ARC Raiders PvE Test Results: 30 Million Rounds, Player Feedback and What Needs to Change

What do the ARC Raiders PvE test results actually show?

Embark's October 20 closing announcement reports substantial use of the option. It does not define its round-counting unit or give a unique-player total. Repeated sessions by the same people can contribute to that number.

In Alinea's original report, Rhys Elliott describes several things happening together: Frozen Trail, free access, a discount and the PvE trial. Its daily-player figures are estimates for the whole game. They offer context for the rebound, without isolating what the toggle caused.

There is a similar distinction in the widely shared 1,100-plus reactions feature. Grant Taylor-Hill describes comments on his video and acknowledges that YouTube may have attracted people already interested in PvE. Those comments are useful accounts. Turning them into an approval percentage for the player base would require a different sample and method.

Our Steam player counter measures another thing again: people playing through Steam at the same time. It cannot identify their queue. Comparing an early-morning count with an evening peak, or a free weekend with an ordinary weekday, does not settle whether PvE succeeded.

What did players enjoy enough to come back for?

Some of the clearest accounts describe a change in who could play together, or what equipment they felt comfortable bringing.

In the October 20 farewell discussion, u/flippant_burgers described playing duos with their child, bringing energy weapons, completing Trials and taking risks against ARC. Their explanation was specific:

“I got to play with my kid in duos finally. He was able to bring his fav energy weapons without being a target of pvp.”

In the same discussion, u/AmEn-MiNii said they had been strongly critical of the mode before taking expensive loadouts into ARC fights with a friend. They ended up enjoying those sessions enough to say they would miss the option.

That is a useful test outcome at the level of personal experience. Someone could already own good equipment and still have a reason to leave it in the stash. Removing hostile player damage changed the fights these players chose to start.

The public Facebook end-of-test discussion contains similar accounts. Esteban Villalobos said he returned after months away and valued people reviving others, sharing loot and fighting ARC together. Justin McVey emphasized relaxed trios with friends, compared with the friendly solo sessions he already enjoyed.

That team-size detail deserves attention. A player content with solo matchmaking may still want a protected way to bring a less experienced friend or a child. One person's comfortable solo lobby does not describe the session their whole group needs.

Our first-day reactions roundup captured the early returners. The closing-week accounts add examples of how they used the option near the end of the trial.

Why did other players find it dull?

For players who enjoy uncertain encounters, a friendly stranger is interesting partly because they could have chosen to shoot. Guaranteed protection removes that particular decision, even when the same weapons and places remain.

Loochy's October 13 criticism focused on that loss of tension, ARC being cleared quickly and players converging on shared loot. His concern was whether the existing endgame could keep pure PvE interesting. It was a launch-day judgment, rather than a measurement of how long everyone kept playing.

A returning player offered a more recent counterpoint in the October 19 weekend discussion. u/SB_5259 said they returned for the update as a whole and tried only a handful of PvE raids:

“The game felt hollow and empty. Nobody on coms, loot goblins stealing shit, no tension whatsoever.”

The original poster, u/Impossible_Hand_934, had redownloaded specifically for PvE, enjoyed evening sessions and said they had not encountered the griefing shown in streams.

A queue built around fighting machines needs enough encounters, objectives and reasons to use the equipment players earn. Simply increasing the amount of loot would not address someone whose main complaint is that the raid has become uneventful.

Why did shared loot frustrate players?

The official test rules lowered overall loot value while leaving players in shared sessions. They did not publish a percentage reduction. A valuable haul can coexist with a lower overall loot value, and an empty room can have several explanations.

The October 17 discussion about whether PvE loot was truly reduced illustrates the disagreement. u/MarkWashingtonsBeard said they had not been disappointed with their runs. u/wvtarheel described familiar locations being empty. Other replies focused on the rush to reach containers.

Those accounts support a complaint about competition for supplies. They do not establish an average loot penalty or prove a particular container-spawn system. A useful economy assessment would compare completed raids, extraction rates and rewards over time.

Key rooms make the disagreement sharper. One person supplies a limited key; several people can benefit from the opening. Around large ARC, the person collecting a reward may have spent less ammunition or taken less risk than the players doing the fighting.

Several fixes address different parts of that problem. A short priority window could protect the key-holder's initial access while leaving room to invite strangers. Personal encounter rewards could recognize participants without requiring everyone to win a race to a corpse. Neither change would automatically decide how much loot should enter the economy.

Damage alone would also be a poor definition of help. A player reviving someone, drawing attention away from a teammate or bringing support equipment can contribute without topping a damage list. A participation system would need to account for those roles and for people making a token contribution just to qualify.

No player damage did not guarantee a cooperative lobby

Competition over a drawer and deliberately preventing another player from moving are different problems. The latter can spoil a raid without a shot being fired.

In the October 19 thank-you thread, u/Lucepticon raised Bull Rush and people blocking paths. u/virtual133 wanted player collision removed and some protection around key rooms. In the closing-announcement replies, u/Marxvision asked for a way to discourage blocking downed Raiders.

Removing collision entirely is one possible response. Another player, u/tanis38, proposed allowing someone to pass through a blocker after sustained contact. The narrower approach could target trapping while preserving ordinary physical interactions, but would need testing around doors, barricades and squad movement.

Another proposal concerns looting dead Raiders. In u/cecco77's full-week feedback, preventing corpse looting is suggested as a way to remove a reward for waiting around someone else's death. That would also affect friends recovering equipment or choosing to share it. Squad permissions or explicit sharing could preserve those choices.

Our earlier PvE rats and loot goblins article covers the launch-week complaints. The later feedback makes the design problem more specific: protect useful interactions and reduce the rewards for sabotage, while keeping voluntary cooperation possible.

What do players want changed if PvE returns?

The requests below come from the dated discussions and creator accounts in this article. The tradeoffs are our assessment. They are not announced features or a ranking of what most players want.

What new content would give the mode a future?

Let players fight the encounters they came for

The test excluded Night Raid, Locked Gate, Hidden Bunker, Frigate and Redirection. In their October 20 feedback, u/cecco77 specifically described frustration at being unable to progress with Frigate and Redirection. Other replies asked for broader encounter access.

That is a substantial request for anyone drawn to Frozen Trail's new content. A permanent protected option would need a clear answer about which activities belong in it and how their rewards work.

Offer a reason to cooperate beyond reaching the same loot

On Facebook, Zak Federation asked for more demanding ARC and activities with a clearer purpose. In the closing Reddit discussion, u/BomboclatiusMattius proposed fewer Raiders, more frequent ARC respawns and additional threats inside buildings.

Those requests point toward cooperative objectives. Our suggestion would be to test activities that reward different jobs: one Raider carrying a recovery item, another holding off ARC and another operating equipment. The reward should reflect completing the objective together, with protection against one stranger repeatedly blocking progress.

A shared extraction event or an optional contract could provide a reason to stay in a raid and use better gear. Either would need a clear commitment and a way to avoid dragging unwilling players into a much harder session.

Keep challenge optional where possible

More enemies and fewer players can both raise pressure, but they change the experience differently. EUTOPIA discusses those requests at 4:28 in his October 18 video. His discussion is a synthesis of feedback, rather than another independent set of incidents.

There is also explicit opposition to making PvE dramatically harder. u/cecco77 wants to fight ARC without endless waves or an artificial difficulty increase. Other players want more demanding survival. Both positions appear among people who support keeping the option.

Optional high-threat contracts would be worth testing before raising every session's difficulty. Players seeking a tougher fight could opt in, while a returning group still has somewhere to finish quests and regain confidence. Extra rules or queues would bring their own population and matchmaking costs.

Embark's original experiment announcement said this test was not intended to trial harder PvE or new PvE progression. Requests for those systems describe a possible next stage, rather than features the one-week toggle promised to deliver.

Separate characters are a real tradeoff, not an agreed solution

Keeping equipment earned under different risk conditions in separate economies has an understandable appeal. In the weekend discussion, u/oraclejames objects to resources being farmed in PvE for use in PvPvE. u/cecco77 proposes independent characters, inventories and progression, with cosmetics shared.

EUTOPIA also favors separation at 6:18 in his video, while acknowledging drawbacks. He discloses an Embark partnership near its end. His preference is one contribution to the debate, not evidence that players have agreed on the answer.

The replies to u/cecco77 show why it needs care. u/ksmooth47 supports some ideas but does not want to restart a PvE character. u/nogeeksland opposes wipes because their gaming time is limited, and prefers new maps, items, enemies and evolving lore.

A full separation would give each mode room for its own rewards, but it would also ask people to repeat work. For someone who returned because an evening raid finally fit their life, losing access to an established character could be a substantial cost.

Our preference would be to make any separation policy clear before a permanent mode launches, including what carries over and whether existing players receive a transfer choice. Optional progression challenges could be tested separately from forced resets. Treating those as different decisions would make feedback more useful.

Did the test make regular PvPvE worse?

These accounts describe particular lobbies. A broader comparison needs results broken down by player group, squad size and region.

In his October 20 video, SeanHensleyOnline says at 1:21 that his normal PvPvE experience did not change. Later, he describes good and bad days and supports bringing PvE back with stronger protection against griefing.

SeanHensleyOnline, October 20. Regular-lobby account at 1:21; preference for a return and changes to griefing protections around 3:03 to 3:29. Video source recorded below.

Fallout's October 20 assessment offers a related distinction. He sees value in giving newcomers somewhere to get comfortable, but says his own friendly solo sessions already felt similarly safe. He also criticizes trolling and the test's implementation. That experience fits a different need from the parent looking for protected duos.

In the closing Reddit replies, u/Kingkarlos123 describes learning through PvE, trying the regular game afterward and enjoying both help and betrayal. They plan to keep playing. Other commenters say they will leave when the protected option disappears. These statements describe intentions and individual paths, rather than measured retention.

The useful November analysis would distinguish returning players from existing regulars, solo sessions from squads and occasional PvE use from a complete switch. It should also consider region and time of day. Those comparisons would help answer whether the option added people, redistributed them or did both.

What should happen next?

Embark plans survey invitations for a representative sample from October 22, with further information expected in November. Feedback can also go through its dedicated PvE-test-feedback Discord channel. November is a follow-up window, not an announced return date.

The next report would be most useful with unique participation, repeat use and retention, alongside extraction rewards and regular-queue health. A regional or squad-size breakdown could explain why some players used the option to bring their friends back while others barely noticed a difference.

Our recommendation is to keep developing a protected option while testing its reward and interaction rules. Give players a reason to cooperate, make sabotage less rewarding and offer harder objectives without assuming everyone wants the same pressure. Explain progression choices before asking returners to invest again.

ARC Raiders PvE test FAQ

Is the PvE toggle still available?

No. The limited test ended October 20, 2026, at 11:00 CEST, which was 5 a.m. Eastern.

Does 30 million rounds mean 30 million players?

No. Rounds and unique players are different measures. Embark's announcement does not give a unique-participant count.

Was PvE loot reduced by a specific percentage?

The published rules say overall loot value was lowered. They do not provide a percentage. Individual hauls cannot establish one.

Are separate stashes, personal loot or harder ARC confirmed?

They are player and creator proposals discussed in the feedback. A permanent configuration has not been announced in the closing update.

Will everyone receive the survey?

Embark says it will invite a representative sample. That is not an invitation to every player.

What would bring you back: safer cooperation, more demanding ARC, access to the excluded encounters or a different reward system? Tell other Raiders what happened in your sessions and which change would help in the community forum.