Why are Arc Raiders players so averse to PvP? To find out, we spoke to a sociologist

You may have heard tales of the friendliness of Arc Raiders players. How in this high-stakes PvP environment people are coming together and helping each other out rather than shooting each other in the face and / or body. The reason why remains a mystery: why are Arc Raiders players so keen to lend a helping hand, and so frustrated when others decide to shoot them for their own benefit?

Speculation as to why is widespread and fiercely debated, as the two tribes of PvPers and Anti-PvPers wage battle both in-game and online. To get an academic perspective on the matter, Eurogamer spoke to MA/PHD Social Researcher Luke Millard on the matter. His PHD study is on AI, Anti-Tech Resistance, Neo-Luddite Activism, so it seemed appropriate to bring him into the world of Arc Raiders and its playerbase of very literal anti-tech resistors.

Why are Arc Raiders forming together like this? Can this Anti-PvP movement last? Why are PvPers treated harshly from a portion of the community? To find out about this and more, we've written out the short interview with Millard below.

Eurogamer: There seems to be a real debate between Arc Raiders players, who have landed in two camps: PvP and anti-PvP. Why do you think this has happened?

Luke Millard: "My opinion has changed the more I've looked into this. I've seen a lot more people going over to not-PvPing, a lot more people frowning at PvP and punishing PvP players. I would have said, from a sociological perspective, it's based on this concept of power and authority.

"The game's industry is focused on giving these linear lack-of-options games, which take the autonomy away from the player. So when a player gets a choice - which I think is marvelous - whether to play a certain way, they automatically side with other people. In this case, that means not doing PvP."

Eurogamer: Why do you think people have that tendency to side with each other rather than interact with the game as arguably intended?

Millard: "It's this idea of comradery, isn't it? You're in the foxhole with your friends. You see it in games like Helldivers 2, and in Battlefield when you're trying to revive people in your squad. The world nowadays, the people who play games now, are kind of love-and-peace. They're kind to each other. That message spreading around the world at the minute leads people to question why you'd want to be difficult with other players, when you can just be helpful and come away in a better position."

Eurogamer: Do you think this kind of genre, where the risk of dying are so high, further encourages that kind of anti-PvP behavior? Or is this a sort of behavior something you'll see blossom in any kind of game that allows it?

Millard: "I think in these kinds of games, this is almost like a parallel to Tarkov here. In Tarkov, you don't help people whatsoever really. You get through a game, you get as much loot as possible, and leave. It's cut-throat. I don't know what it is about Arc Raiders in particular that promotes the kindness we're seeing. It seems to have not only done this in the beginning, but it's now becoming the de facto way to play the game.

"All weekend, I'm seeing people punish PvP players (laughs)."

Eurogamer: It's interesting! Having played the game, oftentimes when you do take out a player in PvP as the game encourages you to do, they often seem pissed off with you (laughs). It's interesting how lots of players seem to clash against people playing in a way that's totally fair game.

Millard: "It's a sub-culture of players. People who have banded together and have decided they don't want this linear non-option approach to games. They want to take a stand. All movements are inherently political which is fine, this isn't specifically political in a manner, but the social action is there. They're saying, as social actors, we're going to make a choice when we get the choice to go against what we're told.

"Going back to Helldivers, I think it's beneficial for the game to have warring factions to interact with. You saw it in World of Warcraft too with the Alliance and Horde. You get an identity - a player identity - and you live through that."

Eurogamer: How do you imagine these two groups - PvPers and Anti-PvPers - will be depicted in the Arc Raiders community as time goes on?

Millard: "That's a tough one. I think the non-PvP players… They'll either become the game, or die off. New players will pick up the game and won't be in touch with the social media aspect of not PvPing, or just won't like that style and start PvPing. So the PvPers will grow over time. I do think unless non PvPers become a driving force of the games continuation, or an integral part to the game, they'll eventually die out."

Eurogamer: Would a PvE mode make the game better and provide a home for these players? Or would it take away the risk factor that makes this subculture special?

Millard: "It would remove the nuance. If you go into that non-organically, if you're forced to be a non-PvPer, it does take away the fun and comradery, it takes away the organic nature of it and as such the bonds you form disappear. Without the threat, it goes."

Eurogamer: How would you characterise from a sociological perspective someone who feigns friendliness with these non-PvPers, only to stab them in the back at a later occasion?

Millard: "I would say those players are 100% abusing the amount of power you get from taking a stand with other players. I think it's awful, obviously. Sociologically you get these people who defect and change their opinions based on influence, subculture, blah blah blah. It's not the nicest thing to do, but if the point of the game is to somewhat reflect real life, you'd absolutely in those situations find people who abuse that kindness. But that's also why people punish PvP players, so it all fits."