Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

What is Space Engineers? (Reflection on Vision)

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Geneticus, Sep 27, 2016.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Geneticus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,618
    I have started asking myself this question of late. With Marek stepping down officially (as he was commanded by his AI overlord) and opening up positions for CEO and SE Producer, I expect I will be asking myself this question again in the near future as new people come into the development teams and new goals are set by the new overlords.

    The question should be self explanatory, right? A buttload of engineering all about space, but (pun intended) is it?

    When I first played SE (around patch 40), I was not impressed. It was clunky. I had no idea how anything was supposed to work or what I was supposed to do. I played in Creative for 20 minutes and assumed I would never touch it again like most of the games I binge bought during that year's Steam Summer Sale. Had I not happened across Sage, Aarron, and Tazoo's Survival series on YouTube I probably wouldn't have ever launched it again. Obviously, I did.

    Fast forward two years later and I have sunk an enormous amount of my time into this game.
    [​IMG]

    In the space of that two years, I learned the basics of modding SE. Starting with XML hacks, then textures and models.
    The first thing I did was try to create some story based survival scenarios but with the game changing so much it was very difficult to maintain. I then moved into art modding and tried to fill what I thought was a large missing piece missing from the game, more ore types. They snowballed into a large pack(20 some) which snowballed into a game rebalance in order to give them a purpose. For a time Voxels were "my thing". I bring modding up because it is important to answer the key question: "What is Space Engineers?"

    The answer is not an easy one and is likely to vary a great deal from person to person. Because of the feature set in the game, some people see it as an introduction to programming, others as an intro into art modding. Others still, will see it as a launching point for a career in game development. And some just see it as a game.

    In light of the varying opinions on what the game is to individuals, a better place to start might be to consider what the creator's vision for the game is supposed to be.

    From the Official Web Site:
    "A space engineer is a professional practitioner who uses scientific knowledge, mathematics, physics, astronomy, propulsion technology, materials science, structural analysis, manufacturing and ingenuity to solve practical problems in space and on planets."

    The biggest question on my mind after reading this is: Does this accurately describe gameplay or game mechanics? Let's look at each point individually and see how it stacks up with the current state of the game.

    • Mathematics: The only math I have needed in game is basic arithmetic. If you write scripts or mod scripts the math can get pretty intense, but the basic game can be played with little more than addition and subtraction. Even then, it's not necessary. You can eyeball ship dimensions or blind over engineer thrust to escape a planet's gravity.
    • Physics: Since the game uses Havok Physics and does not have any realistic orbital mechanics there is no need for physics knowledge to play the game. The best you can do is pretend to know physics; and really, you can do that on twitter for free. Many do :)
    • Astronomy: Again, with no orbits, moving voxels, or curved spacetime, there is no need. The Sun isn't even actually there. It is painted on the skybox and spins around the game space in a geocentric model that was doomed in 1543 when Nicolaus Copernicus published his book : "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium." So knowledge of Astronomy only counts if your understanding of it is from the second century.
    • Propulsion Technology: Currently in the game there are 3 types of propulsion. None of which has ever been used to send people into space or to propel them through it. Be it LEO or to the Moon. Sure, Hydrogen is used in some chemical propellants, but it is never used alone. More than half of propulsion is understanding chemistry at both low and high temperatures. Space Engineers has neither chemistry nor temperature.
    • Materials Science: From Wikipedia - "involves the discovery and design of new materials, with an emphasis on solids." This alone requires Math, Engineering, Chemistry, Metallurgy, and Physics. We have already established that three of those are not needed in the game as it stands. That leaves general Engineering which fits in the next section best, and Metallurgy, which is never mentioned in SE nor is there a mechanic that supports it.
    • Structural Analysis: Per Wikipedia again - the determination of the effects of loads on physical structures and their components. This mechanic sort of exists in the engine but not the game itself. It does exist in SE's sister title Medieval Engineers, but is little more than looking at a special view that shows structurally unsound things as red as opposed to green. There is no math involved and even if there were, again it doesn't exist in the game.
    • Manufacturing: Well manufacturing does exist. It is extremely simplistic : Ore goes in, Ingots come out. Ingots go in, parts come out. Parts go into blocks, then hold down a mouse button for 10-60 seconds, repeat. you can't use different types of the same ore to get a better yield (magnetite vs. hematite ). You can't design your own blocks or components, substitute materials, and experiment to make a better or worse component that impacts the final block in any way.
    • Ingenuity: This is one thing the game does have room and mechanics for (if the proper offerings are made to clang). Ship aesthetics, functionality of ships, production systems, rotors, pistons, scripting, and putting it all in a working skin are available in spades.
    If you've made it this far, you're probably thinking "Hey that isn't what the game is about, it's what the character you play is about." Well, you would be correct. You aren't actually a space engineer, you're only playing one. You don't need to know all the things your character should know, but you should have a way to express that he/she knows those things, right?
    Herein lies the first problem with gameplay. Since most of the things above either do not exist in the game or are overly simplified, you have to suspend your belief. There are so many ways this game can be immersive, but in the case of game mechanics, YOU have to force yourself to be immersed by choosing to ignore that Space Engineers has no actual Space Engineering in it. A more appropriate name given the feature set we have now would be Aerospace Designers and Builders (with a mining and physics simulator provided by Vault-Tec). All of the above "noes, does not exist, and simplistic" items could be turned into optional mini-games based on a difficulty selector in survival world creation and would be extremely immersive if they were fleshed out.

    Instead of focusing on the character we play, what if we look genuinely at the game's definition?
    "Space Engineers is a sandbox game about engineering, construction, exploration and survival in space and on planets. Players build space ships, space stations, planetary outposts of various sizes and uses (civil and military), pilot ships and travel through space to explore planets and gather resources to survive. Featuring both creative and survival modes, there is no limit to what can be built, utilized and explored.

    Space Engineers features a realistic, volumetric-based physics engine: everything in the game can be assembled, disassembled, damaged and destroyed. The game can be played either in single or multiplayer modes."


    What do we have in reality compared to the plan?:
    • A game about Engineering that requires no actual engineering of any kind and provides computer engineering as an optional (good) extension.
    • Construction - we have that, or at least the bare essentials.
    • Exploration - Well sure you can wander and find asteroids and perfectly intact ships floating around, but that isn't really exploring, is it? You aren't discovering anything. It is obvious you are going where others have already been. A more appropriate term would be wandering around in an Ikea after hours when all the employees have gone home.)
    • Survival - If you start on a planet with Oxygen, take off your helmet, and stand in a spot where wolves (obviously brought from earth by someone else before you, and raised on methamphetamines) can't reach you, will your character die if you leave them standing there and go explore Ikea for a month? No. Is that technically surviving? Yes. Is it fun? Not for everyone.
    • "there is no limit to what can be built, utilized and explored" - Correct! Well, except for building limits , the world size limiting you to one single half a star system, and of course the speed limit eliminating the need to engineer albeit the most basic descent on a planet. Oh, and you are limited to rocky/icy planets and can't visit comets in the Oort Cloud.
    • "realistic, volumetric-based physics engine" That sounds interesting, if it were actually in this game. The Voxel Engine and the physics engine are not the same thing. One is even a licensed 3rd party product. as far as realistic goes, well, that is a matter of scale, but the game isn't using any major game physics that didn't exist 3 years ago. The physics that are realistic are the interactions of tiny(particles) and small(ships) to medium(voxels) sized objects. Large scale physics, however, are completely unrealistic as noted above.

    We are still in alpha development. How much more is there to the game that we haven't yet seen? The only clues we have are what is listed in Marek's Vision and what has been shared on the roadmap.

    First the Vision.
    "Space Engineers is inspired by reality and by how things work. Think about modern-day NASA technology extrapolated 60 years into the future. Space Engineers strives to follow the laws of physics and doesn't use technologies that wouldn't be feasible in the near future.

    "Think about modern-day NASA technology extrapolated 60 years into the future."

    Ok. Let's; 60 years or 600 isn't going to change the laws of physics or the nature of the universe. While we may develop some new technologies, refine others, and discover new ways to do things, there are still a huge number of non-trivial things that MUST be taken into account no matter how far in the future we are. For a game inspired by reality, these things can't be ignored.

    Half of the Engineering that goes into space flight is based around the hardware to get into LEO and back down to the planet. The other half is payload and passengers.
    • On the hardware side there are a multitude of things that have to be engineered. Engines, fuels, structural properties, weather tolerances(wind/lightning/icing), aerodynamics, manual flight controls, computer flight controls, communications, vehicle telemetry. While we can assemble pre-defined blocks and script engine control, there is no other actual engineering involved here. You can calculate the thrust provided by an engine and see if it is enough to move the mass of a ship. You can't change nozzles, flow rates, experiment with lighter composite materials, etc.
    • On the payload and passenger side, for manned flight, an enormous amount of engineering goes into keeping people alive in a 0g environment that is hard vacuum inches from the atmosphere that Astronauts breathe. Atmosphere, not Oxygen. That stuff that's nearly 80% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and turns deadly if CO2 is allowed to build up. Keeping the air composition balanced sounds like an ideal survival mechanic doesn't it? On top of just breathing, people need to eat, drink, and eliminate waste. If not managed well everyone will have a bad day.
    [​IMG]
    Sure, there is no glory in waste reclamation, but it is part of realistic survival in space.

    To be honest, for the sake of intuitive gameplay, we had to make a few sacrifices to “realism elitism” - jump drive, artificial gravity, max velocity, reactor efficacy, static grid, immovable asteroids, etc."

    Considering what science and engineering isn't in the game, that would be just as necessary in the future as it is today, this list should be amended.
    • What does max velocity have to do with intuitive game play? 500 m/s isn't intuitive but 100 m/s is?
    • Reactor efficacy should be be re-thought. We now have a lot of possibilities now for power generation. Hydrogen Fuel Cells? Helium3 Fusion reactors from mining regolith on the moon?
    • Immoveable asteroids should also be reconsidered. There are ships in the game now that are more complex and larger than many asteroids. Planets should at least rotate on an axis and the Sun should be a thing on the map, not painted on a 1800 year old disproven astronomical model.
    • Static grids should be engineered with station keeping thrusters, scripts, and GPS autopilot.
    • Artificial gravity should be able to be produced by centrifugal force on a rotating grid now that rotors have been in the game forever, and the physics are "realistic."

    Additional sacrifices to "realism elitism":
    • Basic Chemistry - Superconductors take Iron and Gold?!! How does a motor component work without magnetic materials? Where are the rest of the (COMMON) elements in the periodic table? Why is there no plastic or rubber anywhere?
    • All Engineering - except software engineering which is actually in the game.
    • Radio communication - because 60 years in the future only Bluetooth LE will be in use...
    • Anything that was too hard that has already been implemented by script modders(Parachutes, Aerodynamic physics, Ladders, 1st person HUDs.... basically Draygo's workshop and Digi's Workshop), and live cameras to LCDs from Tyrsis.
    • Human Biology - Food, Sleep, water, not breathing pure O2, too hot/Cold, Radiation Exposure, standing on a flaming ship component without getting burned.
    • Nature - Wolves that don't act like wolves, somehow on an alien planet, with nothing to eat except Iron Plates and random astronauts that happen to land and get eaten.
    • Liquids - I realize that volumetric water is performance intensive. Start with something small and slow to calculate like low temperature Lava.
    • Obvious fuel sources that can't be used - Trees, man. Trees. Gas as a consumable fuel source for power generation.
    • Weaponry - The US military is scrambling to stick weaponized lasers on everything they can. At the same time, chemical propulsion in firearms is beginning to be replaced with magnetic rail guns. Meanwhile, 60 years in the future, people in space are firing bullets with chemical propellant that also require oxygen to ignite and have to work in a vacuum.
    In conclusion, What is Space Engineers?
    Space Engineers is a sandbox game partially set in space with un-immersive environments that don't act intuitively based on the goal of imagining real space exploration 60 years from now. The only "real" Engineering provided by this game is software engineering. Any other engineering available has been created by individual modders after being told that requested features were too difficult or would take too long to implement. Space Engineers suffers from short sightedness due to features not being checked against "reality", or checking into other effects a new feature could have before it is implemented.

    Space Engineers is also the only sandbox survival game that comes close to tackling space exploration with an insane amount of modability. It is the best Engineering game in space, even if it is by default as the only one of it's kind. Most of the developers I have had contact with have been informative, funny, humble, willing to help when things break, available to the public, and sincere about wanting to make a great product and experience. However, the ship has been captained by the ship's cook(programmers) for too long and the Admiral is in a different fleet. Let's hope command is restored soon...
     
    • Agree Agree x 10
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. Jimmacle Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    51
    I approve this message. I always get shit for wanting "muh realism" but that's what drew me to the game in the first place: a new kind of sandbox that actually requires some thought and creativity beyond building.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. Gwindalmir Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,004
    One game I like to play off and on and is vaguely similar, is Planet Explorers.
    It has more things to worry about, you have food for health and stamina (but don't die if you don't eat), and much more elements and materials to work with (plastics!).
    I think the developers of that game struck a good balance between gameplay and realism with their crafting system.
    There's a lot more components (including multi-level components, that SE doesn't have), but they aren't crazy hard to figure out either. The requirements are also realistic, and makes sense (guns need iron, bullets need copper and gunpowder, which itself requires sulfur and something else).

    While I love how moddable this game is, and I love making mods for it; mods should not be a substitute for vanilla gameplay. Ideally mods should enhance existing gameplay elements, not completely add or replace them.
     
  4. Burillo Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    648
    the key thing here, is that it's a frickin' game. i don't know why people see "this game is about space engineering" and think "wow, does that mean i have to learn how to make a real space ship out of a bunch of rocks?!". stop being uber anal like that! i can't imagine how daunting would this game be if i had to learn all of that before i even begin to build something. it's about having fun, not about being a polymath. don't take the description so literally.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Lord Grey Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    378
    Optimal would be you learn those things while playing the game. Bringing knowledge to people thru playing is the best way to educate them, and you can never have to much education.

    However, I would like a little bit more realism in the game as there is now. There are also some very constructive threads about this. But all our ideas are useless if Keen can't or wouldn't include them in the game.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    Right its about fun, but to me and I think many others, the fun isn't sustainable without some degree of challenge to overcome. And in a game themed around engineering I expected to face more obstacles that I could feel some sense of accomplishment for having overcome, or some gameplay reward from having done so. As it stands I can't say there is any real degree of challenge when it comes to construction which isn't purely aesthetic. Yes I can scratch my head for hours figuring out the most efficient and aesthetically pleasing conveyor pipeline with a furnished interior, but it will give me no gameplay advantage over a rival ship with an interior made entirely from solid 6 port conveyors and no thought put into any form of planning.

    This is where a game like KSP gave me vastly greater returns from continued playtime because I learned how to make my rockets better with each design, in SE they just look slightly nicer as idevelop their aesthetics, but they function identically.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Geneticus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,618
    Well you have identified which group you fall into.
    Well, the reason is obviously because you fall into the group of people who see it as "just a game." Why you seem unable to accept that others have a different view is something only you can answer.
    You have also missed the point. The topic wasn't what individual people see the game as being. It was about whether or not the game matches its description/vision it was created from. [/QUOTE]
    No.
    You should re-read the paragraph after the first section of bullet points, especially the last line. To summarize, they are things the character should know and be able to demonstrate they know. The character, not the player. That knowledge can be demonstrated with the use of mini-games. For example, instead of shoving a bunch of ingots into an assembler and having the exact item pop out every time, an optional experimental mini-game could be integrated that allows the player to experiment with material ratios that could result in a better end component or a worse one. If Steel Plate is what it is now and you add a (specific) small amount of carbon, the plate would have higher health and the resulting armor block would also have higher health. The health of blocks already comes from the health rating of components. Half of the work is already done. Don't want to experiment yourself or research materials science on google? Don't. Just accept the defaults. That is the essential definition of Optional. It adds depth for players that want it and doesn't change things for players that don't. "Fun" isn't homogenous. Different people see different things as fun. For some of us, intellectual challenge is fun. I don't know why you would become a C++ programmer otherwise. To some programmer at Keen, endless waves of exploding dogs, was fun. Whoever they are they are an aberration. :)
    How else does one take something that is explicitly and intentionally written down?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  8. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    But this statement is a bit of a double edged sword.

    I guess the big problem is the majority of people either don't have time or the knowledge to actually overcome the majority of challenges that real engineers do.

    Let's look at planets, if we went with a half realistic engineering tool kit we wouldn't have anything like the thrusters we have in game, there are good reasons they don't typically make flying mining equipment, mostly weight and disgusting fuel costs.

    The average Joe probably can't build much more than a simple inefficient drill rig that's rather cumbersome to use, actually being able to mine on a planet should be it's own gratification, but for gameplay purposes it's radically simplified to make sure you have thrust in all directions and turn drill on.

    I personally pride myself on creating more or less functional heavy equipment that could atleast half exist in reality, to me it's incredibly gratifying to dig with an excavator, that I built from the ground up. For me the disuse of thrusters on planetary miners is enough of a challenge that never really gets much easier and is satisfying to accomplish.

    Tldr: you can't expect everyone to actually be an engineer.
     
  9. Burillo Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    648
    it's not "just a game". it's a game. calling something a game isn't derogatory.

    disagreeing doesn't mean i "can't accept that others have a different view". i am perfectly accepting of the fact that you disagree with me. i just think you're having a bit of a misconception on the whole "game" thing.

    ...as read by you, the individual user. i read the description too, and i do not see anything remotely resembling what you have made it out to be. reading "space technology extrapolated 60 years into the future", i do not see "i have to know how to process minerals to play this game" or various mini games. i see this as a setting, a background decoration. the actual game part is the "lego in space". that's what SE has been from the start, that's what it has been for a long time, that's what it still is today. the "vision" never went anywhere, it stayed the same as it was.

    precisely. you find it "not fun" to build stuff out of blocks, i always found it fun - that's why i loved lego as a kid. maybe the game isn't for you then? why are you trying to read into the game's description something it never meant or aspired to be?

    again, you're making it out like if the game didn't provide things you imagined it should, then it "doesn't provide intellectual challenge". that's not the case. there are refinery upgrades, there are ore mods which are quite in-depth. there's all those other mods that make the game more complex and challenging, for those who want that. you know, optional, just like you ordered.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Gwindalmir Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,004
    He's just talking about the game, as advertised to us.

    I would liken it to NMS, where they put out a game that didn't match the description and images they portrayed.

    Now I don't think SE is anywhere near as bad as NMS, but it's the same idea, IMO.
    How the game is described and portrayed, even implicitly, is important to the player reception of said game.
     
  11. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    Mods are not something to bring up when discussing what the game and Keenhouse software gives us and if it lives up to the promises made. Anything advertised by the developers is the burden of Keen Software House to provide us, and not third party content, regardless of how good that third party content is.

    Don't get me wrong, I love mods and modding, it gives us more choice over our experiences, but its not a shield behind which a developer can shelter when it comes to adding or rather not having added features which are high in demand even if there is a mod which does.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Seff Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    236
    The nitrocellulose in modern ammunition is actually self-oxidizing; guns will fire in a vacuum, underwater, etc. Why guns in SE need magnesium, though, is a mystery to me. :B
     
  13. Vim Razz Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    29
    @ Geneticus-

    It sound like you have a rather narrow and overly specific understanding of what engineering is, tbh.

    Engineering, at it's core, is the art of using available tools and resources to solve practical problems.

    The fact that SE is a simulated environment rather than a real one -- and that it's rules an physics do not precisely align with the real world -- doesn't change that or make the practice of engineering solutions in relation to that environment any less "real".

    A lot of the real, practical engineering activities to be found in the game you seem to dismiss as "Ingenuity" (whatever that's supposed to mean as separate from practical problem solving), and a lot of your suggestions seem to involve creating pre-determined grind paths that wouldn't necessarily add anything of substance to the engineering aspects of the game. (Though they may have some value in terms of familiarizing players with more realistic material properties -- whether or not that matters in this context is debatable.)


    The metallurgy simulator you suggest, for example, would not add any actual engineering elements to the game. No matter how much time you put into making it as detailed as possible, all solutions and outcomes must necessarily be pre-determined by the programmer in order for it to work in the way that you describe. All of the actual engineering involved has been done and packaged in advance -- all the player can do is click buttons until they find the "right" one.

    That kind of direct simulation is just a grind -- it does not provide or create opportunities for truly creative problem solving. While it's true that the added materials might help create new engineering opportunities by offering new materials to engineer with, simulating for simulation's sake does not provide anything of the kind. Just making the words or trappings sound more realistic does not make the practice of engineering a solution any more real.


    The way that dogs or spiders are implemented may be silly and dumb from a realism perspective, but they're a good example of a game element that introduces genuine engineering challenges. Whether you choose to deal with them by building moats, welder-walls, turret placements, or whatever else, all of these things are engineered solutions to the problems presented by dogs or spiders. The relative value of one method over another can vary widely depending on context and the choices that one makes significantly impact design considerations for the entire ship or structure.


    Then there's the math thing. If you are not using at least a little bit of trig in your planetary ships designs then they are under-performing, though whether they're under-performing enough to really matter will depend on context, personal preferences, and your game settings: at 10x the margins are quite lenient and you will not be punished much for sloppy design. At 1x, the margins are tighter and if your designs are inefficient then the game will actively punish you with hours of additional grinding that you wouldn't have had to do if you'd put in a little more work and thought in the first place.

    "Just overbuilding it" can also be a lot more expensive at 1x inv/assem than it is in 10x. Does that matter? Does it matter to you? Maybe, maybe not. The feelings that each player has about this sort of thing will be unique.


    Life support is a rather interesting question because the way that SE currently handles it is so unusual among the mass of survival games. Oxygen and energy systems are implemented as things that you engineer into the design of your ships and stations, rather than being just another babysitting mechanism in the way that most survival game systems operate.

    Balancing the amount of life support equipment against other hardware depending on the purpose of the ship or the environment that it is intended to work in is another very real engineering activity, even if the specific constraints that you're engineering around are "fake" or simplified.


    I can't help but wonder if your perceptions here aren't heavily affected by the amount of time you appear to have spent replacing in-game engineering activities with meta-game engineering activities (altering the nature of the game itself rather than playing within the structure of the game to devise solutions to challenges).
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 3
  14. Burillo Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    648
    no, NMS was clearly a case of false advertising. the game looks nothing like what people saw in the trailers. this is not what happened with SE. there were never any trailers or otherwise any official marketing material that promised mini-games with mining ore, or the need to know how orbital physics work. the game was always there, out in the open, being the most honest description of itself that you can imagine. sure, Marek & co. had big dreams, and some of the features they've talked about early in the development process didn't get implemented (HUD programming comes to mind - boy would i love that!), but that's OK - that's why it's Early Access. you thought it was (or is going to be) something else, developers disagree with your vision. it happens.

    and again, they didn't advertise it as such - those were just blog posts with some thoughts and musings of developers behind the game. i can understand the team's reluctance to share the roadmap, because this is exactly what happens when you do that - "waaaah waaaaaah in a blog post three years ago you said this, now you have to put it in a game because i bought the game on this idle thought i took as a promise". so comparing SE to NMS is... ummm... misleading, to say the least.

    ...and KeenSWH haven't advertised anything that isn't in the game.

    this. this a thousand fecking times.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Geneticus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,618
    Ammunition is hazardous and not just when fired. It has to be kept, in volume, in a humidity and temperature controlled environment. A fire or a hit from an enemy incendiary can be disastrous. The current move for technologically advanced militaries with electrically based weapon systems is much safer for transport as well as defense. Projecting out the current trend 60 years would leave chemically propelled ammunition as a rare redundant backup only.
    --- Automerge ---
    Other than Realistic Physics and "there is no limit to what can be built, utilized and explored."
     
  16. Harrekin Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,077
    The comparison to NMS is accurate.

    Youre in a massive, empty, boring world...

    The only difference is you design the ships in this.
     
  17. Burillo Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    648
    and again, you're taking it too literally. of course there are limits, it's a goddamn game. your PC is a limit. computation capabilities of today's hardware is a limit. development time and money is a limit. that doesn't mean the developers lied to you, or that the description is inaccurate and/or misleading.

    no it's not. the original argument was, NMS was false advertising, so is SE. so, can you show me where SE developers promised an MMO filled with space creatures, or ore mini games, or whatnot? sure, the world's empty (except for all the asteroids...), but no one ever said it would be otherwise. it's a sandbox - you are supposed to fill the world with stuff. that's why comparison with NMS on the basis of NMS being false advertising is anything but accurate. but i guess any argument is correct if it agrees with your viewpoint, amirite?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Geneticus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,618
    That would be a perfectly acceptable definition if this was a game about redneck engineering, but it's not. It's about space. That demands more than a casual definition. In fact it is several highly specialized distinct engineering fields. If a fastener fails on a rocket, you don't go to Home Depot and try to fix it with construction cement.

    Of course it does. A simulated environment is simulating reality. If it isn't or deviates too significantly without justification it is not a simulation it is a magical environment with made up rules. Again that would be acceptable if the game were titled Magical Engineers.

    Ingenuity is Keen's term, not mine. I didn't intend on making specific suggestions, examples illustrating a concept, perhaps. I should have been more clear.

    That is completely untrue. A programmer would set up the complexity and the algorithm that is used to make the calculations in code. The designer would set what the limits and caps are for balance. Depending on the design any number of materials could be combined in any number of amounts and the game would spit out an item that results from those calculations. If the game had more common elements from the periodic table there could be a lot of paths to achieve a desired result, but the possible results are determined by the designer.

    If it were me designing the system, I'd have each base element have several properties (tensile strength, melting point, conductivity at different temperatures, thermal conductivity, flexibility, density(for radioactive shielding), mass, energy density etc. The Algorithm would then spit out ingots containing an (approximate) amalgam of those properties with a RNG thrown in to account for unexpected results, like combining two soft metals to get one very stiff one (copper and Tin make Bronze). Then an Ingot could be blueprinted and queued for production. Components would be based on the properties of the new alloy. In the case of electronic wire, Carbon and Iron in the construction would fail because a computer component would require a certain amount of conductivity and flexibility from ingots in order to produce. Additional "material goals" could be layered in to allow for creating certain types of materials. For example, rather than just Ingots, fibers, plating, conductors, magnets, etc. That would adjust the output type of the ingot into several ingot classes (sometimes referred to as sub-components in other suggestions). A close parallel to this kind of design would be the crafting system that was in SWG.

    Ah! That's where it gets interesting. The mere inclusion of optional content (as I laid out) has a huge potential to create new and optional interactions with players. Rather than being "just a grind" the more of these type of mini-sims that are included and fleshed out the more exponential they possible play styles might be. If you want to accept defaults, and play as you do now, you can. But if, for example, you had a bunch of mini-sims in the game you could choose to focus entirely on one kind of engineering. For those players who want to have currency based economies(in the roadmap) on a server, they can specialize in R&D and manufacturing. Supplying high end parts to large PVP factions and cheap but low end stuff to solo or new players on a server.

    Any kind of play style and economy could evolve exponentially (well, geometrically) based on how many individual engineering mini-sims were included and fleshed out. Your "Opportunities" for creative problem solving depend on what you choose to do. For example If you decide you want to focus on materials engineering you might be offered a commision by another faction (including NPC) to come up with a component that has specific properties. It is then up to you to decide what to negotiate for. Do you want some high end defensive weapons they make? Do you want them to provide you with the resources + credits? The grind is up to you. RP can grow organically without the need for hard coded RPG style structures like XP, levels, abilities. It would also vary from server to server. To keep it from being a min/max fest the RNG could be tied to a server seed, making material blueprints only useful on the server they were created on.
    Could it still be grindy? Of course, but mining, refining and construction right now are extremely grindy without a purpose. Iv'e been told that when keen looked at how players spend their time in game, more was spent welding than all other things combined. These kind of things don't add more grind, rather, they immersively justify the existing grind.

    However, getting into specific Ideas and fully fleshed out suggestions is a bit off-topic. The only reason I'm getting into specifics here is to illustrate a single engineering paradigm. Each engineering type could be represented in a similar manner. Chemical engineering (Fuels, propellants, plastics, composites for armor, ceramics for heat shielding) could have its own system. Structural Engineering(building) could be dependent on the materials used as well as the types of connections between blocks. MIG weld, TIG weld, Gasless ARC weld, OxyAcetylene weld, Rivets, Adhesives, etc, could all function in determining whether a structure will fall apart in a high G maneuver or if too heavy of a vehicle is driven across it. How, these types of engineering are implemented is really a separate discussion. I'm only getting into specifics here to demonstrate that there are ways to add optional game immersive mechanics that don't require the entire game engine to be rebuilt in order to achieve them.

    The Silly and Dumb part is what irks me. It makes way more sense to have Fauna, especially predators, be territorial. That territory should be discernable to players. Animals don't attack for no reason, they attack when you invade their territory. Animals should spawn above Ore Deposits. That gives players a specific situation to engineer a solution to. Do you tunnel to get to resources, or bring in a weapon platform to guard your mine? How about mounting weapons on your mining ship? It's heavier and less efficient with turrets poking out... Cyberhounds were fine. I've never seen anyone asking for wolves. At least with Cyberhounds, it made sense why they would have metal components on them being part metal and all. A Solitary wandering large animal is about the only thing that makes any kind of sense attacking a base. Something with a really hard spiky head that can damage your blocks. wolves with teeth made of bone should not be able to chew through a steel block.

    There shouldn't be earth creatures on a (clearly not earth) planet. They can be earthlike without actually being copies from earth. It is rather trivial to make an earth creature look alien by doing something as simple as moving the eyes to the front:
    [​IMG]
    I have no arguments there. The point was there is no math required. If there were, everyone would have been demanding an in game calculator for the last two years. You don't have to calculate thrust to get off a planet. you can strap on some thrusters and see if that will get you off the ground. If, not add another thruster and re-test. Nothing in the game outside of scripting requires any math. 10x vs 1x what? Inventory can be overcome with small ship miners/welders/grinders. Refining and assembling can be overcome by adding more upgrade modules or refineries and assemblers. If anything in the game is grindy, it's that.

    Well, that only comes into play once your ship(s) is built. Until then it is a babysitting mechanism to keep your O2 and H2 filled while you fly around and weld. Again, in survival you can go to a planet with O2, raise your visor, and stand there for eternity.
    Only by the loosest, most generous interpretation of the definition of "survival", is this surviving. Astronauts, in reality, have a lot more to be concerned with. Radiation, temperature, nourishment, and air quality are the biggest. If you intend to EVA to do construction, you should have to worry about those same things. Maybe you need to build an assembly hangar in space to avoid losing health to rads. Maybe you need to "refuel" calcium in air scrubbers to keep your air from becoming toxic. Maybe too much O2 causes your food to spoil quickly and fire risk causes damage to blocks within your ship unless you script sensors to sound an alarm and vent the atmosphere into space. Maybe functional blocks degrade over time and can start fires, eating up your O2.

    Not so much. The modding and scenario work I've done has been an effort to make the game more difficult, challenging and complex. The vanilla game is painfully easy even on 1x where it is just a grind with no point. The things required to make the game more intellectually challenging can't be added via mods, or if they can, it is extremely hacky to do so and will break every patch as the API changes. That's why I don't do scripting in SE currently. Even with mods, you can only marginally affect a small portion of the engineering aspects of the game. In fact, most mods either make things easier or re-skin existing mechanics. Any mod that tries to add additional mechanics is either extremely narrow in scope because we don't have access to enough things in the API, or so overly complex that they break in some manner every patch. An example of each would be Draygo's atmospheric physics and LeonserGT's Enhanced Exploration mod. The first one, while enabling flight, doesn't work well because horizontal takeoff and landings need wheels which derp out because game physics. The latter breaks anytime there is an issue with any blocks it uses, and the trade doesn't work well since you can only spawn ships that are Pirate Faction. as soon as any block is damaged by anyone, the closest player gets annihilated by drone waves. The things I'm talking about can't be modded in and have to be done by Keen. So, no. It is not an issue of clouded perception due to modding as I wouldn't even attempt to mod these kinds of things in, knowing what I know about the game.

    Prior to around, I believe, patch 38, the hardest scenario was the Crashed Red Ship. You had half a ship, hardly any fuel, and not enough components to make a refinery or assembler. After scavenging all non-essential systems, the only way to progress was to grind down the only chair you could recharge in to get display components for your production blocks. If you didn't plan well, you would run out of power and die before you could make replacements and recharge.
    There were no, solar panels, batteries, passenger chairs, and only the one cockpit chair in the game. That was a challenge. Unfortunately, once you solved it, everything after that was easy.
    After patch 38, the ship was replaced with one that had more fuel, containers with parts, conveyors all over, Oxygen generators, solar panels, etc. You could disassemble the broken ship and just about build 2 yellow respawn boats, 4 small ships, and a small station without needing to mine a single thing. Now you can add pirates and wolves/spiders. That takes any vestige of engineering away and replaces it solely with tower defense. There are no challenges in the "current structure of the game."
    --- Automerge ---
    [/QUOTE]
    There is a separate section for limits and those things aren't in it. There is no such thing as "too literal." It is a boolean. There is literal or not. You wouldn't look at the hardware specs and say the minimum requirements on the lowest settings should not be expected to load an empty world because, reasons. With as much verbosity as I can summon, I am saying that it does in fact, mean that what SE is now is inaccurate in regard to the description as written and implied in other official areas. I am not claiming malice or deception is the cause. I'm stating that it is what it is.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, the argument was that it was similar: "they put out a game that didn't match the description and images they portrayed."
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    The problem with things like metallurgy in a game like this is what happens when you have literally as many as possible derivatives of one component jammed into one single block? Lets say you want to make a heavy armor block, i don't remember the exact component count but lets call it 100 for simplicity sake; In your system you could probably easily have 100 slightly different combinations of steel plate that all need to be kept track of separately with there own individual components to reflect the individual attributes, each block now also has to remember each and every single unique steel plate that went into it so when you grind it down you don't just get generic steel plates. Which for argument sake you'll say "oh, well you can only have one kind of steel plate per block" to which i'd respond: what if i forget the combo i used in the past? will i now have to grind down a block to empty of it type A plates to build it fully with type B? The issues go on and on with this idea, plus, storing a few different blocks probably woulddnt be that much data, but start storing rotal size creations with all of the unique data and it will easily overwhelm most CPU's
     
  20. Geneticus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,618
    I agree which is why I'm trying not to make specific suggestions, only provide examples of mechanics. But in games where those modes were turned on(call it hardcore) I would remove perfect disassembly and spawn scrap that could be re refined into the original elements with a small loss to cover vaporization and slag. Then the block gets its properties set and stores the element totals.
     
  21. DDP-158 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,748
    There are varying levels of fun and then there's tedious micro management. And going so far as to dabble in metallurgy to get the right mix of metals for tinsel strength and other metal qualities falls into the latter. That is in fact a whole other profession. Those who assemble do not do this, they merely retrieve a blueprint with the gauge specs and put it all together.
    In a game sense this level of micro management would be a massive turn off for many players who simply want to build.

    And sure we always say you can click it off in options but that to me is a cop out argument. Everyone says you can make it an option. If we added that every time it's said then we would end up with more forms than a doctor's office. Something like this would be far better suited as a mod for those who want extreme realism.
     
  22. Vim Razz Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    29
    Pretentious, much? I'm still not convinced that you have a clear understanding of what engineers actually do for a living.

    Designing systems by using pieces of equipment that have themselves been designed by more specialized teams is not uncommon practice. It is even preferred, whenever possible.

    The fact that the modules in the game are rather fantastical in their capabilities does not change the overall concept.

    I am pleasantly surprised that you are aware of this, considering your earlier remark that:
    Just who do you think does this kind of work, here in the real world?

    No. It is a simulated environment with it's own rules. The fact that those rules are determined for the benefit of gameplay rather than than to reflect the physical world does not make the process of engineering within the constraints of that environment any less of an engineering process.

    There was no confusion. You repeatedly and explicitly stated that there is no engineering gameplay in SE (outside of software engineering), then dismissively chose to file all of the practical engineering activities that do exist the game under "ingenuity". That was your decision, not Keen's.

    oh. my. god.

    This is not how material sciences work.

    At all.

    The model you're describing here is closer to alchemy than metallurgy.

    I much prefer the implicit assumption that the player character simply knows enough about material science to fabricate modular, pre-engineered components from available resources without screwing it up (however silly some of the recipes happen to be). It is, in fact, far more realistic than the notion that the player needs to be a fantastical polymath who is thoroughly versed in a myriad of specialized fields.


    I think I'm done. I wish you the best of luck in finding, modifying, or developing a game to suit your particular interests.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2016
  23. Harrekin Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,077
    I don't see how it would take up that much extea computation power if it was a simple property of the block only checked when it's being modified.

    During normal play for all intents and purposes it's still just a block.
     
  24. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    You're still having to store all of the individual data of the sum of each component assuming that you can recover any wasted material. I feel that it would rub people the wrong way is they mixed in something like (and this wouldnt really make sense but w/e) platinum into your steel, if you make 1000 steel plates with platinum added and after you've built your blocks you go to grind them down all you get is plain steel plates, nobody would likely actually use the augments for fear of wasted materials.

    I don't really know how the block ID storage works atm, but i know its easy to calculate health because its simply a common sum of an items components. but if you start making all of the individual components have to store separate damage resistance values and "health" you end up storing a lot of data to make up for each block. To be honest i don't actually know if it would have ANY impact on performance, but in my mind it only logically makes sense that having to potentially store 200x the data (in the case of a heavy armor block) seems like it would cause issues.
     
  25. Burillo Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    648
    no it's not a boolean. that's the point. when i'm playing Quake, i'm not killing anyone, yet the description clearly states that i have to compete on an arena. i'm not on any arena, i'm in my chair, dragging away my mouse and tapping on my keyboard. that would've been an extremely literal reading of the game's description. slightly less literal reading of the description would be that i'm killing game characters played by my competitors (or AI), not actual players, and even that wouldn't be correct, because i'm not actually killing anyone or anything - it's just pixels on a screen. only if we make allowances for form and shape to represent players (you don't really think anyone looks like Klesk in real life, right?) we can see Quake as an actual game where people compete on an arena. the more abstract you go, the less literal the interpretation becomes.

    same thing here. there are various gradations of literalism you can read into the game description, and what you're doing is opting for a very literal interpretation, where even more literal interpretation would be very close to reductio ad absurdum. if we look at the game as it was originally envisioned, there wasn't any survival to begin with. it was added later, due to popular request. it's an afterthought. the vision of the game as it was originally conceived, was lego in space, not anything you have imagined.

    nice. you call my argument a straw man, and then correct me, citing the exact same argument. what's the difference between "false advertisement" and "a game that doesn't match the description"? here, i'll help you: none. "a game taht doesn't match its description" is literally the definition of "false advertisement". that's what happens when you are over-eager to play "spot the fallacy" and plaster "funny" memes around - sometimes you fail spectacularly.

    and no, there is a huge difference. as i already said, SE was early access. it was released very early into its development. "the description" was the game. you could always look at it, touch it, play it. nowhere in the marketing material do i see anything remotely resembling whatever it is that you're reading into the game's description. that's exactly the opposite of what's happened with NMS. NMS was extremely hyped, the devs made outrageous promises, and released trailers that misrepresented the game, while the game itself only came after the fact. the game, as advertised, didn't match what it was once it became available.

    so if you want to compare SE and NMS on that, then here's your chance: please point me to actual instances of it happening with SE. please point me where the description actually mentions your ore mini games and material and whatnot as gameplay elements (instead of just being a backdrop), and please point me to any trailers that KeenSWH has released that shows any gameplay elements that aren't present in the actual game (for example, where players can be seen engaging in material science). i welcome you to read the official description of the game.

    if you want to fall back to your "definition of a space engineer" from a different page, i'll have to stop you right there, because you're doing it wrong. notice something odd about that page? it's a quote. from "Wikipedia, 2077". it's not a description of what SE is about, it's game lore - a fictional quote from the in-game universe. that doesn't quite count for obvious reasons.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2016
  26. doncdxx Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    419
    @Geneticus I'm right with you on experience, I'm at roughly 4600 hours right now. I feel like I've seen it all and done it all and haven't done much actual engineering. The only engineering is really a choice of form. The shape and style are the only relevant matters engineered because there are so few blocks and their values are set.


    In regards to the initial question of; "What is space engineers?"

    Epic Space Opera Canvas
    You're right on the engineering and math being too simple to deserve the name. It's the perfect foundation for a game right now, but not an engineering game. It is an open game world for creating ships, stations and other sci-fi stuff for an RP and PvP environment.

    What it needs:
    (Mostly optional of course, the massive array of settings is likely not getting smaller before release)

    Character
    The main thing it needs is the character scale enhanced.
    Custom characters, food, drink, and a slightly more complex breathable atmosphere. Perhaps some more variety in hand tools since welding everything feels a little counter-immersive. Basically making survival about surviving. The immersion of 'living' in the game world. To do this right, they would have to add carbon and nitrogen, maybe argon. Fun hazards like radiation on certain planets as a side effect of a damage reactor would be cool.

    Crew
    Also at the character level, should be more options for crew members. Right now it's the pilot's ship and everyone else is just holding on. The AI is going to generally target better than individual player control of turrets, but a tactical officer that can tell the targeting computer to prioritize things like reactors, thrusters, life signs, etc... More than a tactical officer, perhaps they could add a minigame to refineries where you can manually control the material process to get a efficiency bonuses. Or maybe a minigame with power systems to get a little more speed out of engines by a route power game or something. The minigames would really be little more than a way to be active when you're not the one piloting, but it's also good if you're waiting for a specific ore to finish and you just want to be more proactive in the outcome.

    Experience Levels?
    Another possible addition would be a character level. Specific to each server where the blocks you weld get minor bonuses. Maybe even specializations where a pair of players at the same high level could have very different specialties. One guy could make better thrusters, anther could make better reactors, etc. Also a research tree allowing more blocks to become available as you build or disassemble prerequisite blocks. Basically the addition of any feeling of progression and gain other than just the accumulation of resources. The simplest gauge of success is identical to the Ferengi.

    Planets
    Planetary diversity should be an issue. Not just the game needing at least a dozen defaults to really be diverse enough without mods. There also needs to be a variety of creatures. There needs to be at least the loosest illusion of a functional biosphere on the planet. There needs to be weather, wind storms affecting flight on planet and possible lighting strikes on tall metal buildings sticking out of the ground. There should be oceans. Sure no dynamic voxels, just a basic water layer and a deeper magma layer. The same code used to make oceans and magma could also be used to make gas giants with different levels of resistance and pressure to the hull. Oceans and gas giants both would have to add some sort of hull buckling dynamic. Adding some level of underwater play that uses the pressurized environment code already needed in space to make underwater pressurized ships and stations. Nebula the size of planets would also be a fun addition.

    STEM
    Some degree of engineering or at least some degree of scientific accuracy. The hydrogen thrusters were a good example. It should have to be processed into a compound, possibly one of several each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Then it should also require another tank feeding it an oxidizer. The specifics aren't too important as long as the basic principles are being reflected. Other things like aluminum or titanium alternatives for hull, ceramics, and maybe throw in a few new metamaterials just to keep it cutting edge. Small additions to realism could add a lot. Small additions like making stone and silicon two different things...(that one has frustrated me since the beginning.) Also extending that grav well by about double the current diameter would at least make high level orbital mechanics a little more plausible, especially if they add some orbital logic to the auto pilot.


    More important than how awesome these would be for vanilla games, the tools it gives to modders would see amazing outcomes..

    We also have some optimism considering the unfinished stuff still sitting in the games folders. Potassium in the icon folder for example. The four alternate refineries in cubeblocks file. I'm also very optimistic about GoodAI. The improvements to Vrage they mentioned a couple months ago has me optimistic as well.


    As someone engaged in making a stupid big mod series to really expand on the exploration concept (link in my sig), I feel you on every bit of what you're saying. I feel the name Space Engineers has simultaneously become both an unattainable goal and encumbrance to it's potential. The devs built a foundation, do modders build the house or do the devs build it and we make add-ons? Will they add more to the complexity and possibilities of the game or does the community need to have an essentials .dll pack for the commons mods everyone is going to use to make the game "complete"? This is by far my favorite game yet, but it feels like it needs more. What is this game going to be?
     
  27. Comicsluvr Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    34

    I agree. My friend and I recently started a new Asteroids map and within a shockingly short time it was 'Well now we'll never die unless we do something stupid. What to we do NOW?'

    As much as working planet-side has its own challenges (I like the bugs but am very not fond of the wolves...), what I REALLY want is more hazards in space. We have pirates, irate freighter ships and meteors. What about radiation storms? Sunspot activity? Other forms of bad stuff brought to you from the part of our reality that REALLY wants to kill you...even more than Australia! To me these kinds of things would provide more excitement and challenge than simply hunting around space.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Timuroslav Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    173
    One of things that kind of annoyed me is when they redid the component cost for most of the components.
    Computers used to take nickel iron gold and silicon.

    Now we can make computers the size of your fist with only silicon and nickel. Those have go to be the weakest computers ever... At least add copper into the game so we can make brass and bronze for some crummy computers.

    I give leniency on things like thruster components. But, one of the things that annoys me is that Silicon is the most abundant resource on Terrestial planets, but platinum cobalt, are rare on planets but common in asteroids... What?

    I'm a History major, I've taken a few chemistry classes, but I mean... ever tried making a computer out of silicon and nickel that's got to be a really bad computer. Then again it's the future and you only need like 5 computers the size your fist to build something important.

    I feel like the component section is kind of in a band aid state. We need more ore types. have Stone produce trace amounts of Calcium and silicon. Nitrogen is another element. And I believe too that C02 capture devices should have been in the game.
    Waste management also adds to the engineering problem.
    What could be is that to make an oxygen farm a player has to grind a tree down to get seeds on a planet. combine bile/waster seeds gravel nitrogen and potassium to create a end game Hardware Oxygen. While having conveyor tubes to the oxygen farm so C02 can be recycled.

    Hell they could do the same for hydroponics; copy the formula for the new oxygen farm.

    The one area where I disagree and break from the author is the whole full scale server and rotating planets.
    Teh game can't handle rotors with displacement, copy-saved rotors, and rotor reloads. It also crashes when a 2 million kilogram ship falls into a planet, and you want Full scale universe with rotating bodies? Sorry I don't see it happening unless some crazy Elite Dangerous funding programming goes on. At best Moons orbiting.

    I feel like space engineers is too empty. There's no real progression, planet equipment is hard mode and everything important can be gained in space. No npc interaction makes the player feel like a pariah

    The Majority of Rare metals should be found on Terrestial planets!
     
  29. Hakon102 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    300
    @Geneticus Hi there,

    in the most Points agree with your OP. SE at the moment is more like a Tech-Demo/ Game-Engine as a full Game. Or a kind of a "Lego-Technik" Game.

    I think, a really full Game Vision is still Missing and the most Players have filled this Space with his own Vision/Dreams, "what the Game should become in their mind".

    Until now, SE lives from it. A Dream, an immersion what could be possible/ what the Game could become. This is the thing, which push/drive the great Modding Community of SE.
    And this inspired many other Game-Studios to develop new Games (e.g. Dual Universe)

    But, now we can see an end of the Alpha State and we are aware that not all our desired Features get implemented. The Dream is ending.

    So the Game need a Goal/ a Final Vision.
    This is why Marek is searching for a Game lead Designer & CEO for KSWH His new Vision will annoy many players.
    Should this Game more like Kerbal Space Program (more Engineering) or more like Empyrion (more Survival, Exploration) or something else?
    What is possible until the time to the release?
    Some players will be disappointed. But on the other hand, the Game needs a new Vision and matching features or the Game stay's in the current "broken state" forever and will end up as an Tech-Demo.
    SE have to go the same way like ME, since Deepflame took the position ofthe lead Game Designer of ME (with his own Vision of the Game.)
    Not everyone like his Vision and his decisions, but the Game takes shape.


    While i also prefer a bit more realism and interesting features/ things like simple Metallurgy, Food, production chains, new Materials (like plastic, Copper) etc., CoM.
    The Game shouldn't be become to complex/ Overwhelming for the player. An Open-World-Sandbox-Game, with no Goal, no leaded Learning-Curve and to much realism/complexety feels more like "Work" as fun for the most players. Think about the differences between KSP an SE for example and why KSP is as it is.

    What also missing is that the Space and Planets aren't devided in different areas/sectors with different enviroments. (Some sector with many Uranium but man pirates and a sector withe less uranium but without Meteor Storms and less Pirates eg.). So you can start in a less/none hostile Environment and you have a Progress in the Game.

    (By the way, some kinds of Motors don't need a magnetic component/Material.:p ) What really missing is an insulator/resistor.

    Greetings. These are only a few thoughts on this topic.;)

    Edit: I eliminated some spelling mistake's, was a bit late yesterday evening.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    @Hakon102 We can see an end, yes, but no such end has been confirmed. It may still be years for all we know. Even probably will be years yet.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.