What's getting forgotten in this debate is you wont even get an Antagonist every time. In fact, when you don't you'll notice your rewards aren't nearly as sweet. However, new players probably don't get they are actually being given a better reward for the increased risk and that's been debated on both sides a lot. There's whole threads dedicated to both sides. On one side, you have Antagonists complaining it's too hard to fight 4 players by themselves. Back on the Raider side, the Antagonist is just too skilled and it's unfair to us new players! However, regardless of the side you sit on the answer is going to be the same... dedicate more time to getting better because we 'all' did or just give up. Personally, I rather people not give up but I'm also not one to force people to do things they're not enjoying and then expect me to convince them. I ain't your pusher man!
Or players like me could bring it up on the forums in hopes that there will be an implemented change due to our feedback to improve our consumer experience as customers. I've been on both ends of antag, but to be honest, I wouldn't have ever played as antag if I wasn't forced to.
I believe there are solutions that can help both player types. The first would be not to lock weapons behind the antag system. This, I think, is the core and worst problem. Another solution is better rewards for Antag players, like Gold, Character and Faction points.
Often the argument people bring up is, "Well antag needs to have a reason for people to play it so they need to have weapons there." Ask yourself why people would avoid antag in the first place? And if you don't believe that people would avoid antag in the first place and that it is indeed fun enough to be played on it's own, why then would weapons be locked there in the first place? See the inconstancy of this argument? Ultimately why would someone be forced to have to choose a game mode? That seems silly.
Please don't wave away new player impression with, "Git gud!" because that is a financially unstable view point for a company to take. You can afford to have this argument because you are a player and do not have anything on the line as a developer. But I assure you it is different if you are actually TRYING to bring in new players. I don't believe the developers completely agree with your "git gud" philosophy. If they do, they won't last long. I think it's unwise to have new players exposed to antags. At least give them the option, like in Dark Souls, not to be invaded. I know I would be happy to take a reduced amount of rewards if it meant I could play the game antag free. That would be the cost I would be willing to play for QoL, but I know this is unlikely because it would split the queues.
The devs say they have something in the works to address this issue, which means they believe it IS an issue, which is good. I am holding my breath in the meantime.
