As I said in the title, when CIG is defining each manufacturer they are always highlighting their positive qualities and philosophy. Aegis Dynamics are ex-military ships with all it implies. Powerful military fighters with good equipment. Anvil Aerospace are armoured fighters. More modern than Aegis ships. They have more blocky design and good armour. Musashi Industrial and Starflight Concern are tough utility ships. The best industrial ships, armoured and highly reliable. Also known to use some alien technology. Origin Jumpworks GmbH are popular luxury ships. Very sleek and fast. High quality components. Roberts Space Industries are reliable and versatile. One of the oldest manufacturers. Wide range of ships for various needs. And then there is Drake Interplanetary... So, how are Drake ships defined by the devs? They are defined by their cheapness (as in crap, not cost-effective) ships made with WW1 tech, absurd engineering gimmicks, absolutely no regards for basic safety features, and completely subpar defences. Is there another manufacturer with a gimmick like "No ejection system on any ship" ? Or one with something as nonsensical as the cockpit elevators? Or a giant wing that was purposefully designed to get destroyed and losing weapons? No. Only Drake. And the only supposed strengths the devs rarely mentions does not exist when comparing them to the competitors: @JCrewe_CIG Generally speaking they are all either upgunned or more maneouverable to offset their lower armour. @JCrewe_CIG Drake ships in general have less armour, more agility, more guns than comparable other ships. The Cutlass is not upgunned and barely more agile. And this is at the expense of low quality and pitiful defences (half the shield of other Medium ships). It gets beaten in combat by the average Medium Freighter. The Caterpillar lost its firepower when going from concept to flight-ready. Replaced with Parking Sensor™. It was supposed to be a raid commender. the muscle of pirate raids. Instead it's an undergunned big freighter. The Buccaneer is the only one that could be called a glass cannon. But its engines generate more heat than a small star, it shuts down when you try to take advantage of its agility, and it's a complete death trap. Yet ironically for a cheap Drake ship it's actually overpriced, getting beaten 2:1 by an Arrow that cost 40% less. The Corsair can be defined as upgunned but has tons of built-in flaws. Paper-thin armour like all Drake ships (sic)? check. Giant wings made to be destroyed and carrying missiles and guns? check. Pea-shooter turrets with super limited arc of fire? check. Rear-turrets that can only shoot behind and blocked out by part of the hull? check. Lower manoeuvrability than a Constellation which handles like a wet soapbox? check. The very way Drake is considered and presented de facto makes it an inferior manufacturer. it's a simple psychological behaviour. If you only define something as bad/negative, it will be build as such. And we can observe this trend of Drake getting worse over time and their ships getting gimmicks instead of interesting features. Their ships were originally pitched as no-nonsense, barebone but reliable and hard-fighting. Nowadays they are looking more and more like they are exclusively designed to be NPC ships. And this can only be fixed if CIG rethink how they defines Drake. Drake should be raised up by its strengths like all other manufacturers, and not pulled down by its flaws as it is now. Edit/Addendum: Keeping in mind that this is a general issue with the definition of the brand as a whole and not with individual ships, a few relevant posts: A great post by @Pyrewyrm demonstrating how cost-inefficient Drake ships really are: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/drake-needs-to-be-defined-by-its-strengths-like-al/3156661 Also a great post by @Boldthreat85 about Drake ships evolution: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/drake-needs-to-be-defined-by-its-strengths-like-al/3165978