Mixed feelings about this. 
I would advocate for Azyrex's point for accelerated EP earning, not 100k+ bundles right off the bat.  We all know how poorly the first 40k goes with some new players, why compound that frustration?

If more income means the game gets more development and players online: then I'll concede my point.

I would like to see higher end sparks for non-$ purchase, maybe of very high Nic costs, rare-item trade in, and/or very high corp-reputation.  The current new sparks feel pay-to-win-ish.

Just an opinion.

I want to see ads on billboards Zoom!
Billboards! Advertising for the 21st century!

+1

I think (an opinion that can be dismissed) that the small-feature or balance patches that are on the roadmap should not get clumped together into one big patch. 

This way there are more, more frequent, small updates, that players can see is a consistent history of development.  This would also allow bugs to be addressed in a more modular way, addressing the issue that one update brought, instead of many at once.

Outside of player activity, dev-activity is the only thing to draw attention in newsfeeds that potential new and old players will see and attract them back to the game.

As you observe, an MMO lives on a critical mass of players to populate the Massiveness of the Multiplayer in order to attract and keep more people around and for longer, an unfortunate catch-22.
Silicon Valley people call this 'stickiness'.  A metric to understand how long a player sticks around: lifespan, maybe.
If this is too short, then you have to find a way to bolster the single-player experience to increase the lifespan of the casual player, and then create a spark of attention/attraction with something new and exciting that would draw old and new players alike back into the game, or purchasing the game for the first time. 

The assignments update is great, and you are following through on Beta increasing incentives for Beta activity; which is great.
But fresh, new content seems to be the only big attraction for most players that leave the game, or are on the fence about buying.

The talk about the balance patch is relevant too.  Not because if its reverted vets will magically come back because they left as a protest? (is this true? need citation).  But because new players that do show up hear from the remaining vets that if they picked green, they chose wrong and this negatively affects their outlook on the game as they feel like they start at a disadvantage. 

The sad truth is it doesn't matter what is True for the player, only how they feel and what is 'truthy' for them.

This same negative feeling comes from how dumb new players feel when they cant find the artifact in the tutorial.  You guys are addressing this, and I think it might be the right way to look at things now.  I admit, I was against the artifact scanning change because the rigor it required made it appropriately difficult.  But the negative effects of rage-quitting tutorial-level players can't be ignored.

I guess the question is, what other topics in game, or not yet in-game, could address this player experience in other areas?

Anyway keep up the good work, and feel free to ignore all of this because I'm dumb and don't know what I am talking about.

+1 to 'surprise teleporting'
In lieu of the incoming spark removal, this provides a random, unpredictable way to enhance pvp-engagment variety that favors those that are more active (therefore able to come across these instances) than the 'bat-phoned' pvp participants.  This would enable an attacking force to skip over teleport camps, probes, and scouted bottlenecks in terrain.

Also the PVE possibilities to add content and selectively design and integrate also is an awesome development model that works with the small but quick releases in new islands filled with all sorts of goodies.  Each can begin to address different PVE goals and opportunities, as well as more pvp over competing factions to exploit these new lands.

*Edit: wrong quote

They do scale in difficulty(maybe not enough), the issue is that the pay only scales equal to, or less than, what you would make running solo per squad member.

IE. the squad would make more faster running the missions on their own, than if they were grouped.
Squad play only benefits players that dont have access to high level missions, or can not solo them yet (new players)

Is this thread about game development? Or kill-ratio flexing contest?

+1