Yes, it is. You declare war - they disband. It is a reaction on your declaration and it is a surrender.

You are quite an annoying whiner for a Goon. What is wrong with you?

That is just you.

It is not different from surrendering to 5 wars simultaneously either. When you then do not like it then find someone else. Insisting to fight a specific target is just dumb and stupid, and riding on it for the sake of an argument can only have one goal - to harass specific players. When people do not want to fight then they do not want to fight. Get it into your head.

Should the game ever change and the targets then decide to fight you back and then suddenly kick your arse will you be again crying on the forum. This time then about how you cannot get out of war or how this is now all unfair. It is not them who cry about some mechanics, you know?

No. I can lose billions on the market, too. Those 30m-40m ISKs do not give me anything.

Nonsense. You declare war and you have your war just like I get my order onto the market.

Whatever happens then is in the hands of other players. I cannot make them sell to me or buy from me. If I cancel the order will I also not get the fee back. It is the same in many places and it is called an ISK sink.

And it is the same with war-decs. If you declare war on a 1-man noob corp with no war history and expect to get a fight, then frankly, do you lack skill.

simply not true, you can still shoot them. there's NOTHING stopping you shooting them, not a single thing.

You are then misled in your beliefs when you think you need to punish others for not fighting you, but rather do you need to get away from it and to find a target who wants to fight and who you can fight. The sooner you learn who you can and cannot fight the better for you and all of us.

so. they aren't 100% safe, is what you're saying.

No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid.

No. You are in high-sec and have to pay CONCORD to look away. This is your very own bill you need to pay if you want to fight wars in high-sec. You can always move out into low- and null-sec, but high-sec is high-sec and there is a good reason for it.

I cannot help you when you are too blind to see the obvious. High-sec is the high security space where players get protection. This includes protection from players with your mindset.

Get out of high-sec. It just is not the fault of high-sec players when they do not want to fight, but it is your own when you can always go into low- or null-sec and fight your wars there, free from all CONCORD fees, and where players want you to come and to fight.

Oh, I am listening, but I am also waiting for the truth to sink into your head.

Am I? Or am I telling you that you are wrong in your belief of a fair war-dec?

Tell me, when was EVE ever about fairness? At best does one get a fair chance on something. However, there has never been a guarantee on fair fights, fair costs, fair losses, or on anything else.

Please, if you think I am wrong then show me where.

Wrong. The more likely answer is that there have to be other reasons, only fairness is not one of them.

No. Ship balance is not about fairness, because we already have all different skill sets and we can fly different ships.

Ship balance is about the number of ships used in the game and the exact ruling by CCP when they consider a ship as imbalanced is entirely their decision.

How do you even get the idea that there is fairness involved in this? It is about CCP running a business and they are trying to keep it as rich in variety as possible so we can play with it as much and as long as possible without getting bored and thus keep paying them for it and in the end put food on their tables.

Firstly, because CCP has always made it about the numbers and secondly, because the ships have different roles.

Say, do you expect a fight between a logistic cruiser and a combat/attack cruiser to be fair? Is a fight between an assault frigate and an interceptor fair? ...

No. You have the wrong standpoint. I only used it to show you that there is no fairness in balancing. QED.

Please, do go read the devblog by CCP Fozzie. He writes:

And he further shows a picture of their popularity.

Why do you think he does this? Is it pure coincidence when he says that there are "outstanding balance issues" and then shows a graph of their popularity where these two ships stand out?

You mean it is the evidence of the problem and without it would you not have a problem.

He means that if you, as a game designer, think that something is overpowered, but none of the players are using it, there's probably some good reason that they're not using it that you haven't thought of, and that lack of use is actually evidence of it not being overpowered.

The aggregate of the players is usually smarter at finding the best uses for things than the game developers. (Canonical example, Jetcan mining.)

You called it is a sign. I call it evidence. Is your sign suddenly gone or why are you giving me nonsense?

Regardless, popularity is one of the major metrics that CCP uses to detect imbalances, and rightly so, because nobody can perfectly weight every combination of incomparable stats, so the best you can do is find empirical evidence (i.e. usage statistics).

It is no coincidence that the Prophecy is the least used Battlecruiser in the current meta. The combination of anemic damage and slow speed left the ship relegated to the role of obvious bait with the occasional creative fit that relied on the element of surprise rather than competitive performance.

The Prophecy was in dire need of a completely new role, and it has now found that role as the next step in the Amarr EmpireGÇÖs expanding drone carrier program. The energy weapon capacitor bonus is being replaced with a 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level, and the drone bandwidth is being increased to 75mbit (equal to the current Myrm) with a giant 225m3 bay to hold a wide variety of drones in the tradition of Amarrian drone doctrine.

The Prophecy is also seeing two highslots removed to make room for an extra midslot and lowslot, and the addition of missile launcher hardpoints alongside the turrets to give plenty of fitting options for the creative pilot.

I'm not saying otherwise. Popularity is how you detect imbalances. Figuring out why they're popular is the first step in Fixing the problem.

Popularity is the primary evidence that you have a problem. And a theoretical problem that has no evidence suggesting a problem in practice is evidence that your theory is wrong (look at all the EFT warrior fits that crash and burn in actual testing).