Hi there, just tired of seeing 2627 wardec threads. 
@CCP_Falcon would you mind merging them all here like you did with the AFK cloaky threads?
Ty 
Edit:
This wils be the place to discuss the War Declaration mechanics, Pros/Cons about it and give your best ideas on how to solve it! Now do remember to keep it civilized.- ISD Sakimura
Except you are in the wrong forum and your thread has no content.
@CCP_Falcon please lock this thread because it has no content.
Itâs in the right place
Stop posting here pls
Ty
Once upon a time, wardecs had a flat fee per week. Didnât matter whether it was against a 3 man corp, or a huge nullsec alliance. Wars were 50M/week. At that price, wardecs were very affordable and any small group could participate and target whoever they wanted. Nullsec blocks mostly complained due to 0rphanage blapping anything they undocked from Jita 4-4, and a fix was made. 2 major changes happened:
Cost of wars scales by target alliance membership. Bigger corps are more expensive to wardec. This protects nullsec alliances, while making smaller ânewbie corpsâ more attractive, since they are cheaper wars. Mercs like a target-rich highsec. Bored mercs end up going back to lowsec or wormhole. If you canât have all of nullsec wardecced at once, you need to find some active smaller corps to make the profession âfunâ.
Watchlist got nerfed. Really this was done to protect super pilots logging in and getting ganked, but it hurts wardecs a lot - if you canât see when your targets are online, running locators becomes more difficult. This drives merc even more towards tradehubs to avoid jumping aimlessly hoping to find targets.
Change 1 resulted in a major shift for high-sec mercs. No-longer could a small corp afford to wardec major blocks. 0rphanage died immediately due to unsustainable costs. Mercs were forced to consolidate membership to be able to afford a decent number of potential targets to hunt, based on income from various contracts (thank you POCOs and Citadels). Targets also needed to become more efficient as well, due to the per-member fee (why pay to wardec the nullsec block with 4% of their membership in highsec when it is much much cheaper to wardec every corp under 200 members in Dodixie today, with probably 70% of them living in highsec).
If new changes are made to protect smaller/newer groups, and changes already exist (and get even stronger with citadel-holding corps) to protect larger groups, then what is the point of wardecs as a mechanic at all? Iâm generally OK with looking at the state of the game and having some determination made that âchange is necessaryâ - but what should that change look like? How do we protect the newbies (which are the stated reason for the change) while not completely destroying highsec PvP?
With the recent addition of citadels, major changes to industry (highsec minerals available in null, rorquals, limitless manufacturing slots), and improved ratting income (carrier rework, super-ratting) nullsec is richer and more self-sufficient than ever. No-longer are freighters full of T1 large railguns running to nullsec to sustain production. I would argue that nullsec no-longer needs any protection from highsec wars.
The fix to protect small new corps should be very simple (in theory) and have very little to do with citadel ownership: Invert the previous change. Make it very expensive to wardec small corps, and very cheap to wardec large alliances. Add a modifier for citadel-holders to keep clutter in highsec to a minimum and contract killings alive (like 50% off war fee).
There would need to be a very good reason (like getting paid by a 3rd party for it) for a merc group to spend 400M/wk to wardec some small mission or mining corp. The cost simply wouldnât be worth the 3-5 mackinaws on the killboard. Probably not even worth the 1 potential deadspace-fit navy battleship kill. Really this type of war will dissappear entirely - for every small corp wardec that produces kills, 3 others end with no activity. And large alliances should be better able to defend themselves, and teach their newer members about game mechanics like wars - if they care to. The number of overall wars will drop. The 70 active wars corp drops to a 3-10 active wars corp. The targeting of newbies goes away. The number of overall targets for highsec mercs stays consistent, and the gameplay style (in general) survives.
Thatâs all wrong. The bigger the corp/alliance, the cheaper it should be to keep a war dec up. Huge alliances must never be hard to war dec, the wars in high sec a tiny shiver of risk for them there that must at all times be maintained or even increased.
I agree - That is a description of what has already happened in the past.
Be aware: Long post about a game mechanic that mostly affects highsec! 
TL;DR at the end - anyway, here we go:
Itâs broken!
Wardec mechanic is broken. Despite driving a lot of new players out of the game, the wardec mechanic in itâs current state does not lead to interesting gameplay. It rather makes people not to undock (or even log in) instead of encouraging people to fight - which should be the real goal of a war(dec), right?
A goal
So the most important part of a good and healthy wardec system is already found: You have to fight for/about something. A war needs to have a target. Instead of just being the button that disables CONCORD, it should be the tool to reach an aim. May it be to destroy a structure or to push those miners out of âyour systemâ or just to take revenge on someone; you need to set a goal which will define the wardec.
Win or lose
This also helps with the next thing a good mechanic needs to fullfill. And thatâs recognizing a clear winner and loser. In the current state, the war ends after 7days (if no one renews it) and thatâs it. Not even a âcongratulationâ is given out, as the game does not know or care who won the war. But this is actually a really big deal in the human understanding of war. The game defines an attacker and defender, but doesnât follow up if the attacker can achieve what he is after (since there is no target atm) or if the defender could avert the enemy from reaching the goal.
If we take a look to Nullsec wars, where wardecs arenât used, we can clearly see who won a war (with a very few exceptions) by looking at the objectives and who took them. This is usually also used when looking at a single battle, while the always present ISK-war gets added or is the main focus. In the latter case, the ISK-war becomes the objective, which is absolutely legit of course.
An example
So summarizing those points, the new wardec could look like that:
The attacker wantâs to start a war. He chooses a victim and a goal. A citadel for example, or simply an amount of ISK they want to have destroyed by the end of the war. The goal should also have an influence on the length of the war, but in general the attacker should be able to select how long the war will go - in a certain timeframe of course. This could reach from a 3day war to destroy 1bil in ships up to a 10day war to destroy a structure for example. The defenders have the same goals. If it is a citadel, they need to protect it. If it is an ISK amount, they can reach it before the enemy. You donât really win a war if you shoot 1b, but lose 5b to do that. As always the numbers are just examples and I would trust CCP to finetune those to a healthy state. Yes, I really do. 
Regional limitations
That brings me to a second part of the wardec mechanic. It wouldnât make much sense to fight over an Astrahus and be allowed to shoot the defender in all of New Eden. And if the war is to drive someone away from where you wanna live in Highsec, a wardec that doesnât âshow a direction to flee toâ is not very helpful either. So the new wardec system absolutely needs regional restrictions. It should be possible to select the region(s) the war should cover, that should of course also have an influence on the cost of the war, and it needs to be chained to the selected goal for obvious reasons. The attacker should be able to select a system, a constellation or a complete region. I am not sure if several regions should be possible to choose, but I would not expand this to more than the borders of a single empire.
With this, you allow people to actually run from a war - which is purpose of the design. If an attacker drives someone out of a system/constellation/region, they should have gotten what they wanted in the first place, as the area is free from the targets and the goal is reached (or reachable).
Actual fights
But since the mechanic should encourage fighting (and not just flying from one area to another), how do you get people to fight if they donât really feel the desire to do so? Well, that is also possible: You make them lose something if they donât come to the fight AND give them a reward for winning.
In case of a structure as war goal, itâs simple: It getâs blown up. In case of the âsystem drive outâ itâs more complicated. But you could make war-losers criminals (also to the local law-enforcement) for the same time the war was ongoing. (10 days of war = 10 days after the war you are not allowed to enter the system). This would be a mayor drawback if you lose a war.
On the side of the winner, you should get additional rewards other than just reaching the goal. Maybe half of the money the war has cost? Or a pre-defined amount of some sort. This part is especially important in the case the defender wins - he would otherwise have nothing to win. Here is much room for CCP to play around and also PLEX or SKINs or whatever can be given out. Of course related to the war-goals and duration etc.
One thing that has been brought up as âfixâ many times are simple restrictions in the amount of wardecs you can get or the time you can get them. I donât like those but would highly suggest to restrict the zones someone can get wardecs in. By either allowing only 1 region/empire to be wardecâed in, or by allowing all but 1. This way you are always able to play (although you might need to evacuate).
TL;DR // summary
There needs to be a goal (structure/ISK/space) set by the attacker.
A region needs to be chosen by the attacker.
And a reward for the winner (this can also be the defender).
Then the Wardec system is fixed and everyoneâs happy.
Now feel free to discuss 
The reddit link can be found here
people will complain for as long as EVE servers are runningâŠ
Also tying wars to structures empowers any powerful entity.
you want to give more power to the small guy, not the already big and powerful one
Itâs one of 3 possible goals to select structures. It is not necessary. If someone doesnât have structures, then they canât be killed though and you have to chose one of the two other options. Simple 
which takes away from the freedom of wars
EVE needs more danger, not less
if you want to be shielded from wars, go in NPC corps.
because with your âbrilliantâ idea, large groups will be able to put their structures in a holding corp, and be immune to wars since youâd absolutely need a structure to be decced
this isnât the first time this idea was dismissed, this wonât be the last eitherâŠ
Sorry, you seem to get this totally wrong.
Having no structures doesnt shield you from wars. You can get wardecs and your ships can be killed etc. But THE STRUCTURES canât be chosen as a goal to be killed as they DONT EXIST.
So please, before you dismiss my âbrilliant ideaâ, read the post again.
AGAIN: YOU CANT AVOID WARDECS WITH THIS IDEA. NOT AT ALL.
I will only answer this, because I think it is the most important part. And the others are part of my proposal anyways.
Yes, you canât force people to fight. But you can encourage and enable them. This is what I try to accomplish with this mechanic. Instead of keeping people to avoid the game, they should feel the need and the ability to do something âaroundâ the war.
Since the large guys are just aggregations of small guys, this is pretty much impossible to do.
Since the announcement of the negative wardec numbers, Iâve been thinking about what changes could positively affect wardec mechanics for the community in general. As a past player who used wardecs in my early days, I always felt the system lacked the immersion a war strategy should follow. There needs to be more player action happening in space rather than in settings windows.
So letâs start out with how you gain access to wardec mechanics. The idea is we shrink the war theater down to the region level, instead of the entire empire space level. To access wardec mechanics the corp/alliance must have a War Headquarters anchored and in high power status. This structure could allow structure features for both attacker and defender to effect the war theater. In this proposal I will only address the most basic wardec mechanics, granting access, and issuing wars. Below is the idea of how a War Headquarters specs could read.
War Headquarters
Volume: 8,000 m3
Fuel Bay: 21,000 m3
Fuel Consumption: 25 blocks an hour
Can Dock: Yes
Tether: No
Anchoring Time: 24 hours
Unachoring Time: 24 hours
Shield HP: 2,000,000
Shield Damage Cap: 5,000 dps - 6.6 minutes
Shield Resist: 20% Omni
Armor HP: 3,000,000
Armor Damage Cap: 5,000 dps - 10 minutes
Armor Resist: 20% Omni
Hull HP: 4,000,000
Hull Damage Cap: 5,000 dps - 13.3 minutes
Hull Resist: 20% Omni
Reinforcement: (24 hours) Hull Only - High Power Only
Anchor Distance: 1000 km from any station/gate/citadel
Restrictions
Vulnerability
Item Description
The War Headquarters is used as a forward operating base and will allow you access to war mechanics. Once anchored you can begin anchoring Salient Projectors inside constellations within the region this structure resides to begin declaring war on corporations/alliance who own structures.
Restrictions
This structure has now forced the attacker inside highsec and has given the defender the ability to completely halt a malicious enemy from participating in wardecs.
Next is how we will initiate wardecs with entities within the region. Now we will further shrink down the war theater to the constellation level. The idea would be the attacker would go into a constellation that a corp/alliance is working out of and has citadels anchored, then drop a Salient Projector. The attacker would specify the target corp/alliance desired that has structures inside the constellation, dump some fuel in the fuel bay, and pay the fee. After that a 24 hour online time will start and notify the defender a war has been initiated and that as long as the Salient projector remains online the war will continue. (Not including the other variable offline prerequisites listed below)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salient_(military)
Salient Projector
Volume: 4,000 m3
Fuel Bay: 21,000 m3
Fuel Consumption: 25 blocks an hour
Anchoring Time: 24 hours
Online Time: 24 hours
Offline Time: 24 hour self destruct timer
Surrender Offline Time: 120 second self destruct timer
Shield HP: 1,000,000
Shield Damage Cap: 2,500 dps - 6.6 minutes
Shield Resist: 20% Omni
Armor HP: 1,000,000
Armor Damage Cap: 2,500 dps - 6.6 minutes
Armor Resist: 20% Omni
Hull HP: 2,000,000
Hull Damage Cap: 2,500 dps - 13.2 minutes
Hull Resist: 20% Omni
Time Offline: 26.4 minutes
Anchor Distance: 1000 km from any station/gate/citadel
Restrictions
Item Description
The salient projector is used to establish a beachhead into enemy territory. This is your first step in projecting military might into foreign territory. Once this structure finishes onlining you will be at war with the specified corporation or alliance within the constellation this structure is anchored.
Online Prerequisites
Offline Prerequisites (This cannot be reversed)
Of course all of this is just a rough draft numbers, but the mechanic in general seems fun. I feel this could create a very interesting wardec system inside highsec and give CCP the ability to add additional structures to the war dec system that could make things quite interesting for everyone involved.
Example of that would be, the defender has a War HQ online and has structure anchored that sends notifications that a Salient Projector has been anchored (not online) inside said constellation.
Another could be a structure the attacker anchors on an athanor grid that affects the mining laser efficiency to reduce asteroid generation.
The most important part of all of this is if the defender is actually winning the war, they could punish the attacker by removing their War HQ which prevents them from participating in war mechanics.
Lastly the people that do not want to participate in wardec mechanics can live out of NPC stations, which forces them to work in a less efficient manner without citadel bonuses.
Goons can now grief any wardec corp they dont like. No.
How about just do away with the name âwar decâ and just call it, CONCORD Bribe.
At least then people would stop focusing on the idea that âwarâ must mean something that they think it should mean.
The only region I see that being a significant issue is The Forge. I donât see Goons coming and destroying some wardec corps War HQ in some back end of space. But hey, if you poke the bear you might get bit.
With your proposed structures, do you believe each war should have a separate hq per war? Or would it be more like you have 1 hq down in a region for all wardecs in said region? Also it seems to me like you would like to downsize wardecs to region sized, which is cool especially thinking towards new players and new player corporations based in highsec, but my question is with wardecs themselves. If youâre going to make the HQ the location where you do wardec activities, for a region, would your wardec still allow combat between warring corporations in the region? Constellation where your Salient Projector is located? or anywhere in space? Neat concept regardless, and an interesting way of implementing a mechanic that needs to be in the game, while also being a mechanic that can hurt the game by losing new players and corporation upstarts.
Goons can already grief any wardec corp they dont like by wardeccing them? Unless Iâm missing something
Goons cant make the war cease to exist though. If the wardec corps need structures then goons can shut them down by forming up for structure timers. (or pl or other giant null entity here instead of goons, goons just make an easy example). This is why attackers needing structures is a bad deal.