So Funcom have said that server resources were not ready for a mount system, which the community have been calling for. In order to free up server resources funcom say they are experimenting with thrall caps, they stated themselves this is not a fixed final cap, obviously they are testing different caps and starting low and then increasing it higher is much better than doing it the other way around.

Then the very same community that has been begging for a mount system and more improvements pushes back against the changes that will relive server resources. Do you see the problem here, in order for Funcom to give us what we want they need to make adjustments, they need to stop people having 500 + thralls per player because it takes up server resource….

Most private servers put a thrall cap in place long ago because it just helps with general performance overall. why do you think it’s mostly official players and single player that are the ones complaining? I have even seen people say things along the lines of “oh so private servers wont be forced to put a cap in place, so how come they won’t lag more” the truth is most Private servers lag less because most already have rules in place to stop players building map sized bases and trying to capture every thrall they see.

Many seem to only be able to see the thralls you will lose, instead of also seeing the improvements that a thrall cap will allow funcom to bring. I for one choose improvements such as mounts and a thrall leveling system over being able to tame 1000 thralls and sit in my lag filled base.

It’s also not really about the console players like so many have been assuming, sure it will prob help console players game stability but the main reason the cap is being experimented with is to free up server resource to implement the new developments they want to bring into the game. Don’t you think that if this was simply to improve the console experience that it would only be being implemented on console servers?

So we as a community need to decide what do we actually want? to be able to tame 1000 thralls and have them lag around map sized bases or to have new game mechanics such as mounts and a thrall leveling system as well as other potential game developments. You can’t always have your cake and eat it my friends…

This is also a natural progression of many games like this, just look at ark they implemented a cap system ages ago, WildCard to this day still change the cap as a way to relieve server resources. A game like this needs a built in cap otherwise you get people who just won’t stop, heck they would gladly crash the server and watch their motherboard catch on fire and burn right in front of their own eyes just to be able to capture every thrall that spawns on the map, there has to be systems in place to stop that level of greed and hoarder style gameplay, otherwise those players end up crashing servers and causing all sorts of issues down the line.

People also act as if this is the final cap limit despite so many statements telling you it isn’t, maybe the cap will end up at a reasonable 100 thralls per player… maybe more maybe less, we will have to wait and see, but how about before we lose our minds we just stop and think rationally for a moment, before we cry revolution lets atleast give funcom some time to test out the changes and find a better balance between thralls caps and server resource.

I get there are other arguments against the thrall cap but I havent done a deep dive through all the arguments put forth and if you feel there is an argument that may sway me to be more sympathetic to the pushback then by all mean enlighten me, I am open to hear them.

EDIT: post edited to lessen hostilities, I am not trying to stir up any more conflict here.


53 posts were merged into an existing topic: New Follower Limit - Feedback thread