a multiplayer match, it lacks that self contained in and out experience. The reward of loot does nothing for me.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Because it recreates real life tactics far better than FPP.
Again, FPP does a terrible job at recreating our IRL situational awareness and our IRL ability to peak around cover without being seen. Why you keep ignoring my main argument is fascinating to see.
Again, I point you to playing hide and go seek as children. Unless you sucked at it (which judging by this conversation is plausible) then you saw the thrill of watching the person walk right past you as you maintained your hiding spot.
If young children understand this, why can't you?
Severely diminished choices, I agree.
An absolutely beautiful engagment that, again, recreates a plausible real world scenario.
It doesn't sound like you've played paintball as a kid. Shooting from cover is highly advantageous IRL. Shroud wants to strip games of tactics and choice because he wants outcome decided by aim skill rather than positioning, communication, creative tool usage etc...
He had that in Spectre Divide for about 3 weeks.
Nope. We've all gotten killed plenty of times using corner peak.
I can assure you that ARC Raiders is designed to be played in the 3rd person perspective and the fact that all players have it makes it balanced.
There are no consequence free actions in combat. Time and positioning carries risk reward just like everything else.
No such thing in game design. Fun issue trumps skill issue 10/10 times.
You want me to tell you what a low skill player, caught out of position, is going to do against a high skill player in great positioning?
He's going to lose his loot. How anyone could have a problem with that makes no sense.
It doesn't. High skill players can breeze through doorways chasing after their prey. That's lame game design. If a wounded player gets behind cover, they should become a threat to the predator...which is exactly what happens IRL.
There's a great scene in the movie Dragged Across Concrete where two cops, located behind their police car, are in a stand off against 3 bank robbers trapped inside a van. The scene takes 30+ minutes to play out because neither side can afford to leave their defensive positions. It's a significantly more interesting scene than the lame John Wick dance shooting scenes because both sides actually have to think rather than just reflexively shoot eachother.
I'm addressing all your points.
It just seems like you've never played hide and go seek, or paintball, or really thought about what cover does for people with guns.
Aiming and shooting are reflexes. There's very little choice there.
It's like comparing the tactical and strategic validity of a 400m sprint vs a game of Chess.
I do this, you do that, then I do this, then you do that...
Is objectively superior design than...
i clicked on your head faster than you clicked on my head.
I'm sorry but if you don't want to think and come up with creative solutions in PvP games, ARC Raiders just isn't for you. There's tons of games that rely on aim reflex to determine outcome. That's not this.
If everyone is special, then no one is special.
If everyone has corner peak, then your game is bakanced.
Yes, just like the smarter player is able to kill the more reflexive player in ARC Raiders.
ARC Raiders is a game about creating stories. It's "water cooler moments" the game. It's the kind of game you tell your friends about at school the next day.
Do you really think a game that leans on reflex shooting tells great stories?
"I ran into this player last night and we both saw each other but I killed him faster than he killed me because my thumbs are faster."
Wow, fascinating.
Woah dude, that's faaar out.
Last edited:
PonyStation4
Member
Worst part of the game is being a TPS. I can't stand pvp where players can camp around corners or above ladders, unless the player is given enough resources where you can waste grenades to test if someones there. As it stands, there's no point in preaiming when going down a hallway, it's better to get ready to move erratically to cut down the potential damage you'll take.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
one potential way to fix this could be 1 of 2 things:
#1: a "fog of war" system, that essentially only allows you to see enemies if your character actually has line of sight with the enemy.
the issue with this however is that implementing something like this would be visually awkward I think.
so fix #2: a system that makes enemies visible through walls the moment they see you. so player A is sitting behind a corner looking at player B, player B will be able to see the outline of player A behind that corner.
this is less visually awkward but could maybe still be overpowered or annoying as it would still give both players information they shouldn't have, which would lead to weird standoff scenarios
Killjoy-NL
Banned
Absolute trash gunplay.
Killjoy-NL
Banned
I never said it's dead, I said it was a dud.
People really make up their own stories over here.
Johnny Concrete
Member
So here's an idea: what if your shield now and then just emitted sparks?
So when you are camping a corner you have a high probability your position is given away by the sparks of your shield.
If you equip a lower tier shield it sparks less and for the true stealth campers there is an option to run without shield.
Of course when you pop out of your hiding spot without shield you better make every shot count because you won't last 2 seconds against a shielded opponent.
Last edited:
dreamstation
Member
Sounds like someone got stomped. Haven't noticed this trash gunplay in my 4500 matches. Questionable balance sure but no sign of what you're describing.
Last edited:
Killjoy-NL
Banned
One man's trash, is another man's treasure.
If you like it, my opinion shouldn't matter.
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
The game is broken, at least on console. Black screen of death after like every third round. Definitely not anywhere near ready to launch.
Johnny Concrete
Member
Yep, happened to me a lot as well.
But also small collision stuff, like in some buildings you can shoot and walk through concrete pillars or rocks. And once I wanted to switch a purple attachment from gun to gun, but didn't have inventory space, so I dropped it to the ground and the ground swallowed it whole.
Ground likes purple attachment.
Purple attachment is yummy!
Last edited:
realcool
Member
Real life tactics? But "we don't have a drone following us IRL," right? And real life tactics would look way different if we did, right? "This recreates the thing by not recreating the thing at all." You refute yourself, again.
You make bad analogies, refute yourself, I point them out, then you move the goalposts. Instead of dying on this hill, you should be advocating for a leaning mechanism in first-person like Tarkov or a line of sight mechanism in third-person like Scum, where risk is not removed and balance is maintained.
Hiding is not unique to any camera perspective, and third-person doesn't make hiding more representative of real life. If you want to sit in a bush, more power to you, but hiding is hiding, and I'm not buying your spin that 3-peeking a doorway is like playing hide and seek. It possibly reminds you of your childhood in some way, but that's a you thing.
Are you talking to your inner-child? Explains your logic, at least.
In quantity or quality? You could list either, and we'll see if what you say is true.
Damn. Not even an attempt to say, "Yeah, I was wrong about this twitter clip. I didn't have all the context." What happened to all the "brain-dead play style" stuff you were talking about?
Shooting from cover is highly advantageous IRL, and nobody is disputing that.
Yet, in the timestamp, he's using positioning and communication. He's directly refuting you.
Speaking for yourself, was that against unsuspecting players, Mr. Stealthy Smart Player? If so, damn. If not, that's a skill issue, yes?
That doesn't make it balanced. I demonstrate this in a response further down in this reply.
In third-person, there is.
Except, in third-person, where positioning can outright eliminate risk.
I never specified the skill-level of the attacker, then you made the engagement about high-skill vs low-skill instead of addressing my actual point about the fairness of 3-peeking. Nice dodge.
Players of any skill level can do that, and none of them are invincible. They all assume risk.
He's already a threat, it's why he got wounded.
You know what doesn't happen IRL? The wounded guy gathering consequence-free tactical intel, "because we don't have a drone following us IRL." Right?
I, too, have watched movies.
PeteBull
might say the ending to Dragged Across Concrete was some woke bullshit, though, and I would leave a like on his post if he did.You're certainly responding.
No, there's a distinction. Cover can be advantageous. There's no dispute there. In third-person, however, cover grants you an additional advantage of free information that you don't have to risk your safety for.
Because we're talking about shooters and this is the primary way to play these game. You're saying the primary way to play these games is brain-dead, which I was unsure if that's what you truly meant. It's one of the takes of all time, that's for sure.
You're just asserting that your subjective opinion is objectively true. Even if you reduce shooters down to "shoot first, kill first," that still doesn't prove third-person shooters are this highly strategic battle of wits that just simply cannot be found in first-person shooters. You're still talking about a shooter, even though it has an exploitable flaw built into it. You still need skill to play it. You're trying to make third-person shooters seem like something that they're not.
Here's a creative solution that doesn't demonize people with skills or glorify people with a lack thereof:
Equal opportunity doesn't make 3-peeking balanced. It's unbalanced because it lets players gather risk-free tactical intel. The 3-peeker can see opponents who can't see them, regardless of their opponents' camera angle, giving the 3-peeker an unfair advantage. Unlike corner camping, shadow camping or bush camping, which involves truly hiding (and works in first-person too), 3-peeking exploits third-person perspective. So yes—it's unbalanced.
There's nothing preventing a "reflexive player" from exploiting the same camera flaw that a "smarter player" would, so the distinction between them would dissolve in that case.
Maybe the PvPvE aspect where a lobby joins together to take out the Queen, but judging by Helldivers 2, you don't even need PvP for that.
What you wrote directly applies to third-person shooters as well. Good job.
Anyway, I'll do what you thought you were doing.
"Well, I 3-peeked a doorway until an unsuspecting player came into the adjoining room. Blew him away with a shotgun."
"I died to a player 3-peeking a doorway. He also used a shotgun. Was that you?"
Yeah, man, riveting stuff.
I was just using your words against you so you could look at yourself in the proverbial mirror.
It's been many years that i am this hyped for a game
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
This is a great response because everyone reading it will be forced to think about why ARC Raiders, with its 3PP, is the highwater mark at generating water cooler moments.
Then they'll have to ponder why so many Extraction Shooters in 1PP struggled.
You will not because your modus operandi is to defend your position at all costs, as evidenced by your avoidance of my primary arguments.
Two eyes, from different perspectives, work together to increase spacial depth of field.
Two eyes, from different perspectives, where one eye must win leads to sight loss.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Looks like "no forced wipes" are officially a thing according to Embark.
Not my preference, but I'm curious to see why they're going in this direction. I'm not too concerned though as the pivot back to wipes is relatively easy should Embark identify it as an issue.
Not my preference, but I'm curious to see why they're going in this direction. I'm not too concerned though as the pivot back to wipes is relatively easy should Embark identify it as an issue.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Trash gunplay = Halo, Destiny and Marathon with all that brain dead aim assists.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Its interesting wording so sounds like there could be optional wipes maybe for cosmetics
No forced wipes means this game will likely evolve into pure PVP with people just having the best gear and not needing to explore and loot for upgrades
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
That's my worry, but I have to assume Embark thinks they have an intelligent solution for the problem you describe here.
They've seemingly made so many intelligent decisions with ARC Raiders that it's hard for me to imagine they're planning on creating a log jam where 90% of the player base plays at max power level after a month or so. I know I'm not motivated by cosmetics at all. I assume a large percentage of people would rather play at full strength rather than reset for the latest cosmetic.
Hopefully we get a dev interview explaining this stuff soon.
realcool
Member
No hard feelings. I enjoyed tangling with you, even though you've falsely accused me of the things you're guilty of.This is a great response because everyone reading it will be forced to think about why ARC Raiders, with its 3PP, is the highwater mark at generating water cooler moments.
Then they'll have to ponder why so many Extraction Shooters in 1PP struggled.
You will not because your modus operandi is to defend your position at all costs, as evidenced by your avoidance of my primary arguments.
Two eyes, from different perspectives, work together to increase spacial depth of field.
Two eyes, from different perspectives, where one eye must win leads to sight loss.
kevboard
Member
they could have a prestige system that gives you bonuses if you reset, enticing people to essentially wipe their own progress willingly.
like giving you a bigger stash size each time
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
If they don't wipe people they will really have to strike a balance enticing people to self wipe while others are running around maxed out
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
135 Queens killed.
Queens killed 25,000 players.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
dreamstation
Member
Where was this mentioned? Wouldn't mind reading it myself
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Killjoy-NL
Banned
Funny, matchmaking sounds an awful lot like the one in Marathon, ie not designed for 1v3.
Trying to put solo with solo, but no solo Q?
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Solo queue is against other solo queue players. The only time it's not is when player population drops too low.
Generally the game has been praised for it's accommodation for solo players.
Killjoy-NL
Banned
Yeah, that's what solo Q is.
Doesn't sound like there is a solo Q, just regular queue that tries to put solos in one match as much as possible.
That will likely lead to a lot of frustration, coupled with 'no forced wipes' that might cause balancing issues.
Curious to see how they will handle player retention. I don't see most people staying for a long time.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I'm just saying that Marathon forces players into trio queue (with 2 strangers). ARC does solo queue unless player population drops too low.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I ran into a couple of people that were playing together camping extraction points in all my time in solo Qs so about 99% of my solo Q times were against single players
Killjoy-NL
Banned
You can go solo on Marathon (there is a toggle for fills), but just like ARC it isn't designed for 1v3.
Killjoy-NL
Banned
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I will admit I didn't run but just a few Marathon matches as solo, once with auto fill group and a couple of times no fill and on the no fill I ran into groups of players and was killed instantly
That wasn't the case for me at least in ARC and I ran a shit ton of solos in ARC and never recall running into a group out doing world stuff unless they were scattered
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
From my understanding Marathon puts solo players against trios consistently. ARC does not.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
It did and ARC does not
The wording maybe makes the Q system sound similar but having played them both they are not close
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Noclip (Danny ODwyer) is doing a documentary on ARC Raiders / Embark Studios. Obviously this doesn't help much in your trying time but hopefully you receive this ray of light positively.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Yeah I want back in and hope some QOL changes and I am set for the long haul
Look forward to a bunch of naked runs and only keeping stuff in my safe pockets so when someone kills me they don't get shit and I still get all that XP for just looking around trying to find high end shit