Quick comments re: Weyland's comments, which I agree with.
The game actually was set up fine ORIGINALLY. It was adjusted via loud player feedback to include war levels and secured mode. War levels didn't exist when I first played. This was an 'online war game,' but now it's largely evolved to "play by yourself and look at numbers and don't talk to anyone" game. When I started, a major objective of the game largely was to build enough military to not die. Wars used to be regular, normal, and accepted as part of the game.
Over time, players who literally did nothing to protect their assets lost assets and cried enough about it. No federation, no defensive weapons, and 100t in cash and you think you're safe? No.
As a gamemaster, I imagine it'd be hard to determine if the issue was the rules or just that certain loud players were incompetent, and players pay for the game. Sadly, I think the opinions of just a few loud (but not particular good) players were used to help design current state. I won't comment much on your reasons for fighting or not, as reasons to fight or not are generally personal. Many players used to simply enjoy playing the war engine against others instead of a computer that doesn't shoot back. CC "The Three Musketeers."
I agree with most of what you've said though. I would prefer one war optional world and one entirely peaceful world, but hey I think quite a few models would be an upgrade on current state. A challenge is what to do with corporations etc on worlds that are being removed. How does a KB CEO get its corps moved to WG for example?
Sadly, I highly doubt a retraction of worlds is in order, but I completely agree it would increase interaction, which is a current challenge. That's part of why I keep asking for improvements in federations functions and perks. Being in one generally FORCES interaction and removes solo play.