Two comments as I thought of as I read these comments:
I) Make negative density more harmful rather than an inconvenience, make realm tax decrease for example or increased rogues etc.
Sadly density restrictions have different drawbacks for larger realms and smaller realms.
In a larger realm where there are many players, it is fairly easy to keep "inter-action/action" going to keep players engaged in one way or another.
In a smaller realm, the density restriction severely hinders the "inter-action/action" choices.
Forty people in the same realm are much more likely to find ways to interact, while a realm of ten people will have much less opportunity for interacting.
I understand that many of the players feel that the smaller, less active realms deserve to die off because they are "boring".
Consider this:
The game is fickle. Realms rise and fall. Activity increases and dwindles.
Lets look at some history.
Luria Nova (Dwi) formerly a great power on the continent that was large enough to split off a new realm (which has since been absorbed back into Luria Nova), is now but a shadow of its former self.
D'Hara (Dwi) on the other hand was one of the smallest realms on the continent not so long ago, but now boasts the most nobles on the continent.
Thalmarkin (BT) was recently up to near 50 nobles, but not so long ago, they too were very low on nobles. Things changed and they got much larger. (not sure where they are at now, no noble on BT).
Obeah Syela a former powerhouse on BT is now greatly reduced in nobles.
Irondale (BT), a group of smaller realms that were "forced" to band together to continue their existence. Now a powerhouse on the continent.
The density restrictions affect the smaller realms much more than the larger realms. Are the smaller realms really so bad that they should be punished for being small.
Do we really want only two or three larger realms on each continent?
This could certainly be better for interaction "within the realm" as more people would be in each realm.
Sadly, with only two or three Rulers on each continent there would not likely be much friction between the realms as it is much easier to come to an agreement with only two or three people involved.
On the other hand, if each continent had 10-15 rulers trying to sort things out, there is a lot more likelyhood that there would be disagreements and friction among the group. The more people there are in the decision making, the harder it will be to come to an agreement.
The real question is larger vs smaller.
The Devs have sent conflicting messages with their actions.
We want bigger realms (less smaller realms), but smaller alliance blocks (and sadly these blocks are determined by region count, NOT noble count)? Confusing to say the least.
How much war would we see on the War Islands if alliances were allowed?
(I haven't played WI for a while either, so my info there is limited as well.)
Though there are no set alliances, there has been "co-operation" of sorts, at times, there.
The two "smaller" realms avoiding fighting with each other to concentrate on reducing the size of the "larger" realm.
An "unspoken agreement" that benefits both smaller realms while increasing pressure on the lager realm. This dynamic changes of course as the sides and advantages change from one realm to another over time.
