Sheet for the Hunters


#1

I am creating a excel sheet about the different qualities of the hunters to see what teams may be better than other for different strategies. The first set is the effectiveness of the different hunters at the different stages. This is a general effectiveness not against a specific monster. Below is what I have come up with. I was looking for feedback and discussion on what other people think about it. If a hunter is good at a stage it gets a 1, if the hunter isn’t good at a stage it gets a 0. I don’t use 1/2 because I am only looking at a general overview. I know that any hunter is good at any stage for a good player, however I am just looking at the data for the hunters for an average player.

EDIT: This sheet is made from my experiences with these hunters. This started from an idea that a friend gave me. He never played online yet and has only played solo for this game. He doesn’t have internet and will be getting it soon. He asked me about hunter combos and effectiveness. That is the reason I made this, but before I gave it to him I wanted some feedback and discussion on it. The new graph below was made because of a suggestion from @Silverborn to expand to the ++, +, +/-, - , - -.


#2

This seems highly subjective. How are you basing effectively? Personal experience?


#3

i just don’t see your logic with some of these choices and ideas. Why is bucket bad at second stage, then good again at the third? Also if all the Assaults are equally good at all stages, why include them?


#4

I don’t understand Bucket having a 1 for stage 1 but a 0 for stage 2 of you could just explain the reasoning behind it :sweat_smile:

Added:
@Raptor ah you beat me to the Bucket question!


#5

Sorry buddy, it is kinda confusing though (the bucket thing I mean.)


#6

Caira and Slim having a 0 at stage 3 is also questionable


#7

I agree with this. It seems like you made this on your own experience. Maggie can be game breaking for stage 3 monsters in the right hands, Griffin is always a danger and Bucket is pretty solid all-rounder all match.

You should use a system like ++, +, +/-, -, - -

These characters aren’t either good or ‘not good’ at a stage. You don’t want me playing Griffin combined with Sunny, period. I will mess your game up so bad at any stage. While in your chart it would seem he’s only good stage 2, making him the worst trapper. You might forget that he is the only trapper that shows the monsters location all the time @ a stage 3 relay fight. You might also forget that Harpoons are the most direct form of CC we have. Tranq and Stasis are still unreliable.


#8

I am writing this for a phone but I was going to go back and add some explanation. The bucket one I will explain. Bucket to me is a really good hunter at the stage 1 and 3 but not stage 2. The reason for this is the UAV. During stage 1 if the monster is found, bucket can close the distance with the team for a good fight. However if the monster is found during stage 2 bucket is usually far away and unable to be in most of the fight. At stage 3 he can create a good defense against a monster that is coming to you.


#9

I disagree with the premise of him not being good at stage 2 as i think there are a lot of occasions where he is very helpful at stage 2, but I understand the angle you’re coming from.

And don’t worry I’m also writing from a phone and I know the pain :blush:


#10

That is way I said I don’t want to use experiences from really good hunters, because I know that any hunter is really good at any stage. I wanted to compare their effectiveness from the view of an average player. Yes this is based on my experience and that is why I am putting it up. I want feedback and discussion on it.

I am not against this, however for right this second I want to just use 1’s and 0’s. Because I feel for an average player it would follow into a black or white field. That is my opinion.


#11

I agree with @Silverborn in that for this to be more accurate you would need more variables than just 1 and 0

I like the ++ , + , +/- , - , – format he suggested, gives a better idea of how you rate the hunters, for example Maggie at stage 1 can’t be rated the same as Crow in my eyes as there is still a bit off guess work with Crow, you can get lucky or unlucky and have to wait for Carrion Birds, however Maggie gives the hunter a direction to go from the very moment she lands


#12

I am not against this, however for right this second I want to just use 1’s and 0’s. Because I feel for an average player it would follow into a black or white field. That is my opinion. I can see that as a good way to rate the hunters for the good players.


#13

Highly situational and an assumption for every match. Match Bucket up with Lazarus and those two are as strong all match. Match Bucket with Val and you are amazing early game, but like a punching bag late game. Also, turrets at stage 3 are not so good, but because of the monsters extra abilities making them highly unstable damage dealers.

So again this becomes an assumption. For these kind of data files to have any worth, you need to compare more than one of them. And for starters, I would value a similar sheet from experienced players much more than someone who still needs to learn the tricks of the trade. If i’d take up on your assumption that Griffin is only good mid-game I might not learn his movement and positioning that make him almost OP at times.

So for a fair sheet you need a bigger scale to rate the players on, you need information from good end tier players AND you need the information from beginners. Either that or high tier only. At the moment this is like saying that in order to win a football-match you need to be able to run fast and shoot the ball in the goal. You are still missing a TON of information to make these 'assumptions" viable.

Again an assumption based on a opinion. If you want a discussion on your post, you need a goal to achieve. Why discuss the material given if you don’t wan’t to evolve with the discussion. It might mean you wrote this for attention.


#14

If you were looking to collect data, I think (with larger rating thresholds) seeing how the less experienced rate hunters efficiency at different stages in the match in comparison to the experienced would hold more interest value than just your opinion on the hunters, that is something I’d like to see personally :smile:


#15

Can we really call it “data” if we just make it up? XD


#16

This started from an idea that a friend gave me. He never played online yet and has only played solo for this game. He doesn’t have internet and will be getting it soon. He asked me about hunter combos and effectiveness. That is the reason I made this, but before I gave it to him I wanted some feedback and discussion on it. I am right now making a new chart with the scale you suggested, but that is why I am looking at the opinion on the hunters for an average players point of view.

Calling it that because I am putting it into a data sheet, but I will stop that.


#17

@Silverborn I changed the sheet to match your suggestion for the scale. I still want to make the sheet for an average player. I also edited my original post to give the reason behind the sheet.


#18

There are 256 total hunter combinations at the moment and more important than giving each character a value based on an assumption it’s better to make a sheet covering their personal strong points and weaknesses.

Problem is… all of these combinations have a different playstyle combined with them. Again Bucket makes this very viable, him + laz is good, him + Val is pretty risky.

What is interesting is to know is what each character does in a fight.

For example

Griffin
Damage output: Low, constant, high accuracy.
Class specialty: Direct monster control, mediocre detection.
Crowd control: High, but risky
Self preservation: None
Utility: None
Favorite monster: Behemoth
Least favorite monster: Wraith.
Focus risk: Medium-High
Skill level needed: Medium

Lazarus
Damage output: Medium-Low, constant, high accuracy
Class specialty: High risk revive to ignore strikes, bonus damage to monster
Crowd control: None, body bait tactic to force damage
Self preservation: High, with support helping out for a cloak swap almost undetectable.
Utility: 1,5x bonus damage from weapon.
Favorite monster: Kraken
Least favorite monster: Goliath
Focus risk: Very High
Skill level needed: Medium-High

Torvald
Damage output: High, burst damage, short-medium range.
Class specialty: Fast high damage burst damage, creates weakspots
Crowd control: None
Self preservation: Medium-high
Utility: Weak spots for bonus damage
Favorite monster: Behemoth
Least favorite monster: Kraken
Focus risk: Low-medium
Skill level needed: Low-Medium.

Slim
Damage output: Low-Medium, shotgun damage restrain
Class specialty: High AoE healing, able to disable monster’s smell ability, unlimited range on focus healing a ‘unfocused’ target.
Crowd control: Spore grenade for limitation smell ability
Self preservation: High
Utility: Spore grenades for creating a safe zone in which the monster has trouble doing focus damage.
Favorite monster: Goliath
Least favorite monster: Kraken
Focus Risk: High
Skill level needed: Medium


Etc. These points are still relative assumptions but to give your goal ‘helping beginning players pick a class’ this does more than just telling you what stage is better for each hunter.


#19

I have more to this sheet than I am showing. Yes I do have description like that in the sheet I just cropped it out due to that not being what I want to discuss about right now. I am just looking at general effectiveness.


#20

I just don’t get how the best medic isn’t useful at stage 3 lol.