I'm skeptical about the size of this "no lifer" community. I doubt it's as you think. I don't deny that there are people without jobs, spouses, or daily responsibilities that let them play longer than others. Nor do I deny that those players get an advantage from higher base SP caps.

My question to you is: "Wouldn't these people be ahead of you anyway? Furthermore, shouldn't they be?"

Most events naturally work in favor of those who commit more time. I would expect that my room mate - an avid hockey player - would be much better than I am at hockey because he practices everyday. Were I to compete with him, it would sound silly to limit how much time he could practice to make things "even" between the two of us. Were he lazy, he wouldn't play hockey even if he had "no life". If he was truly dedicated to being the best hockey player he could be, he would dedicate himself to th task. This would, in turn, keep him from playing DUST as often as me. It wouldn't make sense for him to limit my play to keep himself competitive.

And so the pattern repeats.

I think this issue is largely irrelevant due to the volume of players who report it. If eighty percent of the player base can't play seven days a week, they won't be competitive with every player. They will be competitive with most players.

This is the balance that I think should be sought. I want DUST to be as pure a meritocracy as it can be. Those who devote time to the game should be rewarded for it. There should be ample rewards for all schedules, and matchmaking to further match players with equal competition. Barring these solutions, a diversity of game modes would alleviate - but not eliminate - the strain between unmatched players by making some game modes with casual players in mind. Hi-Sec matches, a DUST Slayer app that worked like "Words with Friends", PvE, a campaign, or other non-combat game modes would allow those who still feel non-competitive to have fun in a different way.

Take care,
PS