How?
Dividing into 4 or more Corps would not increase the total wardec limit if, for example, its based on Omega member count.
A wardec limit would mean less people are wardecced by these organisations, thus reducing the number of people leaving due to being wardecced, and not returning.
CCP has a couple of quick and dirty ways to stop war decs from having such a negative impact on player retention. @Steve_Ronuken and @Brisc_Rubal, just some suggestions.
Impose a max of 5 war decs per entity. It does not matter if they spam a load of corps and stuff. It is hassle and reduces their numbers advantage. In terms of the leave alliance trick, remove the war dec continues on corps leaving an alliance. It is a quick and easy fix too.
Make war decs only apply if the defender accepts the war dec.
Make war decs only possible if the corp has a structure in hisec space.
Enable an entity to buy a war dec immunity from CONCORD. That war dec immunity could have a four week impact and one of those weeks is not protected and chosen by the defender so if a war decker gets lucky they get their war, otherwise they lose their war dec fee.
Those options will deal to a degree with the spamming of war decs for easy passing targets which is so destructive.
After that CCP needs to look at the imbalance of hisec wars and understand what is going on. People have complained that it is because I donât like PIRAT for example, however first of all their leadership was bot super ratting to fund his war decs, this is cheating. So I find that a reason to dislike them, I have also seen in the past member of their lead corp use the not in local client hack. They cheat period, this does not mean of course that everyone in PIRAT is a cheater, but the cheating they did is one of the reasons why they are so far above the defenders in hisec.
PIRAT are blanket war decking, this is the approach that is causing the issue more than anything else. CCP needs to understand this and then tailor any changes to the war dec approach to dissuade blanket war decs.
It is not difficult to understand and has been understood by many for a long time.
As such the only way to deal with this without changing the basis of Eve is to make it so that the war deckers have the strategic vulnerability that they have to defend to maintain their war dec. This is what I and others have suggested to create a change in attitude. It is not going to happen overnight and will take time to change things, however it is the best approach if you want to maintain Eve as it is.
A couple of war deckers said that they would defend these structures and attack them, others have whined about structures, but structures exist all over the game to force fights, why are hisec war deckers so protected compared to others?
And if you decide to allow blanket war decs then you need to develop somethings that will enable defenders to gang up effectively against their attackers and enabling repping without going suspect against the same eattacker will be a good step too.
This.
Its quite clear from the CSM minutes, when one reads between the lines, that blanket wardeccers comprise the problem being shown in the data.
Small organisations, negatively affecting huge amounts of players, via wardecs, with low risk.
That is what blanket wardeccers are, to a T.
The problem is this doesnât fix the lack of retention from any wardec that does happen.
And it puts a massively artificial restriction on things. Wardecs breed for a start. Join an alliance full of one man corps. Drop alliance with those corps. You just capped out your attackers slots now with a bunch of wardecs on station traders.
Any sort of wardec cap creates these meta games which are terrible for gameplay. And any attempt to block the games then allows for shaking a wardec loose instead.
So wardec caps are simply not a good fix because of how open to abuse they are.
Paying for sec immunity or mutual only decs have already been addressed above.
No structure no wardec is getting close to workable but then why should you get zero tax and wardec immunity for your mission runners. Who dont care about owning a structure so get all their carrots. And why not just a social corp
You are confusing âany wardec that happensâ with the issues raised in the minutes, as wardecs by small groups that negatively affect huge amounts of people, with low risk.
The notes are specific, as to this, which we can logically deduce to be blanket wardeccers, being that which is causing disproportionate attrition of players not returning after wardecs.
Its not about wardecs overall, its about these small groups using wardecs to cause so many to leave.
No. the notes clearly say wardecs. Not wardecs by only certain corps. Now Iâm sure those corps make a significant contribution to the issue. But the notes do not single out only mass decs. You are projecting your desires onto the notes and the indication of the data
False.
Read the above.
Note the bolded text.
That describes blanket wardeccersm perfectly.
They are the block that fits that hole.
PIRAT, with only 240 members, is currently negatively affecting at least 1000 players, via 160 wardecs.
Their war history, is over 20,000 declarations.
If we assume a median of 10 members per wardecced Corp by PIRAT, they would have negatively affected 200,000 characters during their history (minus repeat wardecs and the same characters being wardecced again).
They are disproportionately causing wardecs, compared to their size.
CCP can probably cross-reference the rate of lost players, against wars issued on them, and by whom.
@Nevyn_Auscent is correct saying this:
War declarations allow small number of players to negatively affect huge number of people, with low risk.
This doesnt solely imply blanket deckers, this implies that even a 1 man corporation can negatively affect a corporation of 50, a 5 man corporation affect 100 etcâŚ
Waits for next 100 posts arguing how iâm incorrect and reading it wrong
This is the stated problem.
So we should focus on how to fix war declarations that allow a small number of players to negatively affect a huge number of people, with low risk.
Blanket wardeccers are a phenomenon in EVE that do exactly what is described above as the problem, because wardec mechanics allow them to do so currently.
Your bolded text says exactly what I said it does. it does not say PIRAT & Marmite drive people away. While I certainly agree they are a significant contribution you can not point at them as the only part of the issue. Therefore simply trying to prevent blanket decs will not affect retention inside wars. Nor will it solve the issue.
If anything it further isolates any targets they have removing even potential of Toras idea of targets of the same corp get to support each other without going suspect, which would allow small targets to actually work together.
Edit. A small number of people could also be 1 person deccing a 50 man corp. That is only 1 warded after all. Hence why I said you are projecting onto what the minutes actually say.
Unless CCP release the detailed figures we cant read further into what they said than what was actually said.
Blanket wardeccers are organisations that are small, and negatively affect huge amounts of players, with low risk.
PIRAT, with 160 wardecs and only 240 members, negatively affecting at least 1000 people, is causing far more of the problem, than any number of other incidental wardecs.
The sheer volume of their wardecs, over 20,000 in their history, completely eclipses any number of incidental wardecs by any number of other corps, having potentially negatively affected up to 200,000 characters during their history (assuming a conservative 10 member median in target corps)
If we think of this problem as a bunch of nails that need to be hammered down into place, blanket wardeccers are by far the most prominent problem, standing high well above the rest.
TL:DR Any quick fix will leave loose ends and need more work. Donât knee-jerk, work out an end goal and then introduce a quick fix that works towards that. Full blurb below (not too long)
Pirat wil simply split into many smaller groups to do exactly the same thing. The same will happen with other groups. There is no sticking plaster for wars, but the simplest in my mind is to limit wars to lower sec status hisec systems, and limit the higher systems to level III missions etc.
Issue with POCOS, citadels etc can be sorted after, maybe stop more being put down in those systems in the interim.
This would leave new players reasonably unaffected (most wonât be on running level IIIâs, DED sites etc. They would still have the option to engage in wars, still be able to drop a structure etc. They wouldnât have to change corp from social to anti-social corp to do this either, which would be irritating too.
In return war fighters have targets compressed into fewer systems for hunting, and can gank war targets outside of the âlegalâ systems where itâs worthwhile doing so.
I think any good fix will invariably have to include some form of wardec limit.
Blanket wardeccers are a disproportionate source of wars that are thus causing people to leave. They deliberately target the weak and small, en masse, and are in proportion, causing the most attrition.
You cant deny this.
Part of the imbalance is due to the inability of hisec entities to compete, not a smart move to reduce the ability to compete. There is a balance issue in hisec.
Most of these ideas are unworkable:
Structures are the major stumbling block for a wardec revamp. The long time it takes to remove them and the fact it can only be done when CONCORD is switched off, puts hard constraints on what time of war reform is possible. Given that, it seems to me the simplest fix is to tie vulnerability of wars to structure ownership, either directly or through a social corp or equivalent. The minutes pretty much say CCP thinks the same.
These discussions are good to have and I think it worthwhile to explore all these ideas, but if you made me make a wager, we will get your number 3 idea - you can only declare war against corporations with a deployed structure, and likely you will need a structure of your own somewhere to declare a war. This isnât ideal, and I would prefer a clear social corp with the additional limitation of the NPC corp, but I bet that is simplest solution and the one we see. I think that will be a good enough fix to keep wars off those unwilling to fight.
Whether we get more comprehensive reform will be up to the higher-ups. My guess is highsec combat is considered too niche and not, but one can always hope.
Looks good on paper, but is a veiled NS power-grab into HS.
Of course it is. Giving a highsec players the ability to from social groups with restrictions equal to the existing ones in the NPC corp is a power-grab by nullsec. 
If anything, it makes highseccers safer from being pushed around by the nullsec meanies.
This would naturally come if wars changed back to having a valid way to hunt/be hunted. Any artificial means of limiting wardec numbers will quite easily be worked around.
Thatâs only in 1.0, 0.9, 0.8 system (for instance), level IV are still available in 0.7, 0.6 and 0.5, but at risk of wardecs.
Dont bother. Heâs got some delusion about how null will use the social corps to.give access to their high sec structures and blow all the other structures up. And ignores that this can already be done.
And that null dont want their new members in high, they want them in null making more money anyway.
Players dont want a Social Corp they cant place structures with, cant earn tax in, cant share cargo holds in and cant join alliances in. They can already get that in NPC Corps, by setting up a private chat channel.
They want means to do the above in a Player Corp without being forced out by wardecs.
How do you work around a wardec limit based on Omega members?
Why should wardecs be limitless?