Increase the Max Number of Roles per Server
Is there a way to increase the max number of roles per server / does Discord corp have any plans to do so? I know that the server I spend most of my time on is at least a little hampered by the cap - early gifting of dozens of personal roles left them few for utility. We have roles like @Fact Checkers, @Worldbuilders, @Idea Bouncers, etc, roles with utility for bringing in people who are interested in helping people do specific things.
However, on that server there was a tradition of giving dedicated users personal roles in order to customize the color of their usernames, which means hundreds of role slots are gone, limiting the number of new roles. It might be sentimentality, but it's difficult to get rid of those personal roles, because it essentially means deleting server history.
Currently the Discord has 250 max roles, which strikes me as a little arbitrary, but I'm not a developer, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyway. Is there any way we can increase the role cap ourselves, or does Discord have plans in doing so?
-
250 roles is insanity. Having a role for everything under the sun is pointless and is just making people feel important in a server when they've done nothing. If I go into a server and a random person who just joined already has 50 roles for being 18+, Male, USA, Christian, Republican, Scientist, Programmer, Cake Eater, Cat Liker, etc - I'm leaving. That stuff is nonsense, any server that has 250 roles for that kind of stuff and then wants MORE is not a server worth being in.
-107 -
well, don't join my server because i have 251 roles.
-1 -
There are legitimate reasons to have more than 250 roles.
77 -
I'd love to hear a good breakdown of a reasonable reason for over 250 roles GeigerCounter.
-37 -
Just a few example use cases:
1. An international politics server with a role for each nation and administrative roles. ( There's over 200 internationally recognized countries in the world at present. And if you add in disputed territories, you're over 250 just with that. This is useful information to have at a glance when discussing such a complex subject. )
2. A linguistics server with a role for each language and the user's proficiency in it. ( Even if you ignore the rare languages, there's still a lot of them. And at minimum you want a role for a native speaker, for a fluent speaker, and for a learning speaker. )
3. A server for API/bot testing - particularly testing the speed of mass role creation and mass role deletion.
4. Bot and integration heavy servers in general
5. Transient roles for mass games run over Discord that are created and deleted on the fly in a volume enough to warrant more than 250 roles.
And here are a few less than reasonable reasons that people none the less would be interested in:
1. Anything in a s**tposting server
2. Self-assigned roles for flair
3. Roles with moderator privileges within a single channel for the purpose of allowing people to have their own channel and moderate it themselves.
4. The exact reasons you mentioned of demographic breakdowns.
5. Supermassive servers with 50+ channels and 10k users and 80 bots.
6. To have individual permissions for each user. ( Yes I'm aware this is stupid, but it doesn't mean people won't do it. )
7. More = better. It's a flag to wave around to hype certain types of user.
Just because you wouldn't use that many and don't find it personally useful doesn't mean that it's not useful and desirable. There are future potential use cases of additional roles with the advent of the Discord store as well, but that's all in the realm of speculation. All the above cases are ones that you can currently find out there in the wild. And if so many roles seems unwieldy to you, you're probably not managing your server with a bot like you should be. So there, that's a dozen reasons that have sufficient demand, five of which are perfectly reasonable.
If you think that all of those things are stupid, that's your choice. You can have a server with only one role if you want, but there's still people who would use more roles if given the opportunity and there's reasons where it actually makes perfect sense to do so and is much, much better than the alternative. ( Such as using bots to add ugly flairs to the end of a user's nick to display relevant information with their name. I've seen that being used as an alternative for roles in the first two use cases mentioned and it's hideous and a waste of space. Especially when you get a polyglot who speaks 10+ languages. )
I'm sure that I could think of many other uses for more roles, but the fact is that I don't have to if someone else can. If someone supports this, they probably already know why they need/want more roles or just prefer having more flexibility.97 -
Absolutely appreciate the well thought out reply, and can certainly concede that at least #1 is reasonable, with #2 borderline reasonable. Bot specific servers aren't typical, and if anything should be given a different use-case than others due to that atypical need for functionality/testing. A sandbox area for dev accounts would be very nice I think to help with some of that.
The truth is that the majority of people asking for this increase fall into your second list, specifically the first two things you posted. While there's nothing that says it can't be done or shouldn't be done, personally I just think there are so many things that would benefit far more users more than this kind of ask.
I wouldn't say "no" to it being done, I would just expect and hope that it is very low on the priority list of other asks that are out there right now.
Thanks again for the thought provoking possibilities, have a good one.
-38 -
It really depends on how difficult it would be to implement. I don't know how Discord works behind the scenes, but I don't imagine that it would be more than a few KB to maybe a couple MB more per server, so I don't see it having a negative impact on things. It seems to me that it's probably just a limit arbitrarily set in the programming to avoid database attacks by automatic role creation. In which case, as long as there is a finite limit it's still fine. And if it is really that simple, the implementation would be as painless as just increasing that limit number. In practicality it might actually be a limit set in the database configuration, in which case it could take reindexing of every Discord server which could put the service offline for a few hours. That'd be the worst case scenario. It really just depends on how roles are currently implemented, but I don't foresee it taking more than an afternoon of work and that's why I fully support it. It's very low on the priority list as you say, but if it could be done during a lull in work on bigger, more important tasks, why not? It won't happen at all if the devs aren't aware that people want it.
And also, you're welcome. :)29 -
I'd almost be onboard with the idea of increased limits for servers owned by members with Nitro only, and those features disabling if Nitro lapses.
I personally have a server that at one point had the maximum of 500 channels and we weren't able to create more. That's not something most servers will ever run into, and if paying for Nitro would increase that limit I'd absolutely be onboard. The features that Nitro offers currently don't really interest me at this time, I'd love to see some focus there on making their paid mode more desirable. Cross-server emotes/gifs and changing the number in your username just isn't really that great currently.
Discord is still really young in their lifecycle, I look forward to what they keep doing.
14 -
Good point there too. Like there are other features for which I would pay for Nitro - such as custom themes and CSS -- and this is a feature that would at least have me consider it. Using custom emojis across server and animated emojis aren't enough, but more roles and being able to have a two-column server list are things that I personally find worth it. Though I'd say that if you made it a nitro thing, you shouldn't take away roles over 250 but just take away the ability to create more. Because it could cause a lot of chaos and dissatisfaction if someone's nitro subscription slips for a couple days and they have to do maintenance on the server because of it. That's a downside to making the feature linked to Nitro.
10 -
It's a downside, yes, but it also is a consequence of not paying for a feature behind a paywall. If I have a recurring bill to Netflix and I am very invested in a lot of shows and I let my payment lapse and they disable my account - that's my bad, not theirs. And for Discord, it'd only be the removal of the extraneous roles, anything 251 and up. I think a warning period would be nice, something to indicate that your payment has lapsed and you have 7-14 days to remedy it or your extra features will be removed which might have a negative impact on your server.
Discord is free and that's great. A little payment for extra stuff is fine by me. :)
-5 -
I agree discord you should do this 500% please. Thanks
14 -
I run a massive 6-Major Study Group Discord Server, and we are having a situation where we've hit the 250 Limit, and we have 600+ students from those 6 different majors. At this moment we're trying to connect two discord servers together to make up for the current limit. It would be great if we there would be a limit boost for Academic Discord Servers....
16 -
I agree with this. I'm part of a fairly large discord server (2,000 people) that plays competitive Rocket League. We have combine's, a draft, pre-season, regular season, playoffs, and a championship. More roles are needed so that the people that earned different titles (champion, mvp, team, franchise, etc) can keep them.
9 -
We also have an academic use case and need separate channels/roles for over 20,000 schools that we support
7 -
To add to what has already been mentioned, I (and many others like me) run a server for Pokemon Go. In order to make it easier to get exact directions for the "Gyms" in the game to coordinate "raids" with other players, we had to assign roles for each gym. Then, when a user tags that gym a bot on our server will post an exact google maps location for directions. With the research tasks being added to the game, it would be nice to be able to do the same thing for the "Pokestops" in game as well so that we can let other players know exactly where this stop is so that they can pick up that task in game.Given the volume of people that still play this game and use discord to coordinate, I'm sure that others would appreciate this ability as well. I imagine that it's likely to cost us a little bit to increase this limit given how the basic discord is free to use. If it's reasonable, I'm sure many of us would pay the fee.
1 -
Please add more role slot either to all servers, or at the very least offer it as a bonus for boosted servers. 250 roles are filling up way too fast on servers which have separate roles for countries, game characters, etc. even with proper management. As FGO related server we offer roles for each playable servant in the game, and the number of these characters is already nearing 250, we're going to run out of slots soon.
5 -
I want to add to this discussion that we would love nested roles, i run an ARK community and we would like to have a Role for the tribes so they could have their own channels and their own space on the server, also it would be great to be able to do so nativelly and not trough a bot (the bot is the one that allows the tribe owners to add the role of their tribe to the people on the server)
-1 -
Why do you need so many roles? -19 -
absolutly not needed lol -23 -
I feel that this is needed for a variety of reasons - for servers that have communities with departments that have tens of ranks (along with their subdivisions and their ranks) it adds up quickly. Not to mention the administrative command of the group and developers who need access to specific places.
5 -
I have like 4 help related role such as admin. Around 7 bots that came with roles. And maybe around 7 rewarding roles.
But it's full because I added alot of gaming roles. I added only the game that's still alive and has some kind of multiplayer, but still enough to make it full. Alot of games out there, lol 😂.
I thought if I added a role like that then it'll make it easier to find players to play with. Even made a private channel for those roles, and looking tor group channel for each one. Even added Xbox, PlayStation, pc and more roles. And even added the looking for group command to make it easier.
I had to delete a few because it was full. But I was almost there though, so I guess it's OK. Only missing like around 10 still alive games. But still would be nice if there were 500 limit instead though, since the amount of games will only increase. Would be nice. Unlimited then that would be even better. But if you can't then 500, lol 😂
And increase the channel limit too, because I made a channel for each of those gaming roles for different kind of players out there, so that would help.5 -
I'll support this just because @GeigerCounter blew the debate away with his retort. It's been a while since my college years and we were taught to take a reasonable cap, then double it twice. I run a gaming group that migrated from Messenger because of a member cap, it's not a far stretch for me to see how a role cap can be problematic, no matter the figure. The way I see it there are two kinds of limits, arbitrary and technical. If it's arbitrary we should know why. If its technical we should know why. I appreciate all the nerdy load message and language through the update and help files, and this sounds just like a reason to use such while informing on the whys and how comes.
To be clear, outside of a few member related roles, say 5, 10 or so bot roles, and 10-15 or so roles so that particular parties could be @mentioned, I don't see myself ever approaching 250, but it also doesn't mean I can't see what servers of other particular interests would require a great many more than that. If you say "never" and "no" because of your needs, that's pretty shortsighted.10 -
Hi, I'm the creator of this support ticket, and I'd like to review what has occurred since this ticket was opened.
Since I created this post well over 9 months ago, Discord has introduced features including spoiler tags, quote blocks, and, notably, Nitro Server Boosting.
This post has 25 followers, 47 upvotes, and 19 comments. Notably, it has zero responses from any Discord developers, representatives, or other employees.
We have not received any answer as to why 250 is the role cap. Is 250 a technical limitation? What can be done to resolve that? Is 250 an intentional limitation? Why is that? In any case, we are left answerless and dissatisfied.
At the bare minimum, the role cap should increase with Nitro Server Boosting. With the emoji cap going up with Nitro Boosting, Discord has shown itself capable of increasing what is usually thought as a hard limit. Thus, it should be, at minimum, a bonus for Nitro Boosted servers to have more than 250 roles. Preferably, all servers would have a limit upwards of 512, but giving this feature to Nitro Boosted servers increases incentive to boost servers.
Discord, we simply ask one question: Why is the role cap at 250? Why does the Discord Twitter refuse to acknowledge the real limit of the role cap, instead insisting the role cap is at 200? As someone who uses Discord near-daily, it is disheartening that there has been zero response to this question. At least Microsoft support responds within the amount of time it takes to carry a baby to term.
17 -
@EtchJetty - It's clear that Discord is busy spending the hundreds of millions in VC they've raised and doesn't have time to look into issues like this that you and I care about. Sounds like it's time to disrupt them and making something new, much like they did to slack/et-al a few years back. Should we use discord to plan our new startup or maybe use Microsoft Teams? :)
2 -
@Merl - I wouldn't use Microsoft Teams as it's been shown time and time again that Microsoft doesn't show a lot of support for their products and tend to give them up after a short while. Zune; Kinect; Windows Phone; Cortana; etc., etc...
0 -
@HyruleBalverine - That was clearly sarcasm. Obviously I love discord for what it is, and admire what they've done with their capital. Bottom line this is one of those edge cases that they don't care about because enough people haven't complained. This is also the problem that many of us have when we base a critical part of our community(business) on a platform that we ultimately have no control offer (not open source). The facts are that discord is the clearly dominant market leader in the largest entertainment industry on the planet (gaming), with nobody else in a distant second. They are the only platform that has a large sample of ALL gamers, regardless of game, gaming platform (steam, origin, battlenet, etc), gaming type (console, PC, mobile). They have the power to disrupt twitch, and are more of a threat than mixer/d-live or any other direct competitor. They have the power to disrupt publishers and those that resell gaming content (steam, etc). In some sort of way, you could even argue that limiting the 'size' and scope of servers on discord is in their own self interest.
-1 -
@Merl. I'm quire fluent in sarcasm. I just wanted to poke fun at Microsoft.
-1 -
@HyruleBalverine - Ya, gotcha. I think MSFT Teams is here to stay for a while, they've recently eclipsed Slack as far as user count. Discord is essentially Slack with a dark theme and a newer codebase, and a more vibrant extension/integration ecosystem. Maybe if we continue this conversation long enough someone from Discord will read it and implement EtchJetty suggestion :)
-1 -
One can only hope.
0 -
It' s possible they just can't find it since it's old. So I'll make another ticket and link it to this one,. Maybe that will help, lol XD
2
Log ind for at efterlade en kommentar.
Kommentarer
99 kommentarer