Thrall Limit vs. Better Servers vs. Thrall Density

Which would you prefer?

A. Implement thrall limit to reduce lag issues.

B. Invest in better servers to reduce lag issues.

C. Implement a thrall density limit. (“Too many thralls in this area”) Credit: CodeMage

Please reply with an “A.” “B.” “C.” Give reasoning to support your choice.

Your input is appreciated. Thank you…

B. I am on pve and my buildings are not massive but I design each build with thralls and pets as purge defense. I have walls lined with archers with pets lined up outside the walls. This is done both for defense and looks.

I have 4 alters fully upgraded each with 4 dancers on them to look like followers. I was planning on building a tavern and stock it with dancers, bouncers and bartenders. That is not possible once the limit goes into effect. So they have given us a excellent new dlc and then ruined it.


B. I believe the true nature of a sandbox is to allow the player imagination to run wild. Thrall limits would destroy that creativity and ingenuity. There are ways to fix lag issues without limits on things, such as better servers, and not letting the PC version of the game be dictated by console versions.

Edit: CodeMage brought an idea to my attention and if it came down to it I would fully support option “C.”


A. On official PvP servers, alpha clans that build everywhere make it difficult to “play” the game as intended. Thrall limits are needed on PvP, but perhaps not so much on private PvE servers.

Sorry to be that guy, but I would prefer neither. If I absolutely had to choose between those two (as if we had any choice anyway), I would probably choose B, but to be honest, it would be much better to implement a thrall density cap, as opposed to the total thrall cap.

Imagine you’re trying to place a thrall and the game gave you a message “too many thralls in this area”. This is different from “too close to another thrall”. It has to do with how many thralls there are within a fixed radius (for example). It can even check several different radii and have caps for each.

Is it doable? Unless their engine is a steaming pile of hot garbage, the answer is “hell yeah, it’s doable”.


Probably the best idea I’ve heard yet out of this whole mess.

I’m adding this idea to the line up, I feel like this is probably the most realistic comprise and solution.

I’ve just read someone else’s idea in another thread and it’s also good: Idea for follower cap! FUNCOM PLEASE READ!

The author of the idea proposes a Barracks system, where you would be able to place a new structure called Barracks. It would work similar to an Animal Pen, holding thralls you’re not using. You could take the followers out of it and deploy them and send them back to barracks with a command in the radial menu. If you couple that idea with the thrall limit, it would work well for everyone: total cap would still be in place, but you could easily change the deployment of your thralls. Getting purged at base X? Go to base Y, send all the thralls there to their barracks, go back to base X, deploy thralls from barracks there, fight the purge, then put everything back to the way it was.

I still think a density cap would be less complicated for players and devs both, but barracks system sounds like an interesting idea.


b on my server i dont lag but when i go to a offical server i lag when i get near a big base not near a lot of thralls

1 Like

Most problems can be solved by throwing lots of money at it, so naturally, better servers would be a great idea.

The drawback is that that money needs to come from somewhere, and when it comes to a modern capitalistic economy, there’s basically only one place where that money can come from - the customers. So really, Option B should include a follow-up question “…and how much extra would you be willing to pay for maintaining those servers?”.

Also, as Shadoza said, improved servers could solve issues from server end, but not from player end.

I don’t really have a horse in this race, as being a Solo player it would seem that I can ignore the new limitations anyway.

Not this one. As I stated in the other thread, if 400 thralls in one spot lags out the servers as they are now, “better servers” just mean that it will take 450 the next time. People aren’t gonna go “Ok, I’m good at 400.” They’re going to keep hording thralls and stacking them up, maliciously or not. It doesn’t solve the core problem.

1 Like

I agree with Glurin, Better servers is kind of the Band-aid fix option, essentially just postponing the problem until servers need to be improved again, it will not stop. The people who want no limit on thralls mean it… no limit at all, I agree that would be cool and all but the realities of the situation don’t allow for this and it would come at a cost of other features that make the game fun and interesting.

I really don’t wan’t conan to just become a thrall capture simulator. I would much prefer a fully fleshed out game with many features to it.

Like others have also stated better servers cost money,and that cost will essentially trickle down to the consumer in some shape or form, also it kind of opens up the ability for people to exploit this, imagine pvp players spamming thralls in a base with the intention to create so much lag for a would be raider that they actually can’t raid the base. This is already the kind of thing I have seen on ARK, people would spam a specific lag prone tame in an attempt to crash other people games who got to close to the base and got aggro’d by the tames.

Better servers don’t improve the different rigs that people are running the game off aswell and so this may either result in higher minimum system requirements which will cut the player base or just give an advantage and potential for exploit for players who are running better systems. I run a good system btw before anyone assumes I am just salty that I would be one of those that get shafted for having a worse off pc, I am one of the ones who would not suffer from this and my game runs really well at high settings, but I have friends with lesser pc’s and I know it wouldn’t be fair to adopt that kind of mentality moving forward.

So I vote option A or C. B in my opinion is the worst option unless used in tandem with A and C

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.