Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Multiplayer = whatever the host asks or I see him doing
So if you want some thing specific and know its chances are better from continuing the fight by all means if not then go for the capture.
Just look at drop tables
yes, if you're just measuring single hunts. but over time, the slightly lower drop chance of capturing vs carving is canceled out by capturing being faster.
edit: actually this is all wrong. capturing a monster gives you 3 carve rewards. there is no increased chance of anything by slaying. other than increased time it takes to get them.
with some AI math, using 5% and ignoring the tail it tells me you'd need to capture 1.68 monsters to get the equivalent chance.
So I guess if you kill 10, you'd need to capture ~17 to get a similar result. How much time do you save by capturing?