Well again, you’re down to asking for specific implementation details that are the job of the devs, not of a forum poster who has relatively data on how players spend their game time.
From a game design perspective, there are ways to determine this. First you decide if you want one side or the other to have an advantage in the ‘ease’ of their tasks, or be ‘fair’ to both. Then you look at how difficult it is for an attacker to locate and destroy defender ships, and how much time is spent to achieve that. (From previous wardec statistics that the devs will have, but I don’t.)
Then you set the points for kills, and for defender War Action tasks, so they have a roughly equivalent chance of racking up Action points per day. So for instance, if wardec stats show that generally, a kill-focused war dec (as opposed to a structure loot-drop focussed dec, which is mostly what we have now) could earn 6 points a day from kills in 3 hours of activity, then you set Defender action points so a defender can earn roughly 6 points from roughly 3 hours of activity.
If you can’t log in every day, neither can everyone on the other side. If you’re super-focused on scoring every point every day, then you’re in space that much more, and making it that much more likely the other side can track you and stop you.
You’re free to get bogged down in implementation details if you like, but those are dev issues which need to be resolved with dev data and tools.
All this is, is to show that “extreme aggressor bias” can be addressed directly, “100 to 1 odds” can be addressed, “defenders have no reason to participate” can be addressed.
No, no penalties can be imposed by war deccing you. The most that can happen is that if a war is declared on you (because you chose to become war eligible, which you can still avoid - just like now), and you lose the war due to lack of activity, then some of your R&R bonuses would be reduced by a point or two. Which just gives you more incentive to participate and win a future war to gain them back.
Yes. You can easily avoid all penalties, and none of the ‘bonuses’ ever go ‘negative’ - it’s stated in the proposal that the lowest they can go is 0 (which is effectively what you have now).
All the features of EVE have the potential to draw players in or push them out of the game, depending on how the player perceives that feature. CCP made it clear that having wardecs, with no viable options for defenders to rack up a ‘win’ or gain advantages, was driving many players out of the game.
If they could retain 100 players, but lose 10 who feel similar to you, I’m sure they’d consider that a win. I’m confident that a wardec design based on the principles I’ve outlined would retain and attract significantly more players than it pushes away.
If you feel differently, that’s fine too. But it would probably help if you didn’t keep basing your resistance on purposely misinterpreting features as being the opposite of what they’re stated to be.