So in the past we had problems because it was too easy and cheap to war dec. That got changed to be more expensive dependent on size of people you were deccing in some cases 500mill a pop. This led to alliances like Privateers, Orphanage etc closing.
But now i see even more war dec alliances sprouting out with an incredible amount of war decs

Marmite - 136 wars
Pirat - 171 wars
Archtype - 77 wars
Vendetta Merc - 181 wars
Complaints Dept - 129 wars
Caldari State Police - 116 wars

and thats just a few, i dont think most of these are offering assistance but actually the ones deccing. How can this be happening as its clearly not solved the problem its seems it just got worse. I am not convinced either this is all merc work either, as this costs billions per week as well.

Can someone explain if im missing something here?

My thoughts on the wardec system and how it could be improved:

Raise the per-member cost of a wardec by about 10% - making it a little more expensive per person. Then include the member count of the wardeccing corp in the count - to discourage further conglomerating of wardeccers. Additionally, remove the hardcap on wardec fees, and lock recruiting on the agressing corp once the wardec fee is paid to prevent abuse (or include a fee for each added member equal to what they'd cost if they'd been there at the start to bring them into the wardec).

And/Or:

Allow defending corps/alliances to counter-bribe CONCORD in a non-trivial way to cancel the wardec before the 24 hour waiting period is up. The counter-bribe would need to scale to the size of the corp/alliance being wardecced (and only them, not the attacker), but could cost 3-5x per person the normal wardec per-member rate. (maybe 5x under a certain size, and shrinking to a minimum of 3x above a certain size? debatable I'll admit). Could also have a minimum baseline (like 5x the minimum baseline wardec fee). No, this mechanic would not provide any sort of immunity from being re-wardec'd by the same (or any other) group, the agressor would have to decide if its worth paying another fee to try to get it to stick a 2nd time though.

And/Or:

Increase wardec fees by a percentage for each concurrent outgoing wardec (including minimums). No hard caps on the humber of wardecs, just make people think about being a bit more selective.

---

Response to the idea of a wardec "structure" that defenders could destroy to end the wardec.

No - because from an in-universe standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense. You're not playing king of the hill or capture the flag. It's not sov warfare either (which is itself a form of king of the hill).

Remember, wardec's are nothing more than Group-A *bribing* CONCORD to look the other way while they attack Group-B. The reasons FOR wardecing could be to go after a POS, or POCO (or soon, a Citadel) - all of which are perfectly valid objectives within the sandbox. An arbitrary wardec related structure? No. Doesn't fit. Why would anyone put up a structure that has the sole purpose of prematurely ending a war they declared.

---

I would also suggest that "personal" wardecs against individual members of NPC corps be allowed, but perhaps still cost the current 50mil minimum (debatable). This makes it impossible to be immune to the wardec mechanic, and possibly would encourage people to not hide in npc corps. For the purposes of these individual wardecs, the NPC FW corps would qualify, despite being at war with the opposing faction pair.

---

The non-mutual watchlisting of valid wartargets should function in Highsec (and only highsec) - and report something like "Player is now active in High Security space," and "Player is no longer active in High Security space" which can mean either the player has logged off or has gone into Lowsec, Nullsec or W-space.

Because as I have just said. A small one or two man mining Corp couldn't stand against a pvp merc Corp. Yeah I could hire protection...Lol, tried that once..pfft..So why would anyone put a massive structure in space with a target painted on it?

Some will, but would they replace it?

I have a pos now that I can easily defend by taking it down. So why should I be barred from owning a new structure based on my Corp size or occupations?

As I understand it, popping the Citadel would result in approx 50% of its value dropping in loot and materials. So about 500/750 million isk? Possibly a lot more if any rigs dropped. That's for the smallest.

You are a funny one.

They need to make wardecs a skill that is referenced by a corp CEO or the CEO of an Alliance executor corp.

1 wardec allowed per skill level up to 5. Hell, I'd be perfectly OK with it being 2 allowed per level up to 10.

Beyond that war declarations have no purpose other than paying for free kills in Highsec.

They should have meaning and consequences. Marmite is the perfect example. Its just a free reign on killing and this system just keeps players logged off and unsubscribed for weeks/months at a time because they can't even undock. Very counter-productive for CCP's wallet.

You dangle a lure and everyone bites the hook at the bottom...

ADD a SIMPLE COMBAT mechanic to those already available.

no asking for duels required
no corp required
no friends required
no baiting required
no standings/sec loss
no fees
no worries (except your losses)

Anyone can do it.
Any time they want.

just hit the button and go shoot anyone who did the same.

Can't people in FW shoot each other anywhere already, highsec included?

I personally know a man who specialize in roaming Hisec FW space in a Tempest or Mach (with scout and maybe neutral logi), flew around a few tomes with him, and the trick is never stay still, warp around (navy won't catch you if you don't linger on gates) and catch unsuspecting FW targets on gates.

Alternatively, dock up in enemy space and use scouts to see them coming: Undock, catch on gate, kill. Rince & Repeat. You'd be surprised at how many FW players think they are safe when in their own Empire and fly indies or PVE ships.

Also, you can catch many in 'neutral' Concord space in the middle of Gallente space for exemple.

To clarify, wardecs do affect some lowsec combat too. Gate/station gun aggression can be turned off, and removes the security status loss for podding your victims...er, targets

Sugar Kyle has blogged about the Wardec system in Eve.

Noragen Neirfallas has also blogged about Wardecs (don't have the link)

Not speaking on behalf of the Uni but just from my observation and experience. We don't want to hold any territory or assets other than what we need to be able to teach newbros. The Uni likes to provide the opportunity for people to experience and learn about all of the various areas of eve.

Newbros enter the Uni, learn, get some experience, teach other newbros, contribute, then move on to other corporations. Sometimes people really enjoy the teaching part and stay longer. Other times newbros enter, focus in their favorite area of the game, then go to a Corp with that orientation.

Wardecs are part of the game. We try to make each loss a learning experience. Sometimes the ongoing wardec situation reaches a critical mass leading to an aggressive and proactive response. There's a lot of great E-UNI alumni throughout eve to call on if needed.

However, I have experienced that we would really prefer to focus on teaching new players a good base set of game skills in order to prepare them to become a valuable member of their next corporation. That's why I joined the Uni and have very much enjoyed my time as a member.