Assembly Hall

Okay, are you going to drop this survey in, say, Rancer local or just carebear groups?

Because I'll laugh if somebody uses the results of this as a talking point when the groups sampled are incredibly biased one way

1.
Anyone with the will and means to do so. It's a sandbox.

2.
Anyone who makes themselves an obvious target, especially while wardecced. Bonus points for people who make themselves look juicy to bait gankers into failing at ganks.

3.
For the gankers, the fact that it's a sandbox. For the gankees (of the subset who I declared *should* be ganked), it's because the consequence of protecting capsuleers from their folly is to fill New Eden with fools.

Should wardecs exist outside of RvB and giant null-coalitions settling scores in trade hubs?
Yes. SAND. BOX.

4.
Aaaaaand now you're using leading questions, thus cheapening the survey and skewing the results. Which, in turn, makes it easier for NUUUUU NO GANKS EVAR whiners to point to your skewed methodology and shout you down. STOP THAT.

5.
A statement which assumes there are no other concerns behind aggressive action that Whether Or Not You Can Win, which is wrong. Also, see 4's statement about leading questions.

6.
This would be much less of a problem if the in-game resources properly explained both the advantages and disadvantages to being in a player-owned corp, instead of cheerfully telling inexperienced eggers that it's a great idea to leave the undeccability of their NPC corps to enter into a much more vulnerable state that they don't fully understand yet. Also, why would you add a leading question that leads in the opposite direction from where the others were leading?

7.
People out for fights should dec people similarly out for fights, people out for easy kills should dec the weak, and the weak should mob up to counter-dec and crush the people trying to prey on them. Don't get mad, get even.

8.
It Sounds Like Fun should be reason enough. By extension, we need a mindset among juicy-looking highseccers that It Sounds Like Fun to crush those who would seek to prey upon you, drive them from the grid, and hear the lamentations of their insurers.

9.
Nope.

9b.
It's almost like the the people being targeted by psychological and political campaigns are responding with psychological and political campaigns. Gasp!

10.
Rookie systems should remain gank-free, as they are. Tutorials should explain how to not be a juicy target for gankers, or how to look like a softer target than you are so you can laugh as gankers fail their attempts and get nuked by the cops. The remaining umpteen squillion high-sec systems should remain places where ganking can and will happen.

11.
See my answer to 6 - the thing that needs to be done is for the game to include a proper explanation of the risks, as well as the rewards, of going player-corp.

11b.
Nope. Treating this as an ethical concern would raise an easy opportunity for corps to label themselves as "new-player-friendly" or whatever for a cheap, easy shift in public opinion. E-UNI already does it, FFS.

All this considered, what is the future of high-sec aggression?
If proper in-game explanations of the risks of being in a player-run corp are implemented, I expect to see the supply of easy targets drying up, leading to a general reduction in high-sec aggression outside of suicide ganking.

12.
Once again, leading questions. See also my answer to 9b - what goes for the goose goes for the gander, including swaying public opinion by decrying the people who give you trouble.

13.
War-dec evasion is the counter to war-decs. The counter to war-dec evasion, by extension, is to insure some cheap-fit tier 3 BCs and go suicide ganking. Also, leading question.

14.
People keep their wealth in high-sec because that's where it's easiest to get to their wealth, and they earn their wealth in high-sec because that's the easiest way to get their wealth to high-sec. No point getting yourself a ton of cool ships if you can never reach them to get into the cockpit, after all.

15.
Neither. What we SHOULD be doing is making good information about risks available to newkids - partially to educate the ones who were just uneducated, and partially to tell the ones who knew and tried anyways that you knew the risks, now HTFU or STFU.

15b.
We need... information. Information. Information. (In other news, I am the new Number Two. Don't ask of what.)

16.
ahahahahahahahahaha NO. Anything that draws one group of people will repel other groups of people. Increasing the game's friendliness to carebears such as myself will in turn lead to the people who like shooting at us looking for another game.

17.
Worse for some, better for others. Who the "some" are, and who the "others" are, depends on what SORT of aggression is spiking - I would love to see more once-peaceful highseccers lay their vengeance upon aggressors, mainly because it would sort out weak-willed give-me-easy-kills whiners from the people with the actual will to fight.

You're about to get a whole lot of data.

You should run for CSM. Give the pubbies a voice.

I filled out your form. I also added in the comments section my contention that tier 3 battlecruisers made suicide attacks much cheaper to perform.

Its time for CCP to admit its crimewatch system has failed. Haulers will line up with a station and grab the loot and enter warp almost simultaneously. Then they remain docked until the suspect status subsides.

Tier 3 battlecruisers enjoy dps bonuses and 8 turret slots, something not available to many battleships. Their cost to damage output has completely changed the frequency of ganks. Its time for tier 3 battlecruisers to be removed from the game, and they need to revert to the older system where it was nearly impossible to grind your way back from a -10 sec status. If you get below minus 5 I think its become clear how you want to play the game and you shouldn't be allowed in high sec anymore. Especially with the safety features that prevent 'mistakes'

In pure cost to damage terms, catalysts and thrashers are more efficient than Taloses and Tornados. Upshipping helps if the number of characters available is a limitting factor.

Everyone could help by sending them survey links to their gank victims. We need more carebear responses.

You need to ask better survey questions. "How satisfied with current mechanics are you..." Think it through. Someone could be dissatisfied because they make suicide ganking too easy or too hard. Several of your survey questions are basically worthless because you phrased them very poorly.

I guess I could have split that one into two questions.

Your question sheets are a mess, both of them. But I will go with the second one, just because you separated the suggestive, manipulative part from the real questions, so I can more easily ignore it. I also filled out your google form already, but I would like to take the chance and elaborate a little:

1. Who should be ganking and who should be ganked in High Sec?

Whoever wants to gank somebody should be able to try at least and therefor nobody should be immune to suicide ganking. While it is a good thing that there are ways to avoid being ganked most of the time with a little bit of know how and common sense, nobody should ever be "untouchable" in eve. This would probably break a lot of things and take away from the sandbox, that is so unique to eve.

2. What does the public consider to be valid motives for the act of suicide ganking?

I don't really know about the public, but for me that would be anything the ganker could come up with. Eve is a game where you can just go and shoot someone because you don't like his face, his playstyle, his ship or just because you feel like shooting some random guy at the perimeter gate, and that is a good thing.

3. Who should take part in War-Decs?

Well, that's a weird question right there. Nobody should be "immune" to war decs, if that is what you are asking. Because if there was a way to gain immunity from war decs, people would exploit that to hell and back.

4. What motives, if any, are considered valid by the public for the practice of high-sec war-decs?

Once again, I am not "the public", but I consider any motive "valid". You don't even need a motive at all. How do they say? Whatever drives your boat, man!

5. Should stronger corporations and alliances be allowed to harm weaker corporations and alliances in high-sec?

Yes of course! Apart from disallowing this being a stupid idea, larger corps would just split up into smaller ones, if they wanted to declare war on someone.

6. Do New Players have a right to avoid player aggression in high-sec outside of rookie systems?

Anyone has the right and to a degree the means to avoid player aggression. Should they gain immunity: Hell no. Instead CCP should make it clear to everyone, that New Eden is a harsh and cruel place, where PvP does in fact happen, if you want it or not. In fact, I would even like to see a tutorial part where newbies are asked to blow up other unsuspecting newbies. That would be hilarious, new players would know what they are getting into and no harm would be done, since noobships don't cost anything.

7. Considering question 6., should new corporations be allowed to avoid player aggression?

Hell no. People would just remake their corporations every so often. Very stupid idea.

8. Should "training" and "newbie friendly" corps have special considerations made for them for avoiding player aggression?

No. But I would really like to see the criteria that make a corp a "newbie friendly" or "training" corp.

9. Should we be encouraging or discouraging High-Sec Aggression?

Like I said, especially newer players should get encouraged to try pvp or at least they should get prepared for it. An industrial- or business-oriented pilot can avoid stupid losses most of the time, but only if he actuall knows about PvP, war mechanics and suicide ganking. If you don't know what the ****, you will lose ships in hilarious ways.

I have killed enough "industrialists" because they thought they were safe, either because they thought they could hide from me (lol, locator) or that their shiny expensive battleship could easily beat my cheap and ugly little rustbucket or other stupid reasons.

10. Would the game be better or worse if there was more prevalence of high-sec aggression?

I don't know, but does it matter? I like the amount of Pew Pew in High Sec as it is.