New Follower Limit - Feedback thread

[BarakIII]

@Hobo_The_Wise

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….

I’m sure most players had no idea when asking for mounts that they would have to sacrifice something else. Frankly I’m not in favor of mounts at all. I think the map is actually too small for a mount system but that’s just my opinion and I’m sure I’m in the minority. I’m not opposed to a reasonable thrall limit, but a 55 to 100 thrall limit per clan is not anything remotely like reasonable given that the thrall system is the core of the game while a mount system is nothing more than flavor. This is particularly true on pve servers where base building is a major aspect of the game and even a modest base requires a good 10 to 20 thralls/pets for defense against purges.

@Hobo_The_Wise

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.

As I stated before I’m not totally opposed to a thrall/pet cap but 55 to 100 is way way too small a number. Assume 100 thralls/pets per base in a clan of 10 members is much closer to a realistic number. Yes, that’s 1000 thralls total and that sounds like a lot, but compared to what exists in game on official servers that’s actually a huge reduction in pets and thralls.

@Hobo_The_Wise

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…

You’re exaggerating to make a point, but the truth is only a very small number of people actually build bases that large and have that many thralls and I’m sure most have complained about that in the past. There is reasonable and then there is unreasonable base building and thrall/pet collection and there’s always at least one guy on an official server who is completely inconsiderate of other players and builds extremely large with not just one base but multiple bases spread across the map with literally thousands of thralls/pets. I’m sure many in the community have asked for moderation on this and they have not gotten it. Instead Funcom decides to implement something that sacrifices a core system in favor of a minor quality of life addition to the game that ends up punishing not just those who have abused the build/thrall/pet system but the entire player base.

Funcom made building and the thrall system a core part of the game. Changing that now, especially for a minor thing like mounts, would be a major mistake in my opinion. You say it’s better to start low and go high but I don’t agree with that at all. Limit those who have abused the system to reasonable builds and reasonable thrall limits first. Don’t hurt the rest of the player base in the process. More often than not it’s one or two people, or one or two clans per server, that are causing these issues in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised that limiting the worst abusers would reduce the strain on servers a great deal.