EVE is focused on PvP 
Your bias is already known due to your other post my guy
Ew you’re one of those huh? I do not understand how peeps can get so confused between RL and a vidya game. I bet you think Aiko murders puppies IRL too huh?
This is the crux of it. LOL now you come full circle.
Sadly, there are systemic things that limit the ability to find viable targets.
The reason why ganking is so high nowadays, is sadly it can be the only way really.
Ehhh what?
You’re asking if EVE is more focused on PvP than your real life?
EVE is designed to have PvP fun. Simple example: many ships in this game have zero purpose except in PvP, such as interdictors.
If you PvP in real life you end in jail.
Can you not see the difference? One is an activity in a game. Another is a criminal act in real life.
Wut?
Mr Epeen 
You know, the thing we do in game: killing other players, blowing them up.
I wouldn’t try it in real life. It’s not that hard to understand, is it?
Pretty narrow definition of PVP IRL.
Most normal people would include Boxing, Hockey, MMA, Defending yourself, etc.
None of which end in jail time.
Mr Epeen
Those are games, like EVE.
If you had paid attention: the context the other guy was talking about was ‘real life’, not ‘other games in real life’:
Is he talking about defending himself in hockey?
Taking out an assailant is a game? Protecting your property is a game? Defending your loved ones is a game? Three examples is enough
You’re just looking to argue.
Mr Epeen
Okay, fair enough: not every PvP in real life ends with you in jail, so what I literally said (If you PvP in real life you end in jail) was wrong, because sometimes you do not end up in jail. Happy now?
My point is that PvP in real life is completely different from shooting and killing other people in a game. And that comparing them is silly.
Hah, says you, coming in here to argue with me.
I’m doing well. Just survived a gank attempt…despite fumbling my getaway…
I mean a solo thrasher in a .8 isn’t much of a threat to an actual fitted ship.
What peeps don’t get is the marauder buff is also CCP’s way of making more gankers multi box, hence more $
He targetted my Venture…despite admitting after in local chat that he had no warp scrambler. So I just zoomed off. He never got to fire a shot. His history seems to be full of such failed ganks. But what puzzles me is…why, every time he is zapped by Concord is he then zapped again by them a few minutes later in an Ibis. What’s he up to ?
He’s pulling CONCORD. Its standard gank practice.
He was probably hoping the alpha would be enough and he wouldn’t need a scram, but that’s dumb on him.
The best venture killer is the cormy cause you can rock 2 scrams.
Most venture pilots are lazy due to the +2. Until they try and then they can’t warp
to be more clear to novices
gankers , gank her own noob ships to pull concord to somewhere on the system
this increases the concord response time by a bit
or at least take concord of the grid in case of for example multiple ganks in a ice belt
Wouldn’t work.
This plan would only result in players hopping between several eligible shell corporations AND getting financially rewarded for that behavior.
To target a specific group, the wardec would have to stick to the players, not the corp.
Well, I bet some people would still use alts, but yeah, I think tying war decks to characters would reduce how much guys could game the system.
Oh, something else I was thinking about was the DBS. I know a ton of players hate it, but it sounds like a lot of them hate it because it hampered their ability to turbocrab with minimum effort, and not because the system actually sucks. Indeed, I’ve heard several players say that they have fun with system and/or they make more money with it.
Sigh, it’s a damn shame. CCP designed a system that encouraged conflict, and that allowed people to make more money, and the lowest common denominator bitched and complained to the point where I’m now doubtful that CCP will implement similar designs elsewhere. This pisses me off. But, I’ll spare you guys the rant. Long story short, I would like to see the DBS design philosophy applied elsewhere.
There are many ways to address this without needing to resort to the quagmire of interpersonal wars. For example, the bonus earnings don’t have to take effect instantly upon joining a new corporation. Or, how about this original idea I just came up with completely by myself? I call it “jump fatigue,” and it works something like:
The idea is to apply a penalty to players who exploit the system by technically remaining war-eligible, but force attackers to waste money on constantly declaring new wars.
I can’t see how declaring a war against a player fixes anything. What makes a player war eligible? Either it’s a free for all which will just be abused by griefers. Or there are mechanics that more astute players will be able to game.
And we are right back to square one
There’s different ways you could work it. Hell, you could even make it a… [stifles vomit]… flag that players can chose to turn on. Turn on the flag, get the benefits of lowered taxes (or whatever), but open yourself up to wardecks. Regardless, of how you work it, I don’t think anyone is currently proposing that we remove the opt-in nature of war decks. Instead, we’re discussing the possibility of expanding the benefits of being war eligible so that more people willingly decide to do it.
You could give players a years omega subscription to do it and the majority still wont.
If players just want to mine for isk no amount of incentive will work. The could already chose to rat, they could already chose to explore, they could already choose to run the abyss. All of which is way more isk per hour. If “stuff” was a motivator they already would be doing other things.
25% extra yield doesn’t change that calculation because they already have options to make way more than a 25% increase to yield for way less risk than flicking a switch to say………come war dec me.
It’s not a mechanics problem. It’s a mindset/habit problem.
Well, I have no doubt that there are plenty of players who are like you describe. But I am also certain that many players can be prodded into engaging more with emergent PvP opportunities if given the right incentives. For example, I used to belong to a corp that specialized in structure bashing. And while a great many groups either did nothing, or paid the ransom, some would actually fight. Indeed, I have personally fought carebears with clean killboards trying to defend their structures. Moreover, I do know a lot of players that will gladly engage with any emergent PvP opportunities that present themselves (in fact, I myself will frequently switch from PvE to PvP depending on circumstances*). Thus, presenting them with more emergent game play opportunities can certainly result in more fights and fun for those willing to jump at the opportunity.
*Oh, speaking of which, this is something else that I’ve thought about. I will frequently avoid PvP’ing while PvE’ing because optimal PvE ships are terrible for PvP. So, I generally try to make my PvE’ers unilegible and/or unattractive targets for PvP, and not take the bait if someone is trying to suspect bait me. I mean, willingly engaging a hunter when PvE fit is typically a bad idea that should be avoided. So, I’ll either try to avoid the engagement, or quickly reship. So, I was thinking, what if PvE content was designed so that optimal fits were more viable in PvP. Then, PvE’ers would be more likely to engage in emergent game play opportunities, rather than run from them. For example, if CCP made it so that you had to point the main loot drop rat of live events, suddenly a whole bunch of PvE’ers would be fitting scrams/points, which would mean it would be less foolish of them to engage in emergent PvP opportunities. This, in turn, would likely mean that more of them would do it.