With the new thrall limits, I’d like to see a new method of placing thralls that places a cut-down version…
All it would do is stand where it is, and the usual ‘standing around’ motions. No attacking, defending, moving from the spot…
Basically a lifelike dress-up dummy.
If it can be done without the effect of bogging down servers like current thralls do, then please do 
Love the idea! Here’s the link to one of the previous suggestions for that.
No. Cosmetic thralls is a bad idea.
Because they don’t give you sorcery? 
No, because Cosmetic Thralls would be pay to win Thralls. I want funcom to avoid loot boxes and other pay to win tatics.
Um, what? What do cosmetic thralls have to do with loot boxes? How are they pay to win? I’m confused.
T4 thralls as Cosmetic. Picture that.
Okay? I go out, I capture a T4 dancer, and instead of placing her as a normal follower, I place her as a cosmetic thrall. Go on? How do we get from that to “pay to win” and “lootboxes”?
Cosmetic is sold as DLC in Conan Exiles. You would be buying thralls.
He’s conflating the word “cosmetic” for the the term “cosmetics”. In games like Overwatch, etc. “cosmetics” are what people refer to the extra skins, etc. gained from loot boxes. They aren’t pay-to-win so much as gamble-to-look-nice.
@Bryan_Skull what we’re talking about here is something completely different and unrelated. We’re just asking about adding a placeable to the base game (not DLC) that allows us to add a thrall to it so that they don’t consume AI resources and are essentially just an animated decoration. So that our bases don’t look so empty after the thrall cap.
Uh, no. Nobody said “DLC”. We said “cosmetic”. From dictionary.com:
So, in summary, we want to be able to use thralls as decorations, instead of followers.
he wants pippi thespians based on a real t4 thrall, this is not related to dlc cosmetics
this will cut down the benefit of the thrall limit because the ‘placeable’ thrall will also have some kind of logic for the animations which still needs resources. not sure if this is something the freed up resources should be spend to
Yes and no. The reason they’re placing the cap on followers, of all things, is because they strain both the server and the client. The animated placeables, which includes crafting stations with assigned thralls, only affect clients. They have no AI logic to simulate on the server.
And yes, you could still provoke a lot of lag on the client using lots of decorative thralls, but you can already do that with placeables (e.g. torches) and they’re not placing a cap on that.
handling of placeables was always a resource thing (especially compared to building pieces which are more efficient data wise) and such a thrall is nothing more than a placeable with all the constraints we already have for normal placeables
Yes, that’s exactly what I said: the decorative thrall would be the same as a placeable and there are currently no caps on placeables. In case it wasn’t clear what my point was, it’s that if Funcom isn’t worried about placeables yet, then why should we be?
they are and thats one of the reason why some dlcs did not have placeables. it’s mentiont multiple times in the dev streams where they revealed the dlcs which only have pet skins and none or only a few placeables
the best source I can find at the moment: Downloadable Content - Official Conan Exiles Wiki
Oh, well, that’s good to know. Not because it’s good news – it probably means we won’t be getting decorative thralls, which means PVE players like me will lose interest in the game fast with the new follower cap in place. But it’s good to know because we can stop having false hopes 
So basically, it’s sounding like private server rentals or bust at this point if you want to have some semblance of City Life. That or each player has to create multiple un-clanned alts so each one can have its own base and 55-thrall limit. So either the added obligation and expense of learning all the server admin tools (and resolving player conflicts), or the expense and hassle of buying multiple copies of the game** and swapping accounts with some regularity (**I’m predicting they’ll try to mess with Family Share again to avoid people cheesing alts for the 100-thrall limit).
At this point @Sera67’s old idea about Landclaim flags is starting to sound good. That would be a quick & easy way to marry a thrall cap to a base (i.e. @CodeMage’s density-based approach). Additionally, it would afford a means of splitting bases back out of an existing clan by reassigning a flag from the clan to a specific player.
good
Yeah, but that’s only one part of the problem. The rest of that quote mentions how “consoles were starting to creak under the pressure” of placeables.
Of course, the part of the quote that talks about placeables having “their own materials and textures, which take up additional space and memory” wouldn’t apply either, because we would use existing thrall meshes, materials, skeletal animations and textures, but there’s still the part about causing more drawcalls.
It’s really up to Funcom, I guess, to determine whether the tech can take it or not. I can’t get any clarity from what people are posting, because some quotes make it seem like the servers are falling apart under pressure, but then they come out with mounts, which must be a whole different bag of resource hogs…