The clan size cap is too big then… 10 is HUGE for a 40 player server. Should be closer to like 6ish and even that is a little high. I do slightly agree with you though. Even though I would prefer the server cap be 60-70 people.
1 Like
they need open the server caps to like 80.
40 man server are bad, they are all full.
terrible almost like AGE OF CONAN launch day.
failboat!
1 Like
40 would still be fine if they allow you to actually connect on server somehow (queue) and kick afk players. Seriously, which online game doesn’t do that? 
1 Like
Is anyone posting in this thread actually remember how bad the lag is when the server cap was higher. It is the reason I got my own dedicated server. GPortal is just bad and 40 is about all they can handle.
40 limit is pathetic for a game such as this. On PvP servers , "don’t want competition on the server just keep the slots full especially if you have full 10 man clan as this a full quarter of the server pop!
1 Like
Maybe they could introduce new servers with the 70 cap or at least 50-60 and monitor performance issues for those servers.
10 is perfect. If a clan is bigger than 6, 8, or 10 they will simply create a 2nd clan. How do you not get that?
They are doing it even now, still it is at least complication for them (they have to build separate bases, can’t use doors or be around battle thralls of other clan, etc.). To have 1/4 of server cap occupied by one tribe is just bad.
That’s not how it works. The reason it runs smooth for you is because it’s at 40.
These things are calculated based on server and network load. So they know how much horsepower their servers have, and they know how much each user consumes. And they know that the longer the server is up (the more buildings it has ect) will make those consumption numbers per user go up over time.
They can’t just turn it off and type in “max players = 80” and turn it back on and magically everything is just like it was when it was at 40…
Increasing server performance requires additional money, which means that operational expenses go up, which likely requires approval from accounting departments… not as simple as “just reboot it with more slots”
Also with higher player numbers, there are more building objects in the world, more players to render, and would cause local client performance issues on lower end PCs or people with laptops, etc.
I have not been able to enter the server all day, and so on, full. If you buy a game is so you can play, what are you thinking?
Private servers run 70 just fine so you’re wrong. Cheers tho.
2 Likes
Still they need to adress server population problem somehow - and they are trying to do that by adding more servers, which is nice a can easy situation a little bit, but is not a good solution for everyone. Just now if you already started on some server, big chance you wont get there again, have to start over and lost all your effort… and face the same problem later on new server.
Call for bigger servers is not really unreasonable in this situation. I would really love to play, but I didn’t manage to get on server today or yesterday and if Conan lacks basic functions as server queue or kicking afk players (which is just insane), don’t know how better solve this then try to handle bigger sized servers. I like playing without lags as any other guy, but just now I am not playing at all.
Private servers have more resources and they’re optional, they’re also not on Funcom’s hardware / cloud service… Also private servers crash plenty with ~70 on… I play on a couple 70 full pop servers.
I never said increasing the size was impossible, or that other servers didn’t do it. I said it’s highly unlikely for funcom to double their opex and jeopardize the stability of their service to fix something that isn’t the problem to begin with. As other have mentioned things like AFK timers and server join queues are the way to go about balancing server population, not just increasing a number that you think can be tuned without repercussion 
1 Like
This in not how steam autoconnect works. It’s a queue and the only thing that will prevent you connecting when it’s your turn is if your ping is too high and the server rejects you.
@UltraViolent Any source on that? I don’t think this is true as the function is called auto-retry - it literally just periodicaly check server and when is slot free, it will connect.
In first night of the game 4 of us joined auto-connect on steam in the same time. I got on server in 15 minutes, others did not at all. All pings under 60 (but usually around 30). This does not sound as a queue. Or at least not one working properly. Yesterday I was waiting wor about 8 hours, today again from 2pm and I am still not connected.
It tells you your place in the queue. If it says 40/40 you will be next f it says 42/40 it means there is two people in front of you.
I’m fine with Funcom raising the max players by 10, and seeing how it affects server stability. If they really did do all the work they claimed on server/client stability and speed, there should be no problem setting the max player limit to 50.
Can we get someone from Funcom to weigh in on this issue?!
@UltraViolent I see 40/40 most of the day, yet there are people connecting and I am not. So I don’t think this is correct info.
Everyone is up for increased servers but do you stop to think about all the aids bases that’s scattered around from people that log in once in awhile. You increase server size with all the added builds that are not online you will have so much lag game won’t be playable. Guess people don’t think about other online games. I for one have never seen one where a 100 players can be on at the same time. There are reasons why servers have caps. There’s a lot more to it than I would guess 90% of those requesting larger caps understand.
Works that way for me so it is correct. Are you actually selecting auto connect? Maybe read the options.