Why not create service modules for citadels that give bonuses to mining or bounties to the corp members in the same system? This way you avoid having a weird rule that makes no sense.
I like that idea, although still structure focused it does gives reason for everyday pilots to actually be in the war eligable corp.
Edit - could they use the command burst system ships can use and then make it longer lasting and stackable with current links? for one of the modules.
maybe an adapted ESS for the bounty module ?
But you know, as soon as something like this is available, the PvE croud will watch it as REQIRED to run mission because otherwise they lose out on some income and they will start crying for wardec free structures.
There should be 25% increased LP for highsec missions for war-enabled corps.
Because LP are a competitive currency (someone else having more of them reduces the value of the ones you own), this is a perfect way to indirectly tax the people who donāt take risks.
25% is a significant benefit, but not overwhelming.
Thanks for the bump 
To the people who have a problem with gains Iām curious why and where do you draw the line?
For example would you have a problem with ship skins ? loyalty points for kills ? if it wasnāt directly convertible to isk does it become ok ?
I really donāt think you get it. Some of the above posters have hit right on the reasons why your idea wonāt work.
However, I would not be opposed to something like a 2.5% Concord tax for ineligible corps.
There should also be a small Concord tax for player markets, something between 0.1% - 0.25%. It would create a small, but much needed isk sink, while the market tax would still be much cheaper than NPC stations.
I will also maintain that no alliance should be immune to wardec. I know of alliances that have thousands of members that are wardec immune, which is just silly imo. This should be a corp feature only.
Which Alliances are they?
Iāve wracked my brain and canāt think of a single Alliance that has thousands of members and is wardec inelligible, but my brain is often wrong.
Name one.
Quite honestly I donāt remember the names, but have seen 2 high sec (I assume) alliances with over 1000 members that is war dec immune. I just happen to be curious and click on names in local when strangers roll through. I will keep my eyes open and note the names next time I come across a big alliance like that, but they do exist.
Next time you see one note the name.
You may also want to do a deeper analysis of the characters in that alliance to see what they are.
It is highly likely you picked up on a couple of major nullsec alliances logistic alliances. I have also picked up on a couple of very large entities with no structures. Which makes sense if it set up to do logistics.
āHowever, I would not be opposed to something like a 2.5% Concord tax for ineligible corps.ā
no one would care, if i remember right you get taxed nearly 10% for being in a npc corp.
They were not logi alliances. They were mostly mining/manu alliances based in high sec from the bioās, like the ones Iāve listed below, only larger.
After doing a quick corp search, there are several alliances between 500-1000 members that are war dec immune. The Craftsmen, Catastrophic Experiment and Sovereign Sky Empire to name a few.
If I were a merc corp, I would be so awoxing them! 
2 Likes
I am not sure I understand your complaint. Most corps already have a tax rate and if you add a base Concord 2.5% to the corp tax, it would be significant.
The ability for a tiny corp to have zero tax was always available and hardly anyone ever war decād a 1 - 2 man mission running corp, unless they had a serious beef with them.
In my view social corps are fine the way they are and are working as intended.
āI am not sure I understand your complaintā
Im saying a 2.5% tax is not enough for people to notice these days, definitely not enough of a reason to be war eligible.
Also Personally I would prefer to be rewarded for taking part than for others to punished for not.
" Most corps already have a tax rate"
that taxed isk is not removed its with in the corp.
āIn my view social corps are fine the way they are and are working as intended.ā
Im not saying there is a problem with social corps, I was interested in giving more/different reasons for Joe Blogs to be in a war eligible corp than structure related goals/rewards.
Which is a far cry from the āthousands of membersā you claimed earlier. Name one.
I had seen some big ones that were not war dec eligible, but that is fine.
Merc entities will have more content coming their way in any case.
When one of them passes through my area again I will make a note of the name.
It really doesnāt bother me either way. When CCP rolled this out it was supposed to be a corp based feature, not an alliance feature. I am just surprised CCP didnāt have a few more restrictions for the āsocial corpā structure.
2.5% concord tax would do nothing. No oneās going to risk painting a target on themselves in high sec to save 25 mil per billion they make. More than half the money any serious mission runner makes is in LP so thatās maybe a 1% reduction.
If youāre going to make structures have an incentive these tiny baby numbers wonāt matter cause no one will do it, remember people used to shrug off 10% NPC corp tax. If it was 20% more LP for agents within the same system as the structure? Thatās a different story. Serious mission runners would band together and actually have something worth defending rather than just minding their own business and making money. Iām all for having an incentive to be war eligible and itās a great idea.
Also LP is good because itās an ISK sink. Items are bought for isk+lp and then sold to players, ISK is leaving the game because itās spent on a loyalty store item.