I wasn't indicating what the problem with your code was as far as your original query, I was indicating that the code itself is flawed and horribly inefficient in comparison to the alternative I gave you.

Say you want to output a message to the owner of something, you'd have to loop over all the players to find the one with the matching key, then output the message to that player; my system would let you just output it to owner without any looping (aside from a single loop when the object loads to reestablish reference ownership).

There's a similar issue with your Nobuild() command, any time any player uses it the game will loop over every single object in the game, whether that player owns it or not, that will cause major overhead if say, more than one person uses the command, or someone decides to use the command repeatedly in a short amount of time. The example I gave you opened the door to not only cut potentially thousands of objects out of each call to the verb, but prevent the need to loop elsewhere needlessly.

You have to remember that when you use for() you're not just instantly accessing everything in that loop, the more it has to iterate over the longer it'll take to finish and the more resources it'll use as it does so. At some point if your game garners a high player count and many players are building things you're gonna end up with a major bottleneck in loops like this. A good standard to follow is to avoid looping 'in world' any time you can avoid doing so, which you most definitely can in this instance; rather easily at that.

Using my example your NoBuild() verb could be rewritten as such:



The for() here will not only be MUCH faster, but it'll be MUCH more resource-friendly when many people are using the command at the same time. There's also no need to do an owner check (wouldn't hurt though if you want to) because 'mystuff' will always only contain things the player has built themselves. You'll also notice than since your 'nobuild' variable accepts the same values as alert() returns you can just use that without any conditional checking of the value. Ideally, though you'd want to make nobuild a boolean true/false value for more efficient if() checks on it, but that's not a major thing like looping over the world each time you use a specific verb ;).

I also noticed something that you should probably break the habit of early on, notice how when you're checking the value of O.owner you have two if() statements that are basically opposite of each other? This is where the 'else' statement comes into play, but you don't even need that here at all, you only need the one check, either one would do it. There's no need to see if owner matches src.key if the conditional of it not matching already pulls true, the same true for the other if().



No need for anything else, since nothing will happen if that if() fails.