StarGateWars Forums

Some players Naq is being displayed with zero's leading?
example... 004,363,901,014 Naquadah
But when you click the user to go to there page it shows the naq w/o the zero's.
example... 4,363,901,014 Naquadah

This is a little annoying when scanning for naq.... and confusing that not all players are displayed this way?

and what is the issue with a leading zero?

Name Galactic Rank Population Race Race Family Wealth
Jack Oneil 1 3,065,389 Robin Hood Parasitic 005,233,089,812 Naquadah
devias [ The Immortals ] 2 002,255,360 Immortal Asgard Alien 00 Naquadah
khandruas 3 1,395,832 Immortal Asgard Alien 001,483,317,250 Naquadah
GUnit [ The Educators ] 4 05,282,356 Goa'uld Parasitic 0012,183,075,135 Naquadah

This is the current rankings. As you can see it's very, very weird looking and non-transparent view of rankings

~Jack

I feel it was a rhetorical question... but I here is my answer non the less.

I have no problem with a leading zero... just as long as it is consistent.
Some accounts have a leading zero, while others have 3 zero's and some have zero zero's.
I prefer no leading zero's.
-=DD=-

the question i'd ask is: did the change appear to have any difference on the farming amounts taken?
its a script-buster...albeit a fairly minor one...

These 0's wanna make me quit

ok then other option is max 15 different targets for attacks per 30 seconds ....
i could swap it out....

goal is to make scripting harder. have a few secret items, adn the 2 i just mentinoed... (zeroes/spaces on values, and delay on # of different accounts can attack in set time)

I'll not argue it's effectiveness but it looks absolutely butt-ugly.
It's looking like the game is bugged even though it isn't.

I'm doubting you're valuing security above appearing properly?


I'd go with the restricting number of hits per time instead. At least it'll not look like it's bugged.

Somethings screwed again.

01:43 Nitro 2,498,858,813 Naquadah stolen 1 16 399 1,040 3,619
Jun 21, 2012 Jimbo 5point3 23,390,194,608 Naquadah stolen 10 80 695 1,057 billion 1,491 billion

Went from billions to ... thousands?

This is not a bug and was a scripting defence.

*Closed*