This sort of thing would, indeed, be deeply unbalancing to the entire Far East, which really seems to me to miss the whole point of the clan discussion in the first place—that is, the real problem with clans is not so much that the people in them break the rules by their clan activities, but that clans are bad for the game because they unbalance it.
Okay, I agree with you in principle. However, I disagree with the way you're perceiving this case.
I believe clans are bad if they unbalance the game by their clan activities in and of themselves. But I don't think what I am proposing is a problem if it unbalances the game, purely because we added more nobles to an island. This statement seems completely counter active to everything I've heard about BM lacking players to put nobles on islands.
There are players with a spare character who could put that character on FEI. Am I hearing it is a bad thing to add characters to an island that needs them?
What if through massive personal marketing I managed to get 100 new characters made on FEI within the next month. (Some new players, some old players making new chars). Would this unbalance the island? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing for the game? Absolutely not. I would even argue its a great thing for the game.
One of the biggest problems with retention is that things grow stale over time and power blocs become immovable. Nothing changes, no one moves, there becomes no mobility in the hierachial structure. Well it sounds to me like the main reason against us adding new characters to FEI, is that it may cause more mobility to occur on the island. And God forbid new wars break out, or new realms are made. That would just be completely terrible to the game atmosphere.
Short version: Game balance = important, individual realm balance = less important. (Some will be stronger than others, and shaking things up every once in a while adds mobility and fun to the game. )
