Next 2 ships

[varonica]

That would not surprise me, half the jump range or so would still be adequate for bubble hopping.
Would be fun if a bubble squadron declared war on a Colonia one though... (only 90-odd jumps to make, each way...)

Of course they could just triple the fuel requirement to jump 500ly, I am sure nobody would mind that!

Back then it was still called Random Assortment of Numbers and Letters.

Ceeckia ZQ-L c24-0

 

[Vardaugas]

Are we going to get a Turner Class Corvette for the Alliance military?
Are the rank locked ships going to get SCO upgraded drives?
Will the Pilot's Federation Department of Standards, the Dockers Guild and the Landing Gear Manufacturers come together to reclassify the Type-6 as small and the Type-7, Orca and Imperial Clipper as medium?
We should know by the end of the year.

 

[Capt. Hook]

Military Asp (as per original elite 2). Military fuel it or some guardian tech integrated into it.

 

[Cmdr Travers]

My money would be on new versions of these, in this order...

Viper
Vulture
Anaconda
Mamba
Fer-de-Lance

...or how about a Sidewinder Mk II as a complete curve-ball?

 

[Raedawn]

Well yes if you take any significant sample size of sci-fi video game playing spaceship-loving people and ask them, capital ships are going to come into the conversation. That's what I meant by "self evident". It's self evident that among people who are fans of space ships, a significant non-zero percent of them are also interested in larger ships. It's just been embedded into sci-fi culture. The USS Enterprise, The Battlestar Galactica, Star Destroyers, etc etc.

You said, 'Reasons' plural and now you are backing away from even that statement as you gave a single reason and even that reason has the tone of something you made up after the fact.

You seem to be falling into the fallacy of false choices. Remember two things can be true at once:
1. I didn't make a serious pitch for this to be put in the game, no.
2. It would still be awesome and we would throw our wallets at FDEV to get one

I said you were backing away from your own convictions that this ship should be put into this game (something your #1 statement above highlights and reinforces) and does not preclude that you think this ship is, [Awesome and something you believe that you and others would throw your wallets at].

You have stumbled into a debate you didn't even know you started and have misused the idea of a fallacy twice. I will state that looking up fallacy terms online, reading their descriptions and misapplying them in a debate does not make you look more but rather exceedingly less competent at debate.