Your proposal was the new sub-faction offer an entire tech tree of options, unique buildings, unique ships, and bombardment immunity. If nothing else, those offer new strategic and tactical options; additional viable options are of themselves an advantage.
You’re saying players wouldn’t get an advantage from the 50 planets; it doesn’t affect game balance. Yet it’s “worth to go to war” for them. So do I understand correctly that you’re saying players will go to war when they stand to gain no game advantage whatsoever thereby? But if that’s the case then they wouldn’t need the 50 planets to go to war anyways.
Whichever way you’re going, player motivation to go to war is a player issue that needs to be addressed with player solutions. Whatever mechanics will not change things in the slightest.
If you have control of one of those planets and nobody in the area cares enough to fight you for control, then there will be no war unless you start it. And if you were going to start a war to protect potential gains, you would have started a war even without one of the 50 planets. If you were the sort to start a war to gain what other players have, you would have started a war; if one of the 50 planets is nearby that gives a focal point, but you would still have gone to war.
The 50 planets just don’t make a real difference in player motivations.
To be clear - even if the 50 planets offer a real strategic/tactical advantage, even if that’s a game balance issue and a problem, that still won’t necessarily mean players will care enough to go to war over them. Players often value their real-life pursuits over time spent in-game, and whatever in-game incentives just aren’t going to motivate them.
I thought you might switch up the proposed implementation as you were specifically addressing veterans with the proposed feature.
All right, so it’s more of a location-based exclusivity than veteran exclusivity. It’s still putting in work on an ongoing basis that most of the server doesn’t get access to firsthand, that can be argued to give whoever holds it an unfair advantage.
If you want to make the game like “Path of Exile” say so, but remember - even if balance issues are addressed, PoE’s monetization model might not work for Outscape. ARPGs have a larger playerbase than 4x.
(If you don’t know what Path of Exile is, you might want to look into it and its monetization model. If you want to push for monetization without pay to win, and seasonal content updates, those are things PoE does. Looking at PoE might give you ideas for suggestions.)