Are hunters breaking the meta?

Ever since hunt 2.0 it appears that hunters learn to break the meta, specificaly premades.
Yet the only monster that can counter the meta breaking hunters is kraken mostly do to range and the ability to fly thus balancing kraken with the meta breaking premades. Though goliath on the other hand has recieved a nerf that lowered his damage which hurts goliath alot, do to low damage and low stamina goliath is described to be an obese daisy. Now if we were to actualy reach the hunters that kite him, we would only be doing enough damage to evenly collide with ciara’s healing thus making the hunter your trying to kill immortal.

Behemoth can ignore the hunters breaking the meta to an extent only through rockwall.


Anyways gather all the smart people for more of an anyalisis.

Do you know what meta means?


I have an idea of it.

Its essentialy a set-up of how the devs intended for you to play there way.
Though when something becomes gamebreaking and starts to go against how the devs intended for you to play thats when the meta starts breaking am I correct?

There I fixed it.

No, sorry.

The common use of meta is when refering to a certain popular and strong character line up.
Hank and Caira/Slim and Jack is the main meta currently as an example and is considered the strongest picks.

By breaking the meta, you just don’t play it. As an example, Cabot and Val.
So, simply put, by breaking the meta the team (in this chase, the hunters) handicap themselves.

And yes, as others have pointed out, the term meta goes far deeper, but as they say: “Don’t cross the river for water.”


Oh lols you should fix that then.

“Metagaming” is simply the act of making gameplay decisions based on information not presented from within the game. The classic tabletop RPG example is players having knowledge of a monster’s stat block and thus making tactical decisions that their characters would arguably have not been savvy enough to make.

In Evolve, this would manifest as a hunter team saying “I know that Kraken is the most popular pick, and therefore we should pick a comp that is especially strong against Kraken in order to maximise our chances of success.”

“The meta” as a noun is the term given to the current layout of of how all these decisions are playing out. In a game as small as Evolve, the meta at its most basic will be something like “hunters X, Y, and Z work well together against everything, but monster Q has the best chance of beating them”. Over time this will evolve into “hunters A and B can actually work really well against monster Q, so maybe we should start counter-picking” and so on the cycle goes.

Given a certain state of the game, the meta will tend to ossify over time into certain picks being far and away the most popular until something like a new character or large rules change comes into play to shake things up. This is most easily seen in Standard format MtG; near the end of each block rotation there are generally a handful of deck archetypes that are left in any competitive scene, but even then there will always be rogues, what you call “breaking the meta”, trying new things with varying levels of success. The more mature and long-lived the meta is, the less likely any of these rogue elements are to be successful unless they are truly brand new (unlikely in a game as small as Evolve).

EDIT: lol wasn’t planning on writing an essay but oops
Game theory is a hobby of mine and I’m bored at work :x


No one in this forum uses the word properly…

No, but they control the meta more than the monster does.

I enjoyed reading your post. Not too long ago I made a very similar thread about this topic. After reading about the meaning of the word “meta” I came to the realization that practically everyone in this forum uses the word incorrectly. Too many use the word as a synonym to popular and/or effective (or popular because its effective), which is incorrect. Just because a certain composition is popular, doesn’t make it meta. Picking a character because its popular, that is meta because you are making a decision based on information outside the game. Furthermore, I’m peeved by the fact that everyone says the “current meta”. Meta isnt something that can be quantified, nor is it something that you can only have one of. Hence there is no such thing as past, current, or future meta.

EDIT: I just read a post where someone said “defensive meta”. I cringed.

Ah, if I may step in good sir?

When going against the Meta, you are not always at a disadvantage. Sometimes surprise is your best weapon. What we often see is that when a meta develops there is often a counter. Foolish teams only focus on this so when something unexpected happens they get rattled and are not prepared to handle it.

One example is PG Qualifiers. One team actually used a Wraith when Kraken/Goliath was the Meta. They won because the other team flat out said they had no idea how to counter it.

Another example was seen in the PG Finals. Evolve Hype ran Val as the Medic and went undefeated when Caira/Hank was the meta.

1 Like

:heart: Val.


Actually now in Computer Gaming the term Meta is widely accepted to mean

“the term metagame has come to be used by PC Gaming shoutcasters to describe an emergent methodology that is a subset of the basic strategy necessary to play the game at a high level.”

Oh hey, someone else who actually knows what metagaming is.

I would argue that in a game this small the chances of that happening again are slim to none. The only way the meta changes these days is with updates.

1 Like

I agree with you on most things except that there is such a thing as past present and future meta.
In the past, 1 month ago say, I would’ve picked markov as assault because Kraken was common and I knew that because of info out side of the game.
Now I pick Hyde because Meteor Goliath is being used a lot. Also info not readily available through the game.
The meta changes.

Wikipedia? Come on dude. Half a sentence in it says “citation needed”. Not only that. Just because people use the word a certain way doesn’t make the word mean whatever those ppl want it to mean.

lol busted

1 Like

This. people refer to ‘the meta’ way too often, with no clue what that term actually means.

1 Like

Well if you want to get super meta, that’s exactly how languages evolve.



1 Like