Attempt to index nil with ‘WaitForChild’

Title explains it, I’ve tried 3 different ways of changing it, but could use some help here, I’m running inventory (user data) from ServerStorage or attempting to that way exploiters can’t really grab serverstorage values and items.

image

Not 100% sure, but I’m guessing it’s talking about that “RS” variable. Perhaps that’s nil?

try this

local Inventory = RS:WaitForChild("Inventories")
local PlayerInv = Inventory:WaitForChild(Player.UserId)

You can’t access ServerStorage from the client.
Is that a local or server script?

Also, what is RS?

Apologies, I switched that, it’s a old screenshot, let me grab a new one, it’s running local Inventory = SS which SS is ServerStorage.

RS is ReplicatedStorage not ServerStorage.

Oh ok, no worries. Is this a server script then?

Can’t think of anything else at the moment.

Exploiters cannot access ServerStorage.

Is it a local or server script?

its probably a localscript since he’s talking about exploiters.

That’s why I’m attempting to run stuff through ServerStorage, I have my armors and items ran through ServerStorage, however my Inventories keeps denying it.

you can put it in ReplicatedStorage instead.

It’s a local script ran from StarterGUI

Because you cant access ServerStorage from the client.
You could either switch to replicated storage [ risky].
Or use remotes + sanity checks and put the items in server storage. And then, on the server - access them.

you can’t access ServerStorage with localscripts put your stuff in ReplicatedStorage instead.

Ah, see that’s the issue.

Clients can’t reference ServerStorage.

My goodness, all of us saying the same thing at the same time lol.

If you’re worried about exploiters, put the items in server storage and use remotes + sanity checks.

Issue is, exploiters can grab the data from there, let me show you. This is a picture of a user saveinstancing and stealing our models from the user data.
image

Switch that to Server Storage. You’ll prob need remotes and sanity checks.

Aren’t remotes more risky since they can be exploited as well?