Tax Free Solar Rails & Why It's Bad

[Fezairin]

Now, I've seen lots of primarily competitive games (especially in the RTS and MOBA genres) that manage an enjoyable co-op experience, but not so much the other way around. If you know of any other significant, successful games of a similar class to Warframe that managed to do co-op and competition well, I'd welcome being enlightend.

 

Guns of Icarus Online did a pretty good job there.

[Blatantfool]

You have made quite a few posts since I posted last; and I'm choosing this one to reply to. If I've missed something in your other posts, or misaddressed you or your views, please let me know.

 

 

The entire idea of pitting Clans of Tenno against one another over... greed... just seems... well... petty and wrong.

 

First, Warframe is a non-MMO, co-op third-person shooter/beat'em'up. The only significant non-MMO, primarily co-op game I can think of that managed to blend competition and co-op decently was Left 4 Dead 1 & 2 - and most of the people I knew either enjoyed playing a co-op mode or versus (with low overlap - the lion share of their time was spend as co-op or versus).

 

Forcing competition into a co-op experience goes against the grain of the basic experience of a co-op game, which is cooperation. Yes, a certain percentage of people are always going to be competitive (anywhere you go), but, if the majority of people who are attracted to your activity come for cooperative play (because you made a cooperative activity!), then you have to assume that the natural response of your player base is to try to cooperate when faced with a challenge - even if that challenge is supposed to cause, or relies on, conflict and competition. Further, a significant number of people drawn to cooperative games like the fact that the games are cooperative and lack competition with other players - and adding conflict elements can make the game less fun for them, particularly if it divides the community or is the only available end game.

 

Now, I've seen lots of primarily competitive games (especially in the RTS and MOBA genres) that manage an enjoyable co-op experience, but not so much the other way around. If you know of any other significant, successful games of a similar class to Warframe that managed to do co-op and competition well, I'd welcome being enlightened with examples of how it can be done right.

 

Second, if you're going to try to motivate me to compete, offering me some petty little resources I can farm anywhere isn't going to do it. You'd have to flash a lot more than credits or resources at me - and I'd be offended by platinum offers. The only battle pay I can think of that might motivate me would be Orokin Catalysts/Reactors or maybe Forma... Even then, I'll support the side that I believe will have the ultimately lower tax rate. What you *really* need is some sort of story or political or social reason for me to become involved.

 

Lastly, competition brings out the worst in a lot of people. I know, people say "Competition brings out the best in people." It brings out the best in some people, and the worst in quite a few others - and it always seems that the worst float to the top (in my experience). Most of the competitive type people I know in real life are, comparatively, horrible. I've know so many competitive gamers who, when their SO shows an interest in a game, they proceed to crush their love mercilessly; instead of trying to play at their partner's skill level and provide coaching. Most of the clans I've encountered in competitive FPSs aren't much better. Yes, you can find nice ones, but there are a ton out there that seem to enjoy hating on their competition, and new players...

 

 

tl;dr - Tying to pit players against one another in a cooperative game is difficult, being contrary to the basic nature of the game and attracted player type; and trying to use greed as a motivator in a game where cooperation is a huge factor in your success seems like backwards decision.

 

 Please remember that absolutely nothing in the Dark Sectors is actually such a necessity that you could ever actually argue it is forcing anything. This is not, will not be and never was 'forcing' a Competitive mindset. It is a Competitive aspect that is there if you want that sort of option and you can ignore that entire expect if you don't feel it suits you. Going back to what I've repeated a few times earlier one for time (because this is a bit that is worth repeating so info spreads slightly quicker) the Dark Sectors are essentially 1/3rd of the Endgame package DE talked about. There is no real significance in us receiving this part of their endgame first. It just ended up being finished first. Wash any worries of this showing signs of a trend from your mind, as this will always be a primarily cooperative game.

 

 Aside from that, though we have different reasons for being unhappy with it, we share some of the same opinions on the weak points a Dark Sectors. Though that is pretty normal.

 

 To be painfully clear - because I realize my rather aggressive posting habits can make it troublesome for me to communicate my point properly - the thing I wanted from Dark Sectors, what I expected, was a platform in which clans would be able to create their own name and identity and turn themselves into pushing factors that people could get behind in a similar vein as the Gradivus Dilemma. The sort of ultra-light RP that players got into and seemed to seriously enjoy with all the hype to compete and cooperate that came with that event. Watching the community from my perspective during that event left a strong impression on me and I regard that event as the best one DE has ever organized as a result. I'd love to see people use the Tools DE creates to turn that into a normal part of the game.

 

 My disappointment springs mostly from that. There is both a gameplay and a community angle to it that, in my opinion, really isn't delivering.

[DirkDeadeye]

Think about that...   Where's the battle pay come from? From your taxes. So money that you rightfully earned is taken away from you, and then given back only when the rail is threatened IF you defend it. Optimum hypothetical result: Zero income.  Practical result: Negative income.

 

I did think about it. Our alliance have discussed this very topic.

 

If an alliance has more than one rail, they're funding repairs and bounties through a network of rails..And any successful alliance will have a network, so they can in fact make their rails worth defending, seeing as how theiy have a good cashflow. So, you are getting a postive return, if say 1-2 out of 2-4 rails are in jepordy. I lose out on 2% of 16,000 but I also get 1-10k as battlepay..and well, 2% of 16,000 is 320 credits. So even with a 1k battlepay, or 500 for that matter, I'm up. But it's not about the credits man..It's the zeitgiest that matters. I'll worry about credit farming when I go out there for work every day.

 

And, I won't say how much my alliance has saved but we have enough saved already to pay out people above the tax rate for a measurable amount of time given that the rails have been up for half a day and we've reached that sum, I'd say my theory checks out. Plenty of blood money to make the game more interesting.

Edited April 13, 2014 by DirkDeadeye

[DirkDeadeye]

Also, any rails that do not have a tax rate, trust me..they will be overtaken simply because the ones who choose not to tax them have zero means to defend them at that point, outside of their own clan or alliances wealth.. There are a lot of dojos out there that could use the resources to liven them up. And the rails are a good source of it. Just as so long as people use them. And there are alliances out there that will seize the oppertunity. Since those are the easiest targets.

[ToeSama]

That is why I'm totally behind any alliance or clan that puts the tax rate to 0%. In fact they should all ally and keep it that way forever. Because the idea of this proxy-war is just silly. There isn't even anything I really need or crave for in the new missions. Just a slightly quicker way to get me what I already have plenty of.

 

They could have made this into something interesting. It is simply not and thus should be taken out of the equation in the way the 0% taxers do it.

Imagine the outrage if large clans ally and put all taxes to 100%. I think this is the better way to point at design flaws. And even if the factions do random raids on the solar rails later on: Who cares? I can see how rich our small ghost clan is.

 

In fact that might even inspire players to be even more Co-operative. By joining together to keep those stupid solar rails in shape against the NPC scum. Which is much more in spirit with what Warframe is about imho. ;)

 

All of this more or less. The idea that player factions would turn the solar map into some sort of sengoku period daimyo war with big clans butting horns for a piece of the bigger pie is just silly. Loot is loot, and no matter who owns the rails, the common man will support the side of better grinding and the lowest possible tax value for their rail(s) of choice. And that's all it was ever going to equate to from the get go. There was no "great spirit of competition in the free market" like some sort of pre fall Rapture analogue. It was always about loot, and better loot drops.

 

Gradivus Dilemma had that spark. It hit the note right in a way the current iteration of Dark Sectors doesn't seem to be. The entire community split and everybody enjoyed rallying to whatever side and butting heads. There was a lot of anger over the skewed rewards at the time, but that never actually drowned out the fun people had being a part of whichever side they picked. Essentially Dark Sectors are the same function, substituting Ruk and Alad V for the various Alliances and Clans.

 

 I hold that sort of thing in high esteem. More then just two clans butting heads, I want to see clans butting heads and enjoying doing so enough to do it again and again. It is friendly competition. Being able to make this stuff fun because of a sense of pride in your clan's name. 

 

 Dark Sectors isn't doing it right. Clearly. As instead of clan pride and rivalry and craziness what we're seeing is a turn of events where all anyone is interested in is how fast we can get to a state where it all stagnates and becomes another monotonous farming option.

 

To be perfectly fair, Gradivus had the benefit of our enemies being universally despised, and the competitive aspects of it were miniscule to the point of being damn near invisible. Sure, some folks wanted the Corpus to win, for whatever reason have you, but the ultimate result of it all was harmless to the average joe trying to farm up some more goodies through the battle pay system.

 

A lasting impact like that, player driven, is unlikely to catch on in the same way due to the basic aspects of upkeep on the rails and the focus that the Badlands have of being a loot driven mechanic. The rails are nigh pointless by themselves to most folk as the only thing they care about concerning it as a mechanic is a better farming zone. I would imagine that folks will support whoever is giving the better pay since all clans seem to be talking tax free rail usage, which pretty much mirrors exactly what Gradivus was. The magic occurred in that event because our enemy was a literal band of nobodies who were showering us with riches to play for their team in the great space B-Ball game 51 times out of 100 A very small population of players actually played for more than their own flavor of petty greed (be it items or clan prestige).

 

All things considered, this was the best we were going to get without the NPC factions being the main cause of the railways destruction. The rail contention between players will shape up into a prick waving competition and little else. Most folks don't care who owns them as long as they're not being nickle and dimed into the ground.

Edited April 13, 2014 by ToeSama

[(PSN)Hiero_Glyph]

To those saying that human nature requires conflict you are mistaken.  Human nature requires growth, not conflict.  As long as a person is allowed to expand in the manner they see fit there is no need for conflict.  This is why dark sectors are flawed, as a 0% tax rate provides all of the benefits to every player with none of the restrictions.  Dark sectors need a reason to force conflict.

 

EDIT:  As a random player who will you support, the alliance charging 0% tax or the one charging more?  Even without the means to defend them others will take up the cause to support those alliances that are providing a tax free environment.  Again, the entire idea of dark sectors is flawed at this stage.

Edited April 13, 2014 by (PS4)Hiero_Glyph

[DirkDeadeye]

To those saying that human nature requires conflict you are mistaken.  Human nature requires growth, not conflict.  As long as a person is allowed to expand in the manner they see fit there is no need for conflict.  This is why dark sectors are flawed, as a 0% tax rate provides all of the benefits to every player with none of the restrictions.  Dark sectors need a reason to force conflict.

 

EDIT:  As a random player who will you support, the alliance charging 0% tax or the one charging more?  Even without the means to defend them others will take up the cause to support those alliances that are providing a tax free environment.  Again, the entire idea of dark sectors is flawed at this stage.

 

IT doesn't matter if you support them, if they can't maintain the upkeep costs they lose the rail.

[Hyunsai]

 ...

 

You honestly don't need to worry. Many people already stated they will not support any alliance trying to have a monopol on the sectors, even if it's for the free taxes. Many also intend to fully tax if they get in charge.

 

The "Sorry for taxes. If we win, no taxes !" of one the contestants is hilarious though. What are people afraid for ? How can they be so timid when it's NOT REAL PVP of any sort ? Come on, grow some balls !

 

This week will be interesting, I m looking forward to it from a RP perspective.

[SilentMobius]

Remember

 

Competition and monopoly are not valid concepts for the Dark sector system because it is _not_ a business

The is not product and there is no transaction.

 

"Access" cannot be limited (you can't stop someone playing the dark sector missions) all you can do is _try_ to take a cut. but the solar rail owner is providing _nothing_ once the first rails are up hence any "tax" levied will tend to zero. At that point there is no transaction so there is no need for competition.

 

This is natural and normal, the clans are offering nothing, the upkeep is nothing hence the tax will tend to nothing.

 

Which is _great_ because forcing conflict over these things was a _bad_ idea.

Edited April 13, 2014 by SilentMobius

[Blatantfool]

You honestly don't need to worry. Many people already stated they will not support any alliance trying to have a monopol on the sectors, even if it's for the free taxes. Many also intend to fully tax if they get in charge.

 

The "Sorry for taxes. If we win, no taxes !" of one the contestants is hilarious though. What are people afraid for ? How can they be so timid when it's NOT REAL PVP of any sort ? Come on, grow some balls !

 

This week will be interesting, I m looking forward to it from a RP perspective.

 

 Perhaps.

 

 I feel like DE will probably add an extremely layer of difficulty to taxless rails in order to create further weakness that would encourage attacking, because at this point that is a big hurdle. There isn't really much reason to be on the offensive yet. As far as we know there is no reason to play the conqueror's role.

 

 For this first short while (until Clans and Alliances have enough time to decide on more entertaining things like a personality or role they want to play in the community) I'll support players on the Offensive just to see what happens. Seeing some shifting in the nodes might stir the beast. I'd like to see that happen if I can.

 

 I might make exceptions for clans I like, because that is also part of how this works. 

[Blatantfool]

This is natural and normal, the clans are offering nothing, the upkeep is nothing hence the tax will tend to nothing.

 

 Incorrect. The upkeep is the repair bills for damage.

 

 It is impossible to say you'll never be attacked. It is impossible to know how often you may be attacked. It may be once a month or so or ten times as fast as timers allow.

[CaptainCapitalism]

My personal believe is that the DE's should implement a minimum Tax level at the very least. 0% Taxes is bad for business, and that's what the Solar Rails are in the end. A Business.

 

Well, this wouldn't solve the problem. If the minimum tax rate is x%, then the challenger still cannot offer a lower rate than the incumbent. The only solution I could see to this would be forcing a minimum rate on the incumbent, but not on the challenger, but this would lead to the equilibrium always favoring the challenging party.

 

It's also not a monopoly at all. A monopoly means that there is one seller - in this case, people have alternative choices, namely supporting the opposition. I believe someone else already brought up the battle pay aspect that offers modes of competition as well.

[(PSN)Hiero_Glyph]

@Blatantfool

 

The point is that at 0% tax the only reason to attack such a dark sector currently is because you are a blatant fool.  It is idiocy in practice as if you do not attack, you save resources and can enjoy all of the rewards with no penalty.  Only those without the intelligence to understand this fact would ever attack a 0% dark sector.

 

Perhaps hubris is to blame but you seem adamant advocating for an approach that benefits no one other than your twisted perception of what dark sectors are intended to be.  Only if an when DE adds new tile sets, factions, and benefits/penalties for the controlling alliance will tax rates and conflict be guaranteed; currently as these are not in place your entire premise for conflict is flawed.

[Blatantfool]

@Blatantfool

 

The point is that at 0% tax the only reason to attack such a dark sector currently is because you are a blatant fool.  It is idiocy in practice as if you do not attack, you save resources and can enjoy all of the rewards with no penalty.  Only those without the intelligence to understand this fact would ever attack a 0% dark sector.

 

Perhaps hubris is to blame but you seem adamant advocating for an approach that benefits no one other than your twisted perception of what dark sectors are intended to be.  Only if an when DE adds new tile sets, factions, and benefits/penalties for the controlling alliance will tax rates and conflict be guaranteed; currently as these are not in place your entire premise for conflict is flawed.

 

 You are certainly right about Dark Sectors being in a bit of a sorry state when it comes to properly motivating people for what it is supposed to do.

 

 But I know that my expectations of what they're supposed to be are closer to what DE explained the system as then the desire for a hug zone.

 

 So what are you going to do when DE starts to build upon this system and work out the kinks? What do you desire most out of this?

 

 If the answer is "I don't desire it at all." then you should stay out of the Clan and Territory aspect of Dark Sectors and wait patiently for the more cooperative PvE endgame to get finished and worked into the game. The odds are you'll never be truly happy with Dark Sectors if you are that convinced a Competitive side can't work. So leave it alone and wait for the part more in line with your needs as a player. It only makes sense. Nobody would even blame you for it.

[(PSN)Hiero_Glyph]

Fair enough, but let's wait until Dark Sectors reach their intended state before advocating for all out war and high tax rates.  Besides, I'm part of the largest clan on the PS4 so conflict is not something that bothers me, there is just no point to it currently.

[Blatantfool]

Fair enough, but let's wait until Dark Sectors reach their intended state before advocating for all out war and high tax rates.  Besides, I'm part of the largest clan on the PS4 so conflict is not something that bothers me, there is just no point to it currently.

 

 The rails are incredibly expensive. It'll take a lot of work for DE to hit the niche just right on their end I think. 

 

 Past that it is up to the community, on PC and Ps4 both, to use the tools DE sets up properly.

 

 Examples set by outspoken and generally well known clans on both Platforms becomes extremely important. 

[PoorCensored]

Guns of Icarus Online did a pretty good job there.

 

To my knowledge, Guns of Icarus Online is a team-based PvP game - or at least that is how the developer describes it.

 

 

 Please remember that absolutely nothing in the Dark Sectors is actually such a necessity that you could ever actually argue it is forcing anything. This is not, will not be and never was 'forcing' a Competitive mindset. It is a Competitive aspect that is there if you want that sort of option and you can ignore that entire expect if you don't feel it suits you. Going back to what I've repeated a few times earlier one for time (because this is a bit that is worth repeating so info spreads slightly quicker) the Dark Sectors are essentially 1/3rd of the Endgame package DE talked about. There is no real significance in us receiving this part of their endgame first. It just ended up being finished first. Wash any worries of this showing signs of a trend from your mind, as this will always be a primarily cooperative game.

 

 Aside from that, though we have different reasons for being unhappy with it, we share some of the same opinions on the weak points a Dark Sectors. Though that is pretty normal.

 

 To be painfully clear - because I realize my rather aggressive posting habits can make it troublesome for me to communicate my point properly - the thing I wanted from Dark Sectors, what I expected, was a platform in which clans would be able to create their own name and identity and turn themselves into pushing factors that people could get behind in a similar vein as the Gradivus Dilemma. The sort of ultra-light RP that players got into and seemed to seriously enjoy with all the hype to compete and cooperate that came with that event. Watching the community from my perspective during that event left a strong impression on me and I regard that event as the best one DE has ever organized as a result. I'd love to see people use the Tools DE creates to turn that into a normal part of the game.

 

 My disappointment springs mostly from that. There is both a gameplay and a community angle to it that, in my opinion, really isn't delivering.

 

I wasn't here for the Gradivus Dilemma, but I think ToeSama probably addressed your issue better than I could. The Gradivus Dilemma was all of the players fighting as freelancers in a war between two groups that are relatively horrible, with a nice shinny prize for you to have depending on who eventually won.

 

That's nothing like what the rails are. The Dark Sectors don't have, to my knowledge, any exclusive loot given out to just the people who control it as a draw (and, if it did, it would cease to be 'optional'); and we're not being involved in a war against what appears to be fascists and greedy merchants, but against our friends and allies.

 

I don't mind Clans having a place in the game, and being able to make a mark... I'm just not sure that this is the way (pitting Tenno against Tenno). And I have a personal issue with any contest that relies on wealth/resources, rather than skill. But, my biggest qualm (in this thread) is that people are upset that people who play a co-op game immediately started to act in a way that is beneficial to everyone... which is what you should expect from people who play a co-op game. If the community, as a whole, didn't work towards the common good, it wouldn't be a very good co-op game; and, if people weren't looking to work toward a common good, there are lots of competitive games out there they would be drawn to first.

 

Note: I enjoy PvP. I logged an insane amount of time into competitive team-based games, like TF2. And, while I think I could find an PvP form of Interception very fun (where both Tenno teams couldn't harm the other, but had to capture points both from each other and from the Grineer or Corpus); I don't know that it would be good for the community as a whole. Similarly, invasions where players manned on both sides, but couldn't hurt fellow Tenno, sounds really interesting - but may not be good for the community as a whole (maybe both sides win if everyone ends up exterminated? No - nevermind.).

 

 

I did think about it. Our alliance have discussed this very topic.

 

If an alliance has more than one rail, they're funding repairs and bounties through a network of rails..And any successful alliance will have a network, so they can in fact make their rails worth defending, seeing as how theiy have a good cashflow. So, you are getting a postive return, if say 1-2 out of 2-4 rails are in jepordy. I lose out on 2% of 16,000 but I also get 1-10k as battlepay..and well, 2% of 16,000 is 320 credits. So even with a 1k battlepay, or 500 for that matter, I'm up. But it's not about the credits man..It's the zeitgiest that matters. I'll worry about credit farming when I go out there for work every day.

 

And, I won't say how much my alliance has saved but we have enough saved already to pay out people above the tax rate for a measurable amount of time given that the rails have been up for half a day and we've reached that sum, I'd say my theory checks out. Plenty of blood money to make the game more interesting.

 

Yeah... this is one of the things I was afraid of... some clan figuring out that if it can manage to bank roll enough rails that support taxes, it can start steam rolling. I suspect we'll either stay at 0 tax rails or eventually end up with either a monopoly or oligarchy of clans holding all the rails. If one or two clans that taxes gets a decent foot hold, I suspect the tax income will allow them an inordinate advantage over the rest of clans when it comes to assaulting and defending rails... 

 

And nothing like having a monopoly (or oligarchy) rule everything. Plutarchs everywhere will be happy.

[Morec0]

@Blatantfool

 

The point is that at 0% tax the only reason to attack such a dark sector currently is because you are a blatant fool.  It is idiocy in practice as if you do not attack, you save resources and can enjoy all of the rewards with no penalty.  Only those without the intelligence to understand this fact would ever attack a 0% dark sector.

 

Perhaps hubris is to blame but you seem adamant advocating for an approach that benefits no one other than your twisted perception of what dark sectors are intended to be.  Only if an when DE adds new tile sets, factions, and benefits/penalties for the controlling alliance will tax rates and conflict be guaranteed; currently as these are not in place your entire premise for conflict is flawed.

 

Ah, yes, you're right. I understand the 0% matter, I do, I'm enjoying it...

 

But the moment my Clan gets its Alliances up and running, and the moment we have the opportunity to attack, I ASSURE you: I WILL be attacking a 0% rail, and when your 0-tax policy fails to pay for your rail's damages, we WILL rule the system. Enjoy.

[PoorCensored]

Ah, yes, you're right. I understand the 0% matter, I do, I'm enjoying it...

 

But the moment my Clan gets its Alliances up and running, and the moment we have the opportunity to attack, I ASSURE you: I WILL be attacking a 0% rail, and when your 0-tax policy fails to pay for your rail's damages, we WILL rule the system. Enjoy.

I love your good-natured, sportsman-like spirit.

[brightfire37]

 In the end it will be 0% Tax Clan vs. 0% Tax Clan, pretty exiting. Even if they force clans to take 5% tax it will just be 5% vs 5% same thing.

 

The point of having a minimum tax wouldn't be to watch two clans at minimum tax rate fight each other though, it would be an incentive to actually own a solar rail.  As it stands right now there is no reason for having a solar rail.  If there was a tax rate minimum then clans like mine would actually want to own a rail to make money, this would create real competition instead of just clans putting up rails for no real reason.  The laws of capitalism dictate that profit will eventually be competed to zero unless a monopoly is formed, or there is a price floor preventing it from going lower.  The minimum tax rate would give clans an incentive to compete rather than just sit around not caring who controls each node.  Sorry if I repeated anything someone else said already, I didn't have the patience to read through all the comments.

[Bakim0n0]

Currently, I just don't see the point of bothering to make or take a rail.

If you go after a rail and set a tax rate above 0% everyone will support the first clan to try and take you down or they wont run that rail.

If you have a rail with a 0% tax rate there's no advantage over letting some other clan build it.

Maybe there is some sort of feature coming later that may change it but... currently I just don't see the point.

[Blatantfool]

I love your good-natured, sportsman-like spirit.

 

 It can be hard to resist going for a piece of that delicious glory cake.

 

 

 Anyway, about your above response at me. After all the discussion in this thread I feel like I'm starting to get a clearer picture of what I'm going to want to see happen. Now is just mulling over about how I feel is best for that to happen.

 

 After this first wave of Contested towers passes and everybody has more information on stuff like repair costs and all I think it'll be time for a lot of the interested parties, like people in threads like this, to start to discuss how to get this all into a situation where getting involved in contesting towers and such can be made less of a problem or even encouraged properly.

 

 I still believe this is a topic that needs to be squared away both in-game as DE builds upon this and within the community itself.

[Bakim0n0]

Remember

 

Competition and monopoly are not valid concepts for the Dark sector system because it is _not_ a business

The is not product and there is no transaction.

 

"Access" cannot be limited (you can't stop someone playing the dark sector missions) all you can do is _try_ to take a cut. but the solar rail owner is providing _nothing_ once the first rails are up hence any "tax" levied will tend to zero. At that point there is no transaction so there is no need for competition.

 

This is natural and normal, the clans are offering nothing, the upkeep is nothing hence the tax will tend to nothing.

 

Which is _great_ because forcing conflict over these things was a _bad_ idea.

Why is conflict over points a bad idea? For the playerbase the nodes will permanently be active but having a competative element would actually give motivation to stick to the game and push rather than "Oh hey, someone put a rail there... I guess I can run it for money"

This game desperately NEEDS competition to make it more interesting because right now it's VERY STALE unless you're relatively new or don't have much free time. There is Z-E-R-O to do other than just gearing up, and alternative activities would be extremely welcome.

[LukeAura]

I'm expecting the Dark Sectors to ultimately fail unless the best quality of gameplay is found in the attacking mission, meaning people will play in and create them just to experience it.

But it's too likely that the Sectors will lock down at 0% tax rates, being the only way sectorless alliances can compete with those who've collected battle pay. Every alliance who doesn't already have a sector is immediately out of the race because they can never move up from 0% tax rates or else get branded as liars. And then where do you go from there? Fight 0 with 0? There's no point unless you're an alliance already part way in to the next scenario.
 The converse, which is just as likely, just a few alliances might be able to get such a large vault trying to fight against their battle pay and decent but not free tax rate simply won't be feasible no matter what. Leaving the only actual contenders to be the ones who already have nodes, no other alliance formed after will be able to compete.

 

The point of having a minimum tax wouldn't be to watch two clans at minimum tax rate fight each other though, it would be an incentive to actually own a solar rail.  As it stands right now there is no reason for having a solar rail.  If there was a tax rate minimum then clans like mine would actually want to own a rail to make money, this would create real competition instead of just clans putting up rails for no real reason.  The laws of capitalism dictate that profit will eventually be competed to zero unless a monopoly is formed, or there is a price floor preventing it from going lower.  The minimum tax rate would give clans an incentive to compete rather than just sit around not caring who controls each node.  Sorry if I repeated anything someone else said already, I didn't have the patience to read through all the comments.

In this case then the current owners of nodes would have better battle pays then the ones without. Thus they would always win, to collect more money and have more funds and resources to beat out your pay the next time you attack. 



And if it's still a flawed system in need of tweaks and adjustments, then they better becoming fast because if the place gets monopolized, then the monopolized alliances will always win, no matter how the system works or changes. And if it changes so that any current clans will have to up tax rates for whatever reason, then they will get an immediate advantage over freshly started alliances, and head towards monopolizing against each other. 
There's simply no room for this system to expand. The winners will be written in the star charts soon. No matter how many scenarios you could run, eventually it will end in only a few alliances having a slice of the dark sector pie.

[Bakim0n0]

What's to compete with? At a 0% tax rate the advantageous place to be is to NOT have one.

Seems to me that all you get for having a sector is a bill.