To summaries, commanders could be able to have a 'stake' in a system in the form of 'shares' for a successful effort in joining a player led side to conquer a system. The percentage of shares they'll own would be based upon their contribution & the amount of players partaking on that side. There shares in the systems would pay them a weekly sum of credits in correlation to the systems population size & economy status (e.g booming would boost the value of your shares)
The amount of conquerable systems would scale up & down depending on active player population. so for example, have currently 20 conquerable systems in & around the 'bubble' as an end game feature that allow players to trigger wars on such systems, join a side & fulfill missions to contribute to the target in an effort to annex the system. The reward would be a percentage share in the system economy thus giving the commander a reason to defend the systems interest & run missions to boost the economy. Given that the ownership will be based upon shares in the system, it would mean that it may not always be totally profitable if the % share in a system is so small due to an excess amount of players choosing the strong side instead of the underdog side, which could also help to naturally implement a cutthroat style opportunism among commanders that would see them switching to multiple sides to support their own interest instead of nailing your flag to one mast. For example, one day you could be fighting alongside some NPC Corporation offering a percentage in shares to all commanders whom contribute to the taking of the system, the following week you could be running economic missions to boost it economy & thus the value of your shares. The third week you catch wind of an impending attack to annex the system, with either seeing it as a forlorn hope to defend the system & thus selling your shares for a quick money boost or instead defending the system while buying up shares being sold in panic to increase your share control & thus the value of your shares. You could possibly sell your shares, break ties and join with any other faction attempt to annex it to see if you can gain a bigger share hold.
-----
Share system
-----
Commander actions are weighted against each other if they're on the same side among the amount of commanders on the same side that calculate their %. E.g If one commander preforms 5% of all contributions among a 100 commanders participating on the same side, it would mean the other 99 commanders would hold roughly 0.95% of the share of the system economy. So just under 1%
If the system in question has a population of 20 million & is in Boom this would increase the value of said share, so for example
Credits Per Million Population: 10 Million (20 million population x 10 million = 200 million)
Economic Status: Boom (20% Bonus to 'credits per population'
System in Question worth with Bonus applied: 240 Million Credits
Weekly Share payout to commanders with a 0.95% share: 2.82 Million
The above is just an example, in actual fact there could be other factors, such as the NPC faction you're supporting may have their own demands for the annexation venture, such as a required 40% controlling share in the system that would be weighted against the commanders end contributions in the venture. This is not to say this could be fixed, for example some NPC factions may demand a smaller controlling share of perhaps 30% making it more profitable for commanders to support this NPC faction in its war of annexation. So for example:
If one commander preformed 5% of contributions, the NPC faction requires its 40% share stake, the other 99 commanders would see the remaining 55% of the system economy profits shared among them if they contributed equally. Would give each commander a controlling share of 0.55% thus a weekly profit of 1.32 million.
Overall depending on how much the NPC faction is demanding share wise for the venture would increase/decrease the amount of leg work needed to trigger the war possibly. Such as obtaining the logistic quota before hand to trigger the war.
-----
Share Controlling that leads to 'player controlled systems'
-----
Just an idea & probably difficult to achieve, to perhaps allow player controlled systems & thus more of the administrative duties being available that would require to be funded & supported from the highest stake/share holder from their system profits. So if a player as managed to achieve a controlling share of the system they can have the option to take personal control of its administrative duties or leave it under NPC control but will have the burden of injecting some of their profits to meet it system needs to avoid famines, fend of pirate attacks, improve shipyard, trading opportunities, system defence patrols etc. Such a system held in such a manner would be difficult to hold unless missions issued by said commander are fruitful enough to entice commanders not to switch sides & seek to overthrow them. This would make it more difficult for clans to obtain a monopoly over said system or systems, since if the wealth isn't trickling down, there is no motive to keep such a commander/clan running affairs of a system that a NPC led faction cannot do with its controlling shares.
----
Buying & Selling Shares
----
Commanders at any point could be allowed to offer their shares to the highest bidder to make a quick buck while allowing other commanders with power mongering tendency to achieve a controlling share of the system to Usurp the original NPC faction that they helped to conquer the system. While said NPC faction will always retain it share of the system, it could also start to become a rival in said system too to the commander for obvious reasons opening up other intrigue & backstabbery for other commanders to indulge in.
---
Preparing for war (Offense/Defence)
--
Perhaps in order to annex a system, part of the contributions will be producing the supplies to last X amount of days to extend how long the campaign timeframe to take said system can possibly last, since supplies are always key both in offence & defence. So X defending system will only need to defend said system adequately until attacking faction runs out of supplies (time) to complete it objective/quota
----
Why it as to be a limited amount of systems based on active players
---
Such a system imo would only work & bring commanders to these hot spots if the focus is on fighting for limited resources to be exploited, or it will begin losing it meaning & uniqueness. The idea is to see these systems frequently changing hands within reason in a somewhat 'king of the hill' mode that allows all commanders to have an actual stake in a system & a reason to run missions or preform combat duties.
---
Can this work in singeplayer or more catered for open play only
---
imo i think this should be more for open play given the stakes/risk of PvP will be higher & thus the rewards should be so too, especially since i see this as a end game mechanic in some regards. It could have some singleplayer involvement perhaps in more passive missions but i believe the charm begins to wear off if such external influences from a safe area can affect such a system. The way around this is to perhaps have a singleplayer alternative running parallel with another set of systems separate from open world dedicated to the same purpose but perhaps limited in terms of its rewards to convey the smaller risk being taken.
-------------
These are just general ideas, by all means feel free to criticize or better elaborate or give other mechanics that could do it better. My main goals here are to see Commanders have an actual 'stake' in a system & a reason to fight tooth & nail for it or seize it while also getting more interaction & creating commander run narratives & news & ofc a bit of drama.
The amount of conquerable systems would scale up & down depending on active player population. so for example, have currently 20 conquerable systems in & around the 'bubble' as an end game feature that allow players to trigger wars on such systems, join a side & fulfill missions to contribute to the target in an effort to annex the system. The reward would be a percentage share in the system economy thus giving the commander a reason to defend the systems interest & run missions to boost the economy. Given that the ownership will be based upon shares in the system, it would mean that it may not always be totally profitable if the % share in a system is so small due to an excess amount of players choosing the strong side instead of the underdog side, which could also help to naturally implement a cutthroat style opportunism among commanders that would see them switching to multiple sides to support their own interest instead of nailing your flag to one mast. For example, one day you could be fighting alongside some NPC Corporation offering a percentage in shares to all commanders whom contribute to the taking of the system, the following week you could be running economic missions to boost it economy & thus the value of your shares. The third week you catch wind of an impending attack to annex the system, with either seeing it as a forlorn hope to defend the system & thus selling your shares for a quick money boost or instead defending the system while buying up shares being sold in panic to increase your share control & thus the value of your shares. You could possibly sell your shares, break ties and join with any other faction attempt to annex it to see if you can gain a bigger share hold.
-----
Share system
-----
Commander actions are weighted against each other if they're on the same side among the amount of commanders on the same side that calculate their %. E.g If one commander preforms 5% of all contributions among a 100 commanders participating on the same side, it would mean the other 99 commanders would hold roughly 0.95% of the share of the system economy. So just under 1%
If the system in question has a population of 20 million & is in Boom this would increase the value of said share, so for example
Credits Per Million Population: 10 Million (20 million population x 10 million = 200 million)
Economic Status: Boom (20% Bonus to 'credits per population'
System in Question worth with Bonus applied: 240 Million Credits
Weekly Share payout to commanders with a 0.95% share: 2.82 Million
The above is just an example, in actual fact there could be other factors, such as the NPC faction you're supporting may have their own demands for the annexation venture, such as a required 40% controlling share in the system that would be weighted against the commanders end contributions in the venture. This is not to say this could be fixed, for example some NPC factions may demand a smaller controlling share of perhaps 30% making it more profitable for commanders to support this NPC faction in its war of annexation. So for example:
If one commander preformed 5% of contributions, the NPC faction requires its 40% share stake, the other 99 commanders would see the remaining 55% of the system economy profits shared among them if they contributed equally. Would give each commander a controlling share of 0.55% thus a weekly profit of 1.32 million.
Overall depending on how much the NPC faction is demanding share wise for the venture would increase/decrease the amount of leg work needed to trigger the war possibly. Such as obtaining the logistic quota before hand to trigger the war.
-----
Share Controlling that leads to 'player controlled systems'
-----
Just an idea & probably difficult to achieve, to perhaps allow player controlled systems & thus more of the administrative duties being available that would require to be funded & supported from the highest stake/share holder from their system profits. So if a player as managed to achieve a controlling share of the system they can have the option to take personal control of its administrative duties or leave it under NPC control but will have the burden of injecting some of their profits to meet it system needs to avoid famines, fend of pirate attacks, improve shipyard, trading opportunities, system defence patrols etc. Such a system held in such a manner would be difficult to hold unless missions issued by said commander are fruitful enough to entice commanders not to switch sides & seek to overthrow them. This would make it more difficult for clans to obtain a monopoly over said system or systems, since if the wealth isn't trickling down, there is no motive to keep such a commander/clan running affairs of a system that a NPC led faction cannot do with its controlling shares.
----
Buying & Selling Shares
----
Commanders at any point could be allowed to offer their shares to the highest bidder to make a quick buck while allowing other commanders with power mongering tendency to achieve a controlling share of the system to Usurp the original NPC faction that they helped to conquer the system. While said NPC faction will always retain it share of the system, it could also start to become a rival in said system too to the commander for obvious reasons opening up other intrigue & backstabbery for other commanders to indulge in.
---
Preparing for war (Offense/Defence)
--
Perhaps in order to annex a system, part of the contributions will be producing the supplies to last X amount of days to extend how long the campaign timeframe to take said system can possibly last, since supplies are always key both in offence & defence. So X defending system will only need to defend said system adequately until attacking faction runs out of supplies (time) to complete it objective/quota
----
Why it as to be a limited amount of systems based on active players
---
Such a system imo would only work & bring commanders to these hot spots if the focus is on fighting for limited resources to be exploited, or it will begin losing it meaning & uniqueness. The idea is to see these systems frequently changing hands within reason in a somewhat 'king of the hill' mode that allows all commanders to have an actual stake in a system & a reason to run missions or preform combat duties.
---
Can this work in singeplayer or more catered for open play only
---
imo i think this should be more for open play given the stakes/risk of PvP will be higher & thus the rewards should be so too, especially since i see this as a end game mechanic in some regards. It could have some singleplayer involvement perhaps in more passive missions but i believe the charm begins to wear off if such external influences from a safe area can affect such a system. The way around this is to perhaps have a singleplayer alternative running parallel with another set of systems separate from open world dedicated to the same purpose but perhaps limited in terms of its rewards to convey the smaller risk being taken.
-------------
These are just general ideas, by all means feel free to criticize or better elaborate or give other mechanics that could do it better. My main goals here are to see Commanders have an actual 'stake' in a system & a reason to fight tooth & nail for it or seize it while also getting more interaction & creating commander run narratives & news & ofc a bit of drama.
Last edited: