The parcel-level limit (or rather landowner-level limit like with LI capacity) is a good idea, but I think this would indeed punish people more than it would limit abuse. It takes an awful lot of time to put an end to such an issue when someone does it on purpose, so I would be very happy to have a limit in place that would make it impossible for people to cap the region agent limit, but it would be much better to do this backwards.

So let's say someone has a club or a fishing pond on their no matter how big land in a mainland region with the usual 44 avatar capacity. When nobody else wants to be in this region, it is obviously not a problem if they fill the capacity on one person's parcel. The problem starts with us trying to go home or to a friend, to a store, or through the region on a road or waterway but boom, there are 44 people in, not to mention the queue of others TP hammering the region.

So whatever limit and sorting should kick in when there is a teleport or crossing request to a parcel that is not owned by the person whose guests are filling the capacity. For example if there are 36 avatars on one person's land in the region, 8 scattered on other people's lands, so the region is full, if you want to teleport or cross into the region, it should let you enter if it is not that person's land, and at the same time lower the limit for that landowner by 1. Meaning that when one of that landowner's guests leaves the region, they don't get another visitor to teleport in - this is important so that people wouldn't circumvent this by teleporting to any neighboring parcel while their business is at the fishing pond. So since people do this, effectively the very busy parcel's guests couldn't fill the region if others want to enter as well.

This logic should also let basic accounts enter on the empty or less populated parcels, so rental tenants, guests, alts wouldn't be locked out either. Simply the fact that the most populated parcel's owner would get a -1 penalty to their guest allowance every time someone enters the region on someone else's parcel should solve this problem. And obviously the moment the region is not full, this penalty counter should reset and only apply again if the region gets full again.

Much more complex but this could be a fair and functional system.

the problem is real, if rare, but the proposed solution harms a lot more people than it benefits, as Eris suggests.

The problem you're trying to address is less that these offenders have many visitors than that they do it a lot. It is then a form of abuse, and the solution is the club/whatever moves to a region where their only competition for resources is similar clubs, so they have motivation to negotiate with the people sharing.

my two cents

Not a fan of this idea. This would make it much harder to have a small gathering space that holds occasional events with friends. Most of the time, a large gathering on a small parcel doesn't disrupt the surrounding region because nobody is trying to use it during that time, or there's still space available as necessary. These sort of flash gatherings can happen when a popular DJ plays a small mainland store opening, a seasonal rooftop party, or a birthday party at someone's home.

These events for a short amount of time and tend to be put on by folks who can't afford to rent or buy an entire region.

I agree there's a problem with the handful of mainland skybox clubs that are constantly full of bots. My proposal would be to moderate those extreme edge cases that are a problem, rather than making small mainland parcels unusable for gatherings altogether.