That's my position as well. I've played against Lukon, CE, Belu invasion--and guess what, it's fun to play against a challenging enemy. I've stood my ground, alone, against the entire army of Archaron, back in 2008 when they seemed like multis.
C'mon, people. It's BATTLEmaster.
All those realms, regardless of how powerful they are, are still human realms, that can make human mistakes . The Zuma GM controls ALL the DAimons. Would you enjoy playing against Lukon or blahblahblah if you KNEW for a fact it was just one guy controlling it?
Why don't we add two more GMs, whats so hard about that?
Why are the people on this thread arguing "CHANGE NOTHING, if they dont like it they can sit down and shut up!"
Seriously, no one, I repeat, NO ONE, who has been anti Zuma has been of the opinion to get rid of them entirely.
Also, contrary to what De-Legro insists, very few people are being critical of the Zuma GM, most if not all realize hes doing his best, however, the circumstances he must play in kinda lend themselves to a poor, uninteresting playstyle. Honestly if I was the GM I dont think I could do a much better job. On the other hand, if I was playing alongside two other GMs I think it would be exponentially more flavorful.
I actually quite enjoyed the Zuma before, they were mystical beings off in the corner who we had to be very careful not to disturb. Now they act like children and meet any perceived slight with massive armies. Someone brought up Everguard and the level 1000 guards. An interesting theory. I've never played everguard, but let me guess, if you attack the guard he beats you up, yes? what if you and your buddy are having a private conversation about the guard? does he come in and stomp you then too? What if someone gives the guard a forged message that says you called him a twat? does he come and kill you??
Honestly, the people defending the Zuma are employing logical fallacy over logical fallacy to prove their points. Many (most) of their arguments are circuitous and they often disprove their owne previous arguments with their newer arguments. If this was a verbal debate, you would all lose.