Join The Community
Rarely do humans turn faster than when jumping from a solo run of Arc Raiders, where you feel isolated and vulnerable, to a trio raid where, emboldened by your buddies, you much more readily offer other players the deal of a lifetime: I'll save you your entire loadout worth of stash space, and I'll do it for just a few bullets from my gun.
Trios is practically a different game; you will, without question, meet more aggressive players in groups. Now burdened with knowledge of Arc Raiders' expanded "aggression-based" matchmaking system, which puts PvP psychos with their brethren but corrals pacifist looters in the tranquil herbivore exhibit, some Arc Raiders players reckon your matchmaking reputation should actually be separate between solos and groups.
The evidence is anecdotal – "I noticed after playing with my aggressive trio friends (I'm new so account is fresh) that my solo matches are way more aggressive now" – but the argument is interesting, if only as a demonstration of the inevitable consequence of Embark making and revealing this matchmaking change: players eager to game the system, even when they only a know a bit about one part of that system.
"Aggression be aggression. Now you want it easy without your pals? Wow," counters another user in a separate response.
"It's good the way it is. Otherwise you get aggressive trios going to solos to free farm trigger nades or other equipment to be even more aggressive in trios," adds MRjubjub.
A lot of this is classic human selfishness, of course. Some people simply want to have their cake and eat it – drown in PvP loot, but never have the gun pointed at them when it's inconvenient. Messing around in trios? It's on sight. Dying solo while sneaking away from a locked room with full pockets? PvP is bad for the game, in this essay I will – and so on.
The argument I can at least acknowledge is the idea of other players, especially random players in auto-filled teams, tanking your reputation. Obviously you could just not play with auto-fill on, or simply tell your friends you aren't keen on PvP, but the fundamental annoyance – I'm in the shark tank only because I'm chained to a person who dove in – makes some sense. Even so, you still chose to play with them knowing full well – or certainly knowing now, because I'm telling you, after 166 hours, it's not even close – that trio raids have a higher PvP rate, so I don't buy it.
The upside of this matchmaking system, as we understand it, is that it seems self-correcting. If you don't want to engage in PvP, don't, and soon enough you'll experience less of it (but crucially not none). In this application, it's a natural part of the game playing to preferences; I think it can become a problem, and feel artificial, when people hurt or warp their own experience hoping to hide in a specific pool of players. At that point, you're not playing the game; you're trying to eventually play an imagined version of the game. It's a golden opportunity for frustrating self-sabotage: 'I avoided PvP at all costs, Embark, why am I still getting shot at?' asks the raider getting straw all over the place. It's always and forever a PvP game, folks.
Reddit user squidsauce sensibly puts it this way: "After thinking about this for a minute, I'm not going to adjust my play style. It is what it is. If I feel like someone is aggressive I'll shoot. If not I won't. I don't care about this auto balancing script." One thing's for sure: as the PvP goblin poisoning my friend group's matchmaking, I will not apologize.
