Time runs out. Monster loses. Why? Why monster?


I would like to put into consideration one of the core elements of the game. That time is by default against the monster. I feel it could be beneficial for overall game expeirence to actually change that ==>

What if during the match game monitors continuosly who is winning ? …and if match ends without hunters or monster death this is the final result.

Monster scored several strikes ? - monster winning. Hunters reduced monster health by X bars ? - hunters winning. And so on. We could imagine several ways of assessing the relative balance of a match and rewarding active side.

I feel that could help reduce cheesy behaviors like FT3, relay camping and so on. And it would be fair.
Your thoughts ?


We’ve had these posts before have you not read them…?anyway regarding this issue,there’s plenty of reasons why the monster get’s the loss because, all a losing monster would have to do is keep running so he/she get’s a win be default all the time!any good monster shouldn’t ever argue this because if you can’t get the job done it’s your fault and deserve the loss!

Just on your idea of who’s winning system generally speaking if the timer has run out it pretty much means the monster’s losing or would of lost anyway,i can’t remember too many games where the timer has run out and the monster would of won!


No, I do not suggest to change it to “another deault” - monster win. Winning side has to get advantage - and by this it motivates both sides for action: monster during S1/S2 (reducing FT3), hunters during S3 (reducing relay camp). This is my point.


Gameplay/balance wise: the monster holds control of the pace of the game and so it is up to the monster to complete its objective before the time runs out. If the monster was “winning” in your scenario then they could secure the win by just avoiding the hunters for the rest of the timer, not to mention the trolling potential. For examples of how this works in the real world check out monsters that play out the timer in round 2 Arenas after they’ve lost the first round.

Lore-wise: Typically the monster needs to destroy the relays before the colonists complete their work to help the hunters (see Evacuation)


Wouldn’t it help to motivate monster for more aggressive behavior S1/S2 ?


I think your idea would make the game get into merky waters in my opinion because a team would just camp if they think they’ve done enough, it actually promotes boring fights something we have a lot of already “cough cough” Wraith!


Good monster players don’t need any extra motivation dude if you do somethings wrong!


I don’t know if it would? And even if it did I wouldn’t want to promote that the monster could just run out the timer because it got some strikes (for example). Not to mention the complication that it must entail with different comps. Laz comps would never switch to the monster winning at timer end, whereas Emet comps almost always would. If it wasn’t based on strikes then you fundamentally skew the game towards shield comps, etc, etc.

Ultimately I don’t see a problem with how the game works right now with regards to who wins when the time runs out :slight_smile:


They should just make it a straight loss for both sides. Because both have failed their objectives.


But they haven’t, the monster has failed to destroy the relay in time, that’s it’s objective. The hunter’s objective is to kill the monster OR stop it from destroying the relay in time.


However as it sits it only benefits hunters and makes the pace controlled 100% by them. Just as ft3 is a problem for hunters, this is a problem for monsters who have won but can’t win due to relay snipers/super elusive hunters who stop engaging except to keep you off the relay.


Well, this is ideal - if you are just satisfied with every aspect as it is :slight_smile:
On the other side I feel that FT3 and relay camping are objective problems we have on both sides and many people complain.



Generally I would say, that pace of the match can be controlled by different sides depending on stage and other circumstances.


The monster is faster than the hunters, and while I don’t wish to downplay how frustrating relay sniping can be (map design issue, not game mechanics issue though), the monster absolutely still controls the pace even at the relay stage.

FT3 is not going to be solved by changing who wins at the end of the timer and how. FT3 is not based on running the timer out, it’s based on avoiding damage until stage 3 because the monster is confident they can do the job at the relay.

Is going to be dealt with in the TU9 update according to the devs.

So there you have it, no need to alter anything with who wins at the end of the timer :stuck_out_tongue:


What happens if the monster gets no strikes

And the hunters do no damage?


Perhaps loss for each side ?


Flip a coin…


very happy to hear that :slightly_smiling:

I know. What I think is that monster could be encouraged to try to get strikes early and this way make the whole match more “action-packed” (?)
Also, it is not obvious for me that every monster on any map is confident “they can do the job at the relay”. I mean I can hear monster players complaining that some comps/maps/etc are unbeatable when hunters camp relay.


Actually that simple idea of double loss - if time runs out - is perhaps good point. People try to avoid scoring losses, right ? So why not motivate both sides - not just monster ?


So your saying that the hunters shouldn’t have a incentive to fight the monster even at stage three? It truly wouldn’t hurt for it to be a loss for both sides. Monsters would flee less, hunters would actually engage instead of camp. Also how is the pace at stage three monster controlled? If they can keep you off the relay with little to no risk to themselves. Unless you engage them in their preferred spot which is pretty much a death sentence against decent players. They can happily chip away at your armor/health while waiting till you either run out of time or foolishly commit suicide by fighting on their turf.