|
| 11 Nov 2017 02:21 PM |
| Or do I have to use datastore to assume maximum performance. I feel like placing Values with unique names is a more cheaper version of using datastore which should be for things like XP on a game that's going to have like multiple varieties of items. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
KapKing47
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 5522 |
|
|
| 11 Nov 2017 05:15 PM |
| 1. Create a folder inside the player called "Inventory" or something. ## ##### all the items there. 3. Decide how items will be equipped. 4. Once decided, give reference to that folder containing all the tools to the function that equips a specific tool. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Nov 2017 05:30 PM |
| I don't mean with tools. I meant with inventory items. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Nov 2017 05:56 PM |
| Will having like 30 values per StarterPlayer lag the game? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Nov 2017 05:57 PM |
no that wont lag the game. the only things in starterplayer would only lag the client
if (dev.ShouldLearnNewLanguage){dev:LearnJS()} |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Nov 2017 05:57 PM |
Table
local items = { { Item = “Rock”, Ammt = 23, }, } |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Nov 2017 10:38 AM |
So if I have
local items = { {Item = “Cat”, Ammt = 3, }, {Item = “Fish”, Ammt = 5, }, {Item = “Metal bat”, Ammt = 1, }, }
Will I be able to transfer all the Ammt values to be displayed on a client's GUI? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|