I am pointing out that you are assuming the decision will be made in a way that suits your argument. I am pointing out that the players actually have a choice there, indeed, many choices and options in terms of strategic and tactical behavior and that your conclusion is no sound.
Suppose I write:
Given that Bob attacks Sue, then Frank and Joe can join in.
Now, that might be true given the mechanics change you are recommending.
My point is that I’m calling into question the part that goes, “Given that Bob attacks sue…”. One way to approach this problem is for Bob to NOT attack Sue. In which case there is no increase in conflict. Further, you are assuming that Frank and Joe are going to attack (which they must if conflict is going to increase). What if Bob changes his tactics so that Frank and Joe do not want to attack? Again there is no increase in conflict. In economics this kind of assumption is called ceteris paribus which means, “all other things the same, or unchanging or constant”. All other things are not constant so you should be careful saying it will promote more conflict.
I know how your suggestion works. My point is about the dynamics.
As I noted one solution to avoid this “war against all” would be not engage in wars of aggression, if this actually obtains then it would be less conflict.
This is essentially my point. You are assuming nothing else changes including player behavior. That is a very bad assumption and why so many of CCPs attempts to get to a given outcome have fallen on their face.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself right? If they do “not declar[e] war or by not attacking targets with witnesses around” that would be less conflict.
No, my view is far, far more complex than yours.