Climb, Climbing Surfaces & Destructible Objects


So I cannot be the only person who’s noticed the downright [finicky] nature of the climb function when playing monster. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, sometimes it works if you jiggle the shift key and mouse for long enough in the general direction of the surface you’re trying to climb.

Yes, [redacted] , I’m certain the surfaces I’m thinking of were actually climbable. But while I’m on that subject, here’s a thought: wouldn’t it be awesome if there were a clear visual distinction between surfaces you can climb and surfaces you can’t? So that on new maps you don’t periodically jump to what you think is a quick escape and wind up flailing like a [fish out of water] as you slide slowly to the ground?

And on topic of things that should be easy to identify, why are some trees made of balsa wood and white glue, while others are made of riveted titanium? And why is there no visual distinction between the who until you smack face first into your first indestructible tree model and it botches your escape plan?


I moved 14 posts to an existing topic: BDL’s semantics hour


Back to the OP, I rather agree. A lot of times I’ll lose precious seconds moving to a surface that outwardly appears climbable, but isn’t. These textures aren’t immediately noticeable from a distance, and you don’t realize your mistake until you’ve moved close enough to see the red X show up when you hit your climb button.

Now, I can respect that some walls aren’t climbable because they’re the edge of the map, or lead to somewhere that’s not intended to be gotten to… but I still feel like it’s a bit of a cop-out. It might be absolutely great to open up a lot of these locations and allow monsters to climb SIDEWAYS. So that at least we’re not always stuck wondering why this particular wall was struck down by the devs.

Same can be said for being hunters, trying to escape out of a melee but you can’t… and the stupid wall won’t let you slow-climb out.

Alternately, on the topic of destructible environments… I would love to see more destruction! There are some rickety old buildings that should buckle under the weight of those beasts. And some of those trees… should be climbable.

I’m sure it’s not the first thing on their production list, but it would be nice if they could clean up the mechanics of some of these wonderfully designed maps.


I don’t think much visual distinction was put in specifically so that the environment looked as real and graphically appealing as possible.

The X feature was put in place for people like us to understand in a moment that it cannot be climbed. But frequently that can cost seconds, or even the game.


Because it’s not like you can’t draw them to an area where most surfaces can be climbed. It’s not like you’re the one chasing them so you can be domed.

Or maybe it’s that you got yourself caught, so you’re panicking because the hunters caught you with your pants down? Which shouldn’t be an issue if you’re smart about playing the monster or, I don’t know, get to know the map better?

“Hmmm this thing seems really tall when I walking at it. Might not be able to climb it. LEMME TRY ANYWAYS SO HUNTERS CAN GET SOME FREE SHOTS.”


Because this is an expert fps. You can tell because torvald’s shotgun is taken straight from daikatana.


Wow. That’s a bit hostile and un-helpful. What if it’s his first time playing, how could he have known that none of those walls were climbable?

Remember: These features have to be as easily understood by someones first try as by a pro player.


What a lame ass contrived series of excuses you managed to concoct… you’re right, I completely reverse myself.

(You should be writing a book, your talents are wasted here.)


I moved a post to an existing topic: BDL’s semantics hour


That’s a fair accusation AND note of remberance. But to be fair, I’m not being hostile to a new player, I’m being hostile to someone else being hostile to people trying to be civil. He doesn’t wanna be civil? He doesn’t need to be treated civil.


I just want the hostility to stop before it kills a topic that I feel is noteworthy. I may be the only one ><

And yes, I can see that he’s not helping his own topic at all…


About as lame as wanting a visual representation of what can and can’t be climbed when there already is one.


Two wrongs don’t make a right, keep things on topic from now on everyone please :slight_smile:


I moved 2 posts to an existing topic: BDL’s semantics hour


Instead of saying that it is their fault for thinking that they could break down a tree that happens to be invincible, give them a helpful idea. That is what these forums are for. Sharing ideas, tactics, and stories. I always play thinking that, unless I am positive it can be destroyed/climbed (because I have destroyed/climbed it before), avoid it. Show some respect to your fellow players. They make mistakes, it CAN be difficult to determine which walls you can and can’t climb. So stop being an ass and give beneficial advice.

Guys, if you’re not sure you can break/climb it, go around. It’s better to not try the fast way, and not take even longer because it won’t work.


[I’m not reading @Niaccurshi’s post and need to calm down and let things be]


@Niaccurshi Understood.