100 server limit


144 yorum

  • Ult1mat3

    Why is this not a thing yet?

  • Commander GreyFox

    I think nitro subscribers should have a feature to join 50 or 100 more servers. Now you're thinking "what would happen to the servers you joined the exceed the normal 100?" Well my idea is to put a badge on some that says "server disabled for user" and grey out and make unclickable servers that someone joined exceeding the normal 100

  • Teenyweeny1

    I agree with many people's ideas in the comments. I would be more interested in getting Nitro if you included more perks to me as a user like doubling my server limit at the very least.

  • ArtisticMusic

    I wanna make mine 888  because people said don't be left if there was a update or less



  • Weifful

    I’d rather have the server-limit removed. But if it doesn't work, then I think I'm fine with a 200–500 server-limit.

    Currently Discord also has a 500-user note limit for users. There's also a user note-limit proposal that is similar to this proposal. If you're also seeking to increase or remove the limit of user notes please go there and upvote it.

  • The Monkey/vaudvet

    100 for non nitro users
    150 for nitro classic
    250 or unlimited for big boy nitro


    Does discord even look at these posts? I mean it would all be pointless if they don't reply or view it.

  • kelvinnkat

    @Erwinstein If there more than 784 people who want the limit increased, don't you think they at least owe us an explanation of why "cross-server connections" are needed for a "smooth, fast, and stable Discord experience." And the idea that it doubles every time a new server is added is completely and utterly laughable, as this would mean that even assuming cross-server connections between two servers only happened once per second and took even a single instruction, with 100 servers this would be 2^99 processes every single second. This is around 633 octillion calculations/s, or 6.33 times 10^29 processes per second. For reference, the groundbreaking US DoE exascale supercomputer can reach speeds of up to 1.8 quintillion processes/second. Or, to put it another way, you would need a third of a billion of the most powerful supercomputers in the world just to process a single user's cross-server connections assuming they are a member in 100 communities. 

  • Lornelin


    While I also want a higher limit to the amount of servers (it took me about a year of using Discord to hit the limit but since then I have to find a server to remove almost every time I play with a new Dota party and when I want to join a new YouTube/Twitch channel community or school project group or whatever) the exponentially growing work argument is not implausible.

    If, for example, the work when you're on 1 server takes 10k CPU cycles, and it grows by an exponent of just 1.005 per additional server, here's an excerpt of how it would grow:
    # of servers: # of CPU cycles
    1 : 10 thousand
    10 : 15.3 thousand
    25 : 32.3 thousand
    50 : 128 thousand
    100 : 3.6 Million
    150 : 257.1 Million
    200 : 62 Billion
    250 : 70.6 Trillion
    300 : 590.2 Quadrillion

    As you see, even at a very modest exponent, at some point it WILL get out of hand, that's the nature of exponents. If that point is somewhere it's possible to reach, they have to set a limit.
    In real life, how the work scales is also gonna be affected by things like number of users on each server, number of posts, active voice channels etc etc. It might well approximate some average exponential growth though.
    If it does and they set the limit relatively high already, they would need to re-engineer parts of the system to allow substantially higher limits, even if only paying users get them increased.

    • Add to Phrasebook
      • No word lists for English -> English...
      • Create a new word list...
    • Copy
    • Add to Phrasebook
      • No word lists for English -> English...
      • Create a new word list...
    • Copy
  • kelvinnkat

    Also, @Erwinstein, how exactly do "cross server calculations" make our experience smoother, faster, or more stable? If they do actually improve our experience, please tell us, as I'm having a bit of trouble  thinkingof a way these could result in a significant benefit to the end user. Until then, "cross server calculations" will seem like just an empty excuse for not giving users a feature they want.

  • Duckers McQuack

    @kelvinnkat then simply freeze the server you're least in then. Like you're still a member, but all notifications and such cease when you add server 101, and 2 of your least active servers freezes if you got 102 servers and so on. Would that be too hard to do?

  • Commander GreyFox

    @duckersmcquack I've already commented about them doing a system where if you get nitro they could bring the list of servers up to 200 and then freeze whatever many you joined if you stop paying for nitro and people have said that they can't do it because it would pretty much overload their systems with information or make it too expensive to up keep

  • StarsTheDude

    It would be nice for Nitro users

  • TixelisPro

    How 'bout just removing the limit, that 'd be awesome if it's possible !

  • Renkindle

    I think this would be good for Nitro users considering people make/join servers just for custom emojis nowadays

  • kyaing

    more than 100 for nitro. i'm down to my last 2 servers before the limit pls fix :(

  • DillonAdventures

    We must either raise the limit, or remove it entirely, I’m sick of the fact that I can only join 100 servers.

  • ❀ yūutsu ❀

    I know it's been a year since this was suggested but pretty please make it happen! (Well at least for Nitro users).

    It may be an opportunity for people to buy Nitro just to increase their server limit, or even boost even more servers with Nitro.

    "What if my nitro expired? What will happen to the servers I joined that went past the server limit?" Well an idea I have in mind is you'll be leaving those servers temporarily—you'll get a direct message (at least from Clyde bot? idk) for the server invites back to those servers which gives you a choice to return when you want to sub again for Nitro. Another idea is that when your Nitro near expiry date, you'll get a pop-up message or at least a notification to choose which servers you want to remain and leave.

    Idk just my thoughts xD I hope discord team considers this

  • rebane2001

    This is especially important right now, as the coronavirus situation requires many students to use Discord for communications with their teachers - a different server for each subject. Add to that the servers for keeping in touch with your friends and family and you quickly reach the 100 server limit without even having any prior server.

    I understand that certain operations (eg mutual servers for friends) will break or become very slow - but those are non-essential. I'd much rather not know that xXx_ProGam4r69_xXx is also in a Minecraft server I'm in if it means I won't have to deny joining a server to chat with my relatives.

    Maybe it'd make sense to have the ability to sort of "archive" servers, where you'll still stay in them, but certain features will be slowed down or turn off whatsoever to keep the Discord running smoothly

  • Gugu72

    I fully agree!
    Please remove the limit, or make it higher. I actually reached the limit, and all the server I am in, I won't leave them, I'm in for specific reasons: gaming, programming/coding, communities...
    These servers are important for me, and reaching the limit means I am very limited on Discord use, I can't explore servers more, and need to leave one to join another one, that is really annoying at this point.

    Please do something.

  • Tony_Lewis

    I'm not reaching that much yet but nicer to have it increased like few hundred servers as limit.

  • Note: Please upvote my comment if you agree in full or in part with any of the following. This shows support for the ideas in this comment.


    1. Server Load: To reduce the load, I think there should be different server group types, so people can make their most active servers to remain as active. For example, a group for the most active servers should use the current method of figuring out the pings, tags, and other things, while other groups should check for new information periodically, but less frequently than in the current mode. For example, there could be server group type for live checking, one for checking every 10 seconds, one for checking every minute, one for checking every 10 minutes, and an inactive-mode for checked only when logging in, opening or refreshing the app. This might require some extra work, but I believe it will be well worth it. 

    2. Organizing: A server organizer page should be added, where people should be able to move servers between no-group and custom groups. The groups should be limited to something like 24 servers. This, paired with the server group types would mean that people will be able to make the servers they are not currently active in at the time be less resources intensive. For example, a work-related group, a family-related group, a hobby related group, each group with up to 24 servers, and the other groups would be in inactive-mode. 

    3. Ordering: I think the servers tab should have another option to change the size of the server icons (in pixels), and the number of columns of servers (to fit more servers on the screen). This way, people will be able to more easily be active on multiple servers without needing to use BetterDiscord. The max-width of the servers tab would need to be calculated depending on the window size, regardless of the device, which would require a bit of javascript, aside the basic CSS, to re-calculate the max-width whenever the window size is changed.

    This is it for now, but I might come back to edit, to improve and expand.

  • realpikachugamer/MistyYami

    I think this shouldn't just be implemented for Nitro users. Not everyone can afford Nitro or get gifted it. Nitro users get more than regular, non-Nitro users as is anyways. Having it just for Nitro just gives Nitro users more advantages over non-Nitro members and makes them have to pay in order to get it. Everyone should have the ability to have more than 100 servers. There are lots of streamers and gamer groups using Discord and even they need more servers if they got gifted a sub or won a giveaway and can only claim it from Discord DMs. Nitro already has the ability to use emotes all over and the ability to change the 4 digits at the end of their name. Making every user have a max of 300 would be better for everyone. Please increase the limit~

  • Commander GreyFox

    Having a limit increase for nitro members would allow discord to have a reason for members to pay for nitro. It's already been said that it is too taxing for everyone to be in more than 100 servers so this would also limit that by a large sum. Think smart not selfish.

  • realpikachugamer/MistyYami

    Commander GreyFox

    Making it only for Nitro members actually is more selfish than u may think. Not everyone can be given Nitro. Think more on the lines of people who don't get extra money for Nitro. Nitro already has way more perks than non-Nitro. Non-Nitro only gets to show their name. Oooooh! How do u think non-Nitro users feel if they had to pay for Nitro to get extra servers? Answer- they wouldn't be able to. Making it for all users helps everyone. Think before you speak.

  • Commander GreyFox

    Clearly I have thought considering you made the same argument twice. You're just here to complain because you can't afford nitro. It isn't about giving more features to people who can afford nitro, it's about giving the features without pretty much making it impossible to give them to anyone at all. The team at discord themselves said that it's taxing on their system to give users more than 100 servers but by limiting how many people can have more limits how taxed the servers really are thus solving the issue of the potential of the discord servers being overloaded.

  • Commander GreyFox

    You sound ignorant to how this all works and even more bullheaded about thinking everyone should be allowed to have more than 100 servers. They do this all for free, they dont have to give you anything so you should accept that if they could give us more server slots that if it is through nitro than at least you can have them at all

  • GuardianPhoenix

    One potential remedy:

    • Servers are muted by default.
      - No read/unread notifications.
      - Only direct mentions/roles/everyone's will be pinged to the clients notifications.
    • Users are allowed to enable notifications for up to X servers.
    • Users' clients do NOT actively monitor muted servers:
      - Users have to actively enter a server, and only the most recent messages are fetched.
      - If the user sustains activity in the server; fetch the most recent for other channels.


  • Commander GreyFox

    I was following this until you mentioned having the most recent messages fetched for being active. I honestly thing that only so many messages should be reacheivable unless you ping a message. Also, there needs to be a lower limit for how many people can be joined to a server. I feel as if too many people is another reason for there being too much activity blowing up clients/discord's servers when all they'd need to do is lower the limit of howany people can be joined to a server. This will also make it better for people looking to expand their discord server's member count.

  • GuardianPhoenix

    That's literally what I said anyway?

    "Sustained activity" implies actively watching that server & talking in it.

    How on earth does lowering the member limit benefit anyone?  For busy/large servers all that will do is cause much more "server unavailable" messages for people.


Yorum yazmak için lütfen oturum açın.