This may look weird to you if you aren't familiar with cookies. So I'll explain.
Cookies are tiny files stored on your computer in your browser that a website can read and write to. They are deleted after a period of time by your computer, but they can last for years.
They are what is working whenever you click “Remember me” or anything so that you can really do that makes the server remember data. Funnily, this includes saves in Cookie Clicker.
What I am suggesting is an EXTREMELY useful alternative to Cloud Data. It would need no server space or anything. When the project is started by a user, a cookie is created on their server for every cookie variable there is in the project. Said cookie will constantly record the variable, so if you want to create a savable project where you can come back later, you can.

Part support.

The only problem I see with this is that a project could have loads of cookie varibles, which could take up space quickly on a computer with little storage space.

I think that the icon could be this: ᨟

set [᨟ cookie v] to []

hppavilion wrote:

Funnily, this includes saves in Cookie Clicker.

It switched to localstorage a while ago, sadly.

Sonickyle wrote:

Part support.

The only problem I see with this is that a project could have loads of cookie varibles, which could take up space quickly on a computer with little storage space.

I think that the icon could be this: ᨟

set [᨟ cookie v] to []

+1

Why not LSO's?

Support.

Blueinkproductions wrote:

Why not LSO's?

First of all, I don't know what that is (I presume it is local storage, though.)
But why not cookies? They're more common (we're mostly going to be storing small variables. No need for local storage), they're enabled by default (you don't need to click “OK” to cookies usually. A lot of people are going to say “No” to local storage then me angry when the project isn't working as advertised), and you get to use the word cookie more.

No support. There are some people against the idea of storing cookies. Also, as per Sonickyle, there are computers with limited storage space.

hppavilion wrote:

Blueinkproductions wrote:

Why not LSO's?

First of all, I don't know what that is (I presume it is local storage, though.)
But why not cookies? They're more common (we're mostly going to be storing small variables. No need for local storage), they're enabled by default (you don't need to click “OK” to cookies usually. A lot of people are going to say “No” to local storage then me angry when the project isn't working as advertised), and you get to use the word cookie more.

LSO's are Flash cookies and stand for L(ocal) S(hared) O(bject). Flash uses them in the same way that HTML has cookies: to remember data. I believe that cookies are local storage as well, except that if a site is trying to store lots of info on a computer, the Flash Player will bring up an alert that says: <website> wants to store more data on your computer.

TheHockeyist wrote:

No support. There are some people against the idea of storing cookies. Also, as per Sonickyle, there are computers with limited storage space.

There would be a “This project uses cookies” alert on the project (Sort of like the “Username” block having an alert.) Anyways, if you're against using cookies just don't enable them on your browser. It won't kill anyone. And cookies are tiny files left by EVERY website. A few more from scratch aren't going to exhaust your computer space unless you have only a kilobyte left.

hppavilion wrote:

TheHockeyist wrote:

No support. There are some people against the idea of storing cookies. Also, as per Sonickyle, there are computers with limited storage space.

There would be a “This project uses cookies” alert on the project (Sort of like the “Username” block having an alert.) Anyways, if you're against using cookies just don't enable them on your browser. It won't kill anyone. And cookies are tiny files left by EVERY website. A few more from scratch aren't going to exhaust your computer space unless you have only a kilobyte left.

Mmm… I have reasons to not support and to support as per you, so I'll have to be indifferent on this one now.

Blueinkproductions wrote:

hppavilion wrote:

Blueinkproductions wrote:

Why not LSO's?

First of all, I don't know what that is (I presume it is local storage, though.)
But why not cookies? They're more common (we're mostly going to be storing small variables. No need for local storage), they're enabled by default (you don't need to click “OK” to cookies usually. A lot of people are going to say “No” to local storage then me angry when the project isn't working as advertised), and you get to use the word cookie more.

LSO's are Flash cookies and stand for L(ocal) S(hared) O(bject). Flash uses them in the same way that HTML has cookies: to remember data. I believe that cookies are local storage as well, except that if a site is trying to store lots of info on a computer, the Flash Player will bring up an alert that says: <website> wants to store more data on your computer.

But what about if/when they finally get the HTML5 Player out?

hppavilion wrote:

Blueinkproductions wrote:

hppavilion wrote:

Blueinkproductions wrote:

Why not LSO's?

First of all, I don't know what that is (I presume it is local storage, though.)
But why not cookies? They're more common (we're mostly going to be storing small variables. No need for local storage), they're enabled by default (you don't need to click “OK” to cookies usually. A lot of people are going to say “No” to local storage then me angry when the project isn't working as advertised), and you get to use the word cookie more.

LSO's are Flash cookies and stand for L(ocal) S(hared) O(bject). Flash uses them in the same way that HTML has cookies: to remember data. I believe that cookies are local storage as well, except that if a site is trying to store lots of info on a computer, the Flash Player will bring up an alert that says: <website> wants to store more data on your computer.

But what about if/when they finally get the HTML5 Player out?

AFAIK HTML5 uses yet another type of storage.

Sonickyle wrote:

Part support.

The only problem I see with this is that a project could have loads of cookie varibles, which could take up space quickly on a computer with little storage space.

I think that the icon could be this: ᨟

set [᨟ cookie v] to []

Just let them have a limit. Like cloud vars.
I fully support this!

Sonickyle wrote:

Part support.

The only problem I see with this is that a project could have loads of cookie varibles, which could take up space quickly on a computer with little storage space.

I think that the icon could be this: ᨟

set [᨟ cookie v] to []

Agreed, I mean you could have a limited number per user like 25-50 per project and then you'd have to request more from the scratch team?

I delete my browsing history and cookies often…

cheeseeater wrote:

I delete my browsing history and cookies often…

LSOs are stored separately.

Support.

I don't think storage space would be a problem. Cookies tend to be really small, generally not more than a few KB. Each domain (essentially website) has a maximum of 20 cookies and 4KB total between them. That's really small, even for computers so old that they by all rights should have stopped working by now.

djdolphin wrote:

IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL!!!!!

Support. This seems like one of those ideas that will never get accepted though because it's too awesome.