Since the hunger system didn’t work out as an indirect limiter, it would be very useful in maintaining server stability if we had the ability to set a hard cap on placable thralls and pets. If this has been answered, can someone please direct me to it?
Thanks!
Yeah, a limit would be nice me thinks
In order to impose a limit we would need to also have a release mechanism short of tossing them off a ledge.
In the beginning to start with lobie thralls and work your way up to better one’s. So we would need to release.
As many people have outposts that need to be guarded it may be important to consider that as well.
Perhaps a cap for land claimed. But I rely on pets heavily to destroy purges.
It’s probably more important to cap on PVP servers.
Why not just reduce their insane hp pool to the ones of the wild-type. Would force people to take better care of them and not spam whole areas with thralls or animals.
If their hp is lower then i think the opposite would be true … ppl would spam more of them as they would know many would die so would want plenty of replacements around to start fighting when the first wave dies.
Hunger system was never ment to be an indirect limiter on how much thralls you can put out - the idea was to put a timer so thralls would not stay in the world forever as they didn’t have decay timer.
Because then they will be useless as any high lvl creature / NPC will kill them in no time.
No.
Not until we’ll be able to fast KILL outdated thralls and pets to replace them in PvE and PvE-Conflict.
If I need 20 peoples to defend my base against purges it doesn’t matters what level they are, with the hunger system we was at least able just to let them die by hunger.
It was not a fast way, but it saved our time because it didn’t required real actions by us.
Now we have no ways other than pick them one by one and make them fight a boss or placing them into the lava wich is a huge time expensive way.
So no.
Actually the devs specifically said it WAS meant as exactly that. See the last dev stream 
As to the “no” reasons, I’m not asking for a game-wide limit for all servers. I’m asking for an admin ability to set a cap. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Also, you have a way to replace your thralls. Kill them. Too bloody for you?
It works in private servers and pvp servers. PvE and PvE-Conflict have not a way to kill their own pet/thralls without using them to impossible fights (like naked against a boss) or go to the volcano and place them into the lava.
Ok, this ways work, but the time you need to kill 20 of them this way ? the time I play in 2 days ? that’s the issue 
If you’re asking a way to set on private servers a cap to thralls/pets ok, but be sure your gamers are able to kill them.
The amount of thralls/pets should be limited by the means of gameplay limitations, not motivation or aesthetical preferences. Some sort of maintenance cost is mandatory imo. Or the other solution would be to make them more vulnerable so they get decimated by the eco system.
Can someone please explain to me how tames and thralls hold more weight than any other placeable item in the world? Do we need limits on how many forges or crafting stations one can store in their base? Why does one item hold more significance or weight than another? Should there be a limit on how much stone and wood one can farm and store? Do thralls and pets take up more of a resource that causes instability?
Sure! Each fighter/archer/pet placed in the world adds to the load on the AI system. Hope that clears it up. If you enter an area with tons of them, you’ll definitely notice degraded AI performance, up to and including them just standing around and doing nothing.
Yeah that’s why I asked for the ability to set one, not one across the board.
You can give them to Yog. Build a collapsible platform above the pit, and make the bad men fly. It’s not super fast or easy, but it’s doable (certainly faster than any other method that I know of).
Thanks for the suggestion in general, but I think you’re missing the point: if you want I accept a cap to their number I don’t want to spend more than few minutes of gameplay to kill them.
If I have to learn the religion (if I’ve not), build a temple, build the Platform than kill them one by one this way I’ll never accept a cap, because I’ll prefere to let them where they are in the first place.
Until we’ll have, I don’t know, a Venom pot (same as feeding pot but it kills the thralls/pets when their timers reach 0, I don’t care the time it requires, while I can do something else), or be able to “dismantle” them, even if one by one like they was foundations, at least even 50 thralls this way could be few minutes, I’ll never agree to place a cap on the number of them we can have.
Yeah I didn’t mean to support a cap in general or at all really, it’s just a faster way to get rid of unwanted pets/thralls is all.
I said MORE THAN. I believe possibly you are missing the point. The question was not whether or not it slowed dows the AI to place tames or thralls. I wanted a reason why they were worthy of more consideration than a vault or even a standing torch. Does a tame or thrall consume more of the resource than the other placeables in the world? why specifically are tames and thralls the problem?
It exactly addressed “more than”. Yes. An active thrall or pet consumes more system resources than a vault or a standing torch. They aren’t static. They are dynamic. Whereas a torch or vault are just database entries, Active thralls and pets, from the time they are engaged until the time they die or reset, require constant calculations.
Maybe if it limited thralls in a loaded area(not globally), could be set by the admin, and was turned off by default. That would improve performance in loaded areas and still let people use thralls in each of their bases.