Does capturing monsters pay off?

[Toeli]

Nothing to add.

It seems that the three carve-outs you lose are compensated by the bonus rewards, but why go through the hassle in the first place?

Slaying the monster often earns you bonus rewards as well.

[Salt]

capturing gives more bonus rewards on top of the break rewards, and has a higher chance to drop rarer gear, and capturing has its own exclusive reward table as does carving.

[Suzaku]

Originally posted by Salt:

capturing gives more bonus rewards on top of the break rewards, and has a higher chance to drop rarer gear, and capturing has its own exclusive reward table as does carving.

From what I've heard, capturing and killing is actually the same as far as loot goes. Nothing is more common or more rare based on your monster-finisher of choice. The info displayed in the monster guidebook is false.

Put simply, capturing gives more rewards and ends the fight sooner. That's it.

The only reason to kill is to try and break/cut more body parts, or simply for the sake of killing. It's overall an entirely inferior way to finish a monster on multiple levels.

[Magistrella]

Originally posted by Suzaku:

From what I've heard, capturing and killing is actually the same as far as loot goes. Nothing is more common or more rare based on your monster-finisher of choice. The info displayed in the monster guidebook is false.

Eeeer, half right. When you kill a monster, only the broken parts, tail and carvings have a chance to drop a gem. If you capture it, every material in the pool has it.

i.e. If you get lucky you can double the chances, and even in worst case you get 1 1/2 times the chances compared to a kill.

Breaking always gives extra, so does cutting off the tail, so that stays the same, no matter if you kill or capture.

Remember tho: 1% stays 1% - and means if you get an average of 10 drops per capture you still only get one gem every 10 monsters. You probably should have 2 by then just with the investigation rewards tbh >.>

GL hunting ('-')/

[Stationary Traveller]

Originally posted by Toeli:

Slaying the monster often earns you bonus rewards as well.

It doesn't. The bonus rewards you get after slaying the monster are for the parts you've broken and you get them even if you capture.

[Jethro]

Check the Hunter manual, if you want something specific.

[Starfisher]

Hassle? Finishing a quest (sometimes considerably) faster is a hassle? Maybe at low level when you have just a few traps and sleep bombs?

[Gotsa]

basically the innate drop rates of anything worthwile are garbage, so you want to prioritize the bronze/silver/gold/purple reward boxes for getting desireable things, ie a 3 silver/gold box quest has over a 40% chance for a gem just for ending the fight. why go through the hassle of killing a monster, spending an extra 3-5minutes in game working on the tail for 1 extra 1-3% carve rate when you can spend those 3-5minutes on another hunt for another 40% roll.

capturing saves a tremendous amount of time in the long haul, thats your motivation for doing it.

2 players play for 100 hours? 1 player kills, the other captures.... player that kills ends up with 300 hunts, the player that captures has over 400 hunts.

[Toeli]

I see.

Thank you for the quick and precise answers.

[Spikeynator]

If u can always capture instead of kill its much better... still dont understand how some players HR60+ dont get this concept and rather kill n then whine they dont get the part that they want.

[Nero1024]

Capturing unlocks optional missions, if you want to unlock all the content :)

[Rocket Witch]

In old MH titles the idea was that killing gives more basic materials from carves (scales, etc.) and capturing a better chance of rare stuff (eg. plates/gems would go from 2% to 4% in the designated reward slots they can appear in) at the cost of not having carves.

Optimal Rath Ruby farming for example was to break tail and head then capture. You'd get a carve from the tail (which could be a ruby), and then extra chances in the break rewards for head and tail.

So this isn't true in World? Hard to believe this wasn't carried over when so much was. The idea of capturing always being better is disappointing since it's both faster and easier, no trade-off.

[Davoodinator]

Originally posted by Toeli:

Nothing to add.

It seems that the three carve-outs you lose are compensated by the bonus rewards, but why go through the hassle in the first place?

Slaying the monster often earns you bonus rewards as well.

1. sves you time since you can capture from anywere from 39% to 19% so thats alot of hp you dont have to remove
2. if you time it right it can make the last few % easier since you have them in a trap
3. you can throw tranq in advance before trapping so ;)
4. also loots are best when capturing you get more stuff.
5. more armor comboso exist fro capturing bonuses vs just killing for reward boxes

[JayJay]

Originally posted by Rocket Witch:

In old MH titles the idea was that killing gives more basic materials from carves (scales, etc.) and capturing a better chance of rare stuff (eg. plates/gems would go from 2% to 4% in the designated reward slots they can appear in) at the cost of not having carves.

Optimal Rath Ruby farming for example was to break tail and head then capture. You'd get a carve from the tail (which could be a ruby), and then extra chances in the break rewards for head and tail.

So this isn't true in World? Hard to believe this wasn't carried over when so much was. The idea of capturing always being better is disappointing since it's both faster and easier, no trade-off.

All you get is extra loot, and optional quest unlocks. The type of loot or chance at loot does not vary like in the old games. Even so, ending a fight earlier and getting extra loot is substantially better for reward over time than killing. Capturing is still a no trade-off imo, but less so this time.

[Magistrella]

Originally posted by Rocket Witch:

In old MH titles the idea was that killing gives more basic materials from carves (scales, etc.) and capturing a better chance of rare stuff (eg. plates/gems would go from 2% to 4% in the designated reward slots they can appear in) at the cost of not having carves.

Optimal Rath Ruby farming for example was to break tail and head then capture. You'd get a carve from the tail (which could be a ruby), and then extra chances in the break rewards for head and tail.

So this isn't true in World? Hard to believe this wasn't carried over when so much was. The idea of capturing always being better is disappointing since it's both faster and easier, no trade-off.

Sadly, the rate of a ruby off a tail is just slightly higher then a body carve. It's basically the same chance you have off a gem showing up on the bonus spot for breaking certain bodyparts. Catching it adds more really small chances on the pool at the end which is less then a carve but counts for every reward you get.

The fastest way to get gems here isn't the good ol' tailruns, just speedkilling with as many gold/silver rewards in an investigation :/

[Murdo]

To put it simply:
Let's say you have 4% chance of getting a certain item from a monster by breaking it's head, 4% by cutting the tail, 4% by carving the tail and 2% from a shiny drop.

Now let's say that you've indeed managed to break the head, cut the tail and get a shiny. That means four different times rng can give you that item. Since it's only 4% or 2% each time, you're increasing your chances of getting that item drastically with every single one of these actions. Capturing a monster gives you more rewards but also yet another opportunity to get that item.

That's basically how it works.

My advice: Always go for a capture if you're trying to make gear from a certain monster. If not, just do whatever you feel like.