So yes almost every point you make is valid, viewing it as a rigid system that you currently like.
But I don't view screeps nearly as a finished product yet and see still a long way to go.
I don't view it as finished either.
But in my current situation I'm not able to sustain a subscription, so a sub tokens are a very good method for a win win situation with a marginal loss of fairness:
If you don't have the money for a subscription, then you don't have money for sub tokens so buying them with IRL cash is ruled out, but you can buy sub tokens with credits. If you don't have the ability to generate 8 million credits per month in-game (last time I checked) then you don't have the ability to exchange your mineral harvesting/compound construction/trading for another players' IRL cash. You have said that your code on the server is "an excuse of a script". Given what you've said subscription tokens are irrelevant to you and will always be irrelevant to you until you have substantially improved code and GCL to farm them in game, or you have access to more IRL cash.
Consider a game like EvE Online - a new player couldn't really expect to farm PLEX to pay for their subscription, unless they spend a substantial amount of time doing really tedious and inefficient farming of one kind or another. But an old player might quite easily be able to generate ISK to buy a PLEX depending on the areas of the game they've got into.
From what you've said about your code, you're not able to generate the credits to pay for a monthly subscription token, and splitting the tokens into smaller sizes won't change the rate at which you have to generate credits. So sub tokens are for now out of your reach, and there's no realistic change to the game that would put them in your reach, unless the game is redesigned to be a lot more P2W (but you say you don't like that). I don't see any reason for you to bang on about subscription tokens.
My suggestions to strengthen low-mid lvl rooms are to an extend to somewhat mitigate the effects of p2w but also to make sure that RCL 8 is not necessarily a key goal.
RCL 8 is an inevitable consequence of creating a small script that spawns creeps, harvests, and upgrades and leaving it running. If you have a script that does this you cannot avoid reaching RCL 8 unless someone wipes you from the game. You have posts in the forum that are 9 months old so you could easily have 1 or more rooms at RCL8 on MMO, even under the old 10cpu regime.
So you're asking for the limited dev and rebalancing effort to be spent on a part of the game that almost no-one plays because they grow out of it quickly, in order to make the game "better sustainable for the devs". Does that seem like a logical proposition?
The private servers I play on, are already available infrastructure with open capacity as soon those are gone so are the servers.
Why don't you just play 20 CPU shard3, which you've got for free for life once you bought the game instead of moaning about private servers that disappear for whatever reason? Alternatively if you really want to change the equation at lower RCL rooms, why don't you write a mod for the private server and experiment with changing various constants to reduce the amount of upgrading required per RCL, or decreases tower damage or whatever you want. If you did that then maybe you would have a proposition you could make about how low RCL combat should be improved. But until then why don't you figure out how to upgrade rooms at the maximum possible speed so that you get higher RCL.
right my definition of a fun game:
A competition that gives clear results, without the infringement of harm to the participants.
May I humbly suggest that competition without infringement of harm exists in form of the GCL leaderboard and the power leaderboard. The trophy of trophies is to be at the top of both the GCL and power leaderboard in the same month. I am unaware whether anybody has achieved this but it would be an impressive feat.
A sandbox game needs also a lot of possible goals to achieve.
Not necessarily wrong.
Goals that need specific decisions to be made even if that means sacrificing some other ones.
Choosing whether to compete on power or GCL leaderboards is a prime example of this tradeoff. Have you tried competing on the GCL or power leaderboards? How did you find that experience?
What other ideas do you have for this type of competition you talk about? Are you concerned that adding new ways of competition to the game, may make the game more complex? Because in just a little while you go on to talk about how the game should be less complex. Ok lets look at that:
Complexity is toxic to players since they have to spend enormous energy of learning the rules before they can play.
Ok, the game certainly is complex. This is the kind of thing that some people relish and others don't. It's not simply "toxic" full stop. Complexity can give more scope for players to figure out their own solution, rather than there being a single meta that everyone uses. Complexity can give greater rewards for mastery, rather than capping out early once a simple system is mastered (consider learning draughts/checkers vs learning chess). Complexity can cause players to stick around for longer. But yes, complexity can also put players off.
So you want the game to be more P2W but also less P2W, and you want the game to have lots more goals to achieve but also you want the game to be less complex, and you want to get rid of the market and write off development work but you also want to make the game better sustainable for the devs.
I'm very much reminded of a quote from Alice in Wonderland:
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."