Why does everyone always think that such stuff would kill the servers? I think that the main reason for the size restriction currently isn't that Scratch has no money, rather no mods to handle all those cloud chats.

Has anyone a real con?

I don't think that moderation is the problem here, especially since cloud chats are not allowed. (to some extent)

TheSecondGilbert wrote:

I don't think that moderation is the problem here, especially since cloud chats are not allowed. (to some extent)

I don't understand what you mean. Yeah, cloud chats are not allowed. And the reason for the limit is so you can't make cloud chat's, or at least not good ones.

bump.

CoverMusic wrote:

Hai there, the reason they do not do that is because as you say would make cloud chats easier which the Scratch Team want to avoid. If you want to have unlimited cloud variables try using Snap.

I am with HTML-Fan. Making cloud chat projects harder does not come close to eliminating the problem. If anything, it causes more problems than good deeds. (many 2.0 multiplayer cloud projects broke.)

HTML-Fan Support{}HTML-Fan Double Support{}HTML-Fan Triple Support{}HTML-Fan All The Support::#EF99AA

bump

this would break many existing projects

Catscratcher07 wrote:

this would break many existing projects

Nope.

CoverMusic wrote:

Hai there, the reason they do not do that is because as you say would make cloud chats easier which the Scratch Team want to avoid. If you want to have unlimited cloud variables try using Snap.

I did not know snap had cloud varibles.

secretagent123 wrote:

I did not know snap had cloud varibles.

Sorry, but that's kinda offtopic. Use BBCode next time.

bump

Has really noone an idea? A con? No?

I don't know why so many people are confused. They want the cloud limit to stay the same, but it's just “spread across” different cloud vaiarbles. For example, just an example, let's say the cloud limit is 10 and it can be one charectar per variable. This would make it so that if you want to store 1234567890, you have to do so in ten different variables. That's how the current system works, just with different numbers. But, the OP wants it so that 1234567890 can be stored in one variable. It takes up the entire cloud limit, so you can't store anything in the other variables, because for the example, the cloud char limit is 10. That's how the OP wants the system to work.

-Zyte- wrote:

I don't know why so many people are confused. They want the cloud limit to stay the same, but it's just “spread across” different cloud vaiarbles. For example, just an example, let's say the cloud limit is 10 and it can be one charectar per variable. This would make it so that if you want to store 1234567890, you have to do so in ten different variables. That's how the current system works, just with different numbers. But, the OP wants it so that 1234567890 can be stored in one variable. It takes up the entire cloud limit, so you can't store anything in the other variables, because for the example, the cloud char limit is 10. That's how the OP wants the system to work.

Exactly, but the more useful thing is that you can have more then 10 variables, so if you have a collection of 20 mini-games with highscores which only have realisticly up to 10 characters, you could just have a variable for each game. No need of putting multiple ones into one.

-Zyte- wrote:

I don't know why so many people are confused. They want the cloud limit to stay the same, but it's just “spread across” different cloud vaiarbles. For example, just an example, let's say the cloud limit is 10 and it can be one character per variable. This would make it so that if you want to store 1234567890, you have to do so in ten different variables. That's how the current system works, just with different numbers. But, the OP wants it so that 1234567890 can be stored in one variable. It takes up the entire cloud limit, so you can't store anything in the other variables, because for the example, the cloud char limit is 10. That's how the OP wants the system to work.

(I know this is a little late, but…)
I understood what @HTML-Fan is saying. It would be a good idea. I've never made a cloud multiplayer project, but I can see where they are coming from. It would make it easier, more convenient, and add more freedom. When I said it could get messy, I was talking about a scenario like this: Say you have the total characters in cloud variables as 2540. The project then changes a variable to have 30 more characters. It doesn't change the variable because of the limit.

When I was writing that, I realised that it does that already with any limit…
Because I realised that, I now Fully Support. This would make it way easier to pretty much do anything with Cloud.

Thanks/Bump

fdreerf wrote:

Wouldn't there be a limit of 2560 variables?

No person would make that many and actually use each one, plus, you would only be able to put 1 character in it.
So I don't think it really matters.

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Wouldn't there be a limit of 2560 variables?

No person would make that many and actually use each one, plus, you would only be able to put 1 character in it.
So I don't think it really matters.

I share that opinion. Bump.

bump

Bump!