I think what some people were trying to suggest was more along the lines of considering density at a more local scale, instead of continental. Right now, Luria expands and takes more regions than they have nobles, and the direct consequence is that more monsters spawn to carve up what is already the densest realm of the continent, Westgard. Every region the non-dense eastern realms take are basically at the cost of the densest realms of the game, Westgard and D'Hara, and potentially Fissoa and Astrum. Perhaps less so with the sea travel, but still.
It used to be more even to all rogue borderlands, but players whined about this (Fissoa almost dying and D'Hara being hit from both east and west), so Anaris made changes to have the monsters spawn strongest in the largest rogue clump (the West). First folks whine to turn down the monsters for eastern realms. Now you whine for the opposite of eastern realms not having it easier. People are never happy.
If regions that remained without (enough) knights for too long attracted and spawned more rogues, while regions with enough never (or almost) spawned any rogues, it could be a means to direct the monsters where they are most likely to accomplish their purpose.
Lordless regions do attract rogues preferably to other regions. And low estate coverage attracts rogue preferably to other regions too.
