I mean, that's the argument every time. "I want to play on a server that isn't dead." Buuut, how do they expect to liven up any other server if they all just flock to the same ones? The more that people just suck it up and rough it out, the more the servers have a chance to bulk up. Take all the transfers to the top 1 or 2 servers over even just the last few months or something, and kick them back to their original start, and how much more lively could those original servers seem? Maybe not a whole lot, I guess, depending on just how frequently transfers happen or whatever. Just seems to me like this would have been less of a problem if everyone weren't so obsessed with a mega server. But my perspective is biased. I wouldn't know where to draw the line between "decently active" and "clearly overpopulated."

As for "the plots would fill up fast and we're back to square one," that's the whole point! When we can say all the plots are gone, then it sounds more reasonable to demand housing expansion. It's like complaining there's no houses just because everyone can't live next to the beach.

The gil limitation restricting buyers, now that's an argument I'd get behind. That's something that could be addressed. I understand the restriction itself, but that's something that could reasonably be argued to devs as something to adjust to make transferring less painful.