I think people really need to stop acting like this is World of Warcraft, with talk of "tiers" and "endgame". It just doesn't apply in this game, and forcing it onto it is only to the detriment of the game and your enjoyment of it.
Different ships are more or less effective at different roles than other ships, and ships have different flavors and are suited to different playstyles, but there's no "tiers" of ships other than what players choose to see. Similarly, there is no "endgame" The game is the game throughout. It doesn't change once you get X credits, or once you hit X rank in the Pilot's Federation.
The game is the game; tiers and endgame are only in your head.
Well then, buy an Anaconda when you only have 500,000 cr – then come back and reaffirm that "it just doesn't apply in this game". I thought it was clear I was talking about cost tiers, and they
do exist, and there's plenty of evidence of scaling. You're not going to see a Huge hardpoint on a 300,000 cr ship, nor a cargo capacity of 400 tons. And the concept of progression is absolutely part of Elite: Dangerous. In fact, compared to many of my favourite games (based on gameplay), like Bastion and Trine, Elite: Dangerous is
far more focused on time-intensive 'progression'.
In this thread we're almost putting a development hat on, talking about what ships there should be, what they should be like, etc. And wearing that hat, you can't not talk about progression and 'lategame', 'endgame', whatever you want to call it. There are players, at certain times, who can afford any ship. There are players, at certain times, who can't. Gameplay considerations need to take both into account. Wearing the development hat one absolutely should talk about the 'endgame', and how that stage of gameplay strongly encourages a more even playing field between all ships – so that players won't find cheaper ships obsolete. One should also absolutely talk about how a very time-intensive game like Elite: Dangerous, and one with a factor of over a thousand between the cheapest and most expensive ship, has to offer some kind of progression when getting richer.
And I assure you, me talking about it doesn't ruin my enjoyment, and if anyone tells me the existence of me talking about it ruins the game
globally then… then… what?
FD have generally done a pretty good job of balancing ships according to the two player regimes. More expensive ships offer you something to make you feel they're worth the higher pricetag (something you paid for in a lot of hours), but many less expensive ships remain relevant in certain situations, esp. for stealth or less painful insurance claims. I stick by my assessment that tiering ships by cost to look at what the gameplay is like when you can only afford up to those ships is
completely valid, and as a dev if I was looking at what sort of new ships to add it's exactly how I'd look at it.
