So there are lots of statement about worries and losing faith in CIG. I've never bought into that or doubted the resolve of the team. I still don't, but the Valkyrie Q&A has a line in it which has eroded my faith more than anything else to date. It may seem like a small thing, but to me it is a VERY big deal. The pit in my stomach does not come out of disappointment about cargo - though there certainly IS that. The pit comes from the mindset that the Q&A demonstrates and a particular line that stands out. For the most part, the mindset around game design has been expansive, not restrictive. That began changing with the anti-modularity shift last year or so, but there has been so much confusion and 'wait and see' that we still don't know what that means, there hasn't been enough direct evidence to date -- but lets not argue about that, it's beside the point. The Valkyrie on the other hand REALLY gives CIG's expansive and 'let the players be creative' mindset a significant challenge. To be honest, if it were done properly it would be a balance breaker. But that's on them. They should be good enough work with that and still give players what they want and what is logical. They are literally cooking up excuses not to let things take their natural and logical course. In real life military design is for purpose AND wherever possible for multipurpose - that's just smart design. The Valk has no excuses. The design choice to make it incapable of having cargo, to have exposed beds, to making no modularity even though they want a med version are inexplicable. In real life, the Vak would be used for cargo as well as vehicles. It would have whatever is needed to keep that cargo and the vehicles in place. But HERE's the line that really, REALLY gave me pause: "We're still finalizing the in-fiction reasons for the differences between securing cargo vs. vehicles." Regardless of if this is pertaining to just the Valk or everything, it, to me, flies in the face of almost all the things preached about CR's vision for player-lead and player-centric vision. On top of that, this stuff has been handled more constructively in the past. The Hull series is an excellent example whereby logical design works (for mass cargo transport) and yet still presents limitations that open up space for new ship designs like the Hercules. The thinking WAS there! No need to cook up excuses for something that SHOULD be. Ship design teams, you need to find that again. One of the tenants of Amazon is to remove red-tape wherever possible, because bureaucracy cripples creativity. So here is my question to CIG. Please consider it VERY Carefully in light of all of the pitches of this game that sold it to so many backers: Why are you cooking up in-lore reasons and red tape to justify not giving players perfectly logical (and realistic) gameplay? Do you REALLY need to resort to this? Do better. We know you can.