tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399508760241060787.post4950209157555384668..comments2013-01-30T06:20:42.844-08:00Comments on SciFi Cyanide: Local; To Keep or not to Keep?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04513886553723440828noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399508760241060787.post-59124982144311780362013-01-18T18:58:59.656-08:002013-01-18T18:58:59.656-08:00This had originally been typed up before I was awa...This had originally been typed up before I was aware of the blog banter post. Though I will keep track of that next time thank you.<br /><br />Honestly I see where a lot of people have issues with local. However, the best idea I have seen that would be cool to have implemented (If the effort were to be put to it, which I think would be a waste of time and resources anyway) is this one. Forcing alliances to pay to have local in their sov systems. High, and low would remain the same as usual, but now the players in sov systems would have the option of whether or not they want local at all and where they want it along with that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04513886553723440828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399508760241060787.post-27289859309635599852013-01-18T10:47:37.051-08:002013-01-18T10:47:37.051-08:00Make sure you link back to the Blog Banter. http:/...Make sure you link back to the Blog Banter. http://freebooted.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/blog-banter-44-is-there-anybody-out.html<br /><br />In specific response, so long as comm channels stay up, I think separating by zone (i.e. hisec/losec/nullsec/wh) and keeping Local effectively in hi/lo solves 1, 4 & 5 for the players who "need" it. #3 is a good thing in my book - more instadock types need ganking.<br /><br />The one that really concerns me is #2. I've seen a couple proposals for "population count" that I think might be an intriguing way of doing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com