What is the interceptor kill score?
I was looking everywhere but i couldn't find this!

According 2 my friend its 50, is that right?

the listing i have doesn't list the interceptor...curious...I'm going to test this real quick, I want to know now


Hugel

rofl hugel... yeah way to go.
If you need a QUICK answer, make a small testmap... 1 enemy carrier with 1 interceptor one rine for u and a leaderboard showing kills score.

Thats for sure faster than posting and waiting.

Interceptors give 60 each

and fyi...1 rine against an interceptor is a long battle...the interceptor moves so fast and so wide of a track that his shields recharge too quick for the rine to kill it. I went with 9 rines!

Hugel

omg.... give the rine 1000dmg, 1000hp and 1000armor

So is the kill score 50 or 60?
My friend said theres a formula 2 find the kill score, it goes something like this:
mineral cost x 2 + gas cost x 4 = kill score. (im not sure about the gas but the mineral works for all units that dont require gas to build)
interceptors costs 25 mins:
25x2=50
does this make sense?

It may be a rough formula but for sure not a general rule.

Hugel told you the score he determined through his test. There's no reason to question him.

It was 60, therefore your friends little theory does not work in the case of the interceptor.

I say patch 1.00 not 1.15. It cost(ed) 30ore in that patch not it is only 25 i know. I see you deleted my post blaa..

Hydralisk = 75 minerals, 25 gas, 350 kill score.
(75*2) + (25*4) =? 350
150 + 100 =? 350
250 != 350

I rest my case.
2x minerals does seem to work for most units that unit cost minerals though, ex. Marines, Zealots, Zerglings, Drones, Probes, SCVs, Vultures.

Perhaps the formula did work for previous patches and kill scores were never updated, but since it's been so many patches it renders the formula useless.

@y10k: According to patch.txt, the cost of Interceptors has NEVER changed. Only their HP and damage.

Hope now you will believe to me. I just quickly patched to 1.00.

Attachments:

I still don't understand why every other cost change would be logged and not that one.

If you want to find this stuff really quick in the future, I'd suggest looking it up in DatEdit.

Nvm, sry 'bout that.

Sorry about that. I didn't fully test out the formula and assumed too much based on an inadequate number of tests. My fault entirely. I learned something at any rate.

*goes back to lurking*