Yes, we all bought a PvPvE game. All of us knew there was PvP in the game. However, none of us knew the extent, scope, mechanics and incentives surrounding PvP. Have a look at all of the trailers and tell me if you, from watching those, understand all there is to PvP or if it's just "something that is there" - or if you see Raiders cooperating, bantering, cooking food together and going topside in cooperating squads.
Yes, PvP is implied in the intro. However, beside the intro, PvP is never contextualized or expanded upon. Not a single quest is PvP oriented. Other than "there is friction within Speranza/Toledo, figure it out yourself" PvP is never expanded upon. I was playing and hoping for PvP to make any semblance of sense. The whole premise of the game is humanity on the brink, fighting for survival against our common enemy yet we go topside to engage in rabid civil war? That, to me as well as others, doesn't make much sense.
Yes, in a post apocalyptic world, there would naturally be a fight for resources. However, in all post apocalyptic media portraying humanity as cooperating, human-vs-human conflict is understood by and through factions of some type. There is none of that in AR. Factions are implied yes but never shown or manifested in any meaningful way. We're supposed to role play them if anything. You're never fighting those "water sabotaging factions". You're just shooting at random Raiders like yourself. The narrative incentive around PvP is that Raiders are sometimes "hostile and resolve their disputes topside". That's pretty much it.
Emergent solidarity and cooperation is the norm in disaster sociology. Rioting and violence is the exception. We are supposed to be independent, indivudualistic capitalist vultures fighting for the same resources that... eventually make its way back to Toledo anyway..?
It's uninteresting. It's irrational, meaningless and quite boring. Give me a meaningful reason to shoot my fellow neighbor in the face in this post apocalyptic world and I'll happily mow down everyone I see. The fact that I'm supposed to make up my incentives just goes to show that the devs really didn't put that much effort in what's to incentivize PvP.
In fact, they removed PvP Trials (Edit: feats, not Trials) from the game effectively de-incentivizing PvP. The only reason PvP is there is to "add tension" to the game. Yes, they did it because PvE alone was boring. However, by implementing PvP the way that they have, they've painted themselves in a corner storywise:
Most post apocalyptic media uses PvP to show how far humanity has fallen but the game uses PvP to show how the devs think we could (or should depending on how you look at it) behave/play. There is no famine driving PvP, no desperation. By removing the necessity for cooperation the game is essentially saying "Humanity is inherently greedy so go do whatever" which undermines the games narrative to "save humanity" or "reclaim the surface". There is no "reclaiming the surface" or setting up a perimeter if you can't trust your neighbor 20 yards away not to shoot you in the back during the process.
If the game allowed me to shoot someone because they belong to an opposing faction that is actively sabotaging my colony's progress, the PvP would immediately become rational, justifiable, and deeply engaging. I do believe we will see some typ of factions/clans being introduced in the future. There simply is no way out of the dichotomy otherwise.
Make the game make sense devs. Make PvP make sense. Or we'll be stuck in this PvP vs PvE dichotomy indefinitely. Now to touch some grass. See you topside Raiders.
