Balanced Asteroid and Planetary Mining Progression

4Peace shared this feedback ago

Not Enough Votes

TL;DR

In SE1, asteroid mining was easy but boring.
In SE2, space progression is currently much faster and easier than planetary starts.
Asteroids should be rarer and farther away, not right outside planets.
Mining in space should rely on scanners, not eyesight.
Scanners can create a clear progression path, from basic to advanced and beyond.
Planets should stay relevant with larger, richer deposits and reasons to build mining outposts.
Refining should scale with power input, encouraging proper infrastructure and planning.

In SE1, mining asteroids is both superior and more boring compared to planet-side mining. Superior because you could find everything you needed and mine with ease. Mining and transporting ore in zero-G is much more convenient. At the same time, it was boring because searching for ores in space was(is) repetitive and tedious, and asteroid mining offered very little engineering challenge.

In SE2, we now have beautiful planets, and I would really like them to be just as desirable for resource mining as space, especially in the early game. Right now in SE2, asteroids start spawning almost as soon as you leave the planet. This feels both unrealistic and too easy. I tried starting both on Verdure and in space, and space is by far the easier and faster option to progress.

I think asteroids should start spawning much farther away and be significantly rarer, with much larger distances between individual asteroids or clusters. Finding them should not rely on naked eyesight. Even with today’s technology, we have far better tools than that.

Besides ore detectors used to find the exact location of ores, there could be (ore) scanners. A small, basic scanner could search within a limited radius, for example 30 km, while larger and more advanced scanners could reach 100 km or more. These scanners would not need asteroids to be visually rendered or fully generated. The world generation algorithm already has the data and could provide information such as position and rough composition probabilities.

As you get closer to an asteroid, the scanner would provide more precise information about its contents. Scanners could also support modules that extend their range or improve accuracy. Rare/exotic modules could help narrow down tolerances for specific ores (elements).

Most asteroids would still be fairly boring, containing only small amounts of basic ores. This creates a reason to invest in better scanners, hunt for advanced modules, or trade for them. Over time, you gain a clear advantages for asteroid mining, unlocking better tools and more efficient methods instead of having everything available immediately.

Planets would remain a desirable starting location and a more predictable source of resources. They could also host much larger ore deposits, justifying the construction of dedicated mining outposts. Once water is introduced, this could naturally tie into nuclear power infrastructure, providing the energy needed for power-hungry refineries.

Ideally, refineries should scale with power input. Instead of building many refineries, you could build fewer but supply them with much more power to refine ores significantly faster. This would reinforce engineering decisions, infrastructure planning, and long-term progression.

A couple of notes about consequences for production chains.

Having ingots back in the game would also help clearly separate refining and manufacturing, giving players more flexibility. Refining is power-hungry, which naturally makes planets more desirable thanks to better power options like wind, hydrogen, and efficient nuclear setups (with water and possibly heat management). Once you can reliably search for ores in space, it would still make sense to bring raw ore down to planetary refineries, turn it into ingots, and build up a proper stockpile. Those ingots could then be transported anywhere in the star system for manufacturing and base or shipbuilding.

Late game fusion reactors, requiring some very hard to obtain exotic components, could finally allow for all space setup.

I like this feedback

Replies (1)

Artem Gashev ●

I agree - planets should be desirable place to get some resources, at least because within the scenario, Miro Sokol gets to Verdure despite asteriods in space.

Ideally there should be a reason to transfer resources from planet to space, or in another direction: some resources are only in space, some, may be only on planet, and/or in a much bigger deposits, encourage you to build mining stations, and develop infrastructure.

There could be another reason to visit space and planet - it could be a production restrictions. For example, some of the components only craftable in zero gravity, and some of them only in natural gravity, because of some specific requirements - it's the high-tech compenents

Reply URL

Tael ●

Hmmm... greater spacing between asteroids and smaller deposits would make things take longer, but it wouldn't really increase the difficulty any. In general I find space-stuff isn't easier because there's more ore, its easier because people aren't fighting gravity so they can just drag huge miners and mobile refineries around on just a few thrusters (and because if there's pvp, its harder for people to find and attack your base when it keeps moving). As for power/cooling, if some of the people I play with are anything to go by needing a 100mw solar-array (and appropriately large radiator array) to refine in space won't be that much of a hindrance.

Of course having certain resources only accessible either only in space or on a planet (or a specific planet) would certainly give people a good reason to go back and forth and make it more interesting...

...It sounds fun, but there should probably be some sliders/toggles in the server settings. Lots of people like to rush through the early-game so they can get strait to blowing stuff up in big end-game fights in a vaguely "creative with survival-rules" kind of game.

URL

4Peace ●

I think this is less about making space harder or forcing people onto planets, and more about meaningful progression and choice. Starting in space should absolutely remain a valid option. If someone wants to begin there, they should be able to. The key point is that there should be a progression curve.

Without good scanners and faster means of travel, you would simply spend much more time searching for asteroids, especially ones containing rarer ores. Large deposits would still exist, but they would be rarer and possibly farther away from planets. So you can start in space, but you would not progress significantly faster than someone starting planetside. In the late game, space would naturally become superior anyway - you can’t really beat zero-G convenience. If asteroid mining itself is made harder, it risks becoming more annoying than interesting, which is something I want to avoid.

Overall, my goal is for planets and space to be equally viable options for starting and progression, without forcing a choice. Each should offer clear advantages and clear tradeoffs. Smart engineers could strategically use both realms to progress more efficiently, or simply lean into the strengths of one over the other.

For example, as you mentioned, some players are perfectly capable of building a 100 MW solar array with large radiator setups to refine in space. That should remain possible. However, that approach would consume a lot of PCU for panels and cooling, while a single nuclear reactor placed near a body of water on a planet could potentially provide even more power for much less overall PCU. Both solutions work, but they come with different costs. In a very late game, you can unlock fusion power and be able to refine efficiently in space.

Another example is manufacturing high-tech components or ammunition (thx Artem for your input). Some of these could be crafted much faster in a gravity well, while others might benefit from zero-G conditions. You could still craft everything anywhere, but doing so in a non-optimal environment might take something like 20× longer and consume 20× more energy (artificial gravity won't count as gravity well). This also naturally creates incentives for specialization and trade.

As for server settings, SE1 already has asteroid density sliders, and I don’t see why the sequel shouldn’t expand on that. The same applies to other survival aspects, allowing players and server owners to fine-tune their experience. That said, having default settings where there is no single “best” way to progress is important. Right now, SE1 heavily relies on mods to approach that balance, and mods often come with limitations, break over time, or require questionable workarounds.

With SE2, we have two big advantages: experience from the first game and early access to the sequel. This feels like the perfect time to address these balance questions at a core design level. Thanks, Tael, for the thoughtful input—you’ve raised a lot of good points, and I appreciate the discussion.

URL