Scrap Instead of Ingots

4Peace ●

I appreciate your effort to emphasize the importance of recycling.

As Rabiator said, scrap is generally denser and should produce more, require less energy, and leave less waste after refining. This is not only more realistic, but also provides a strong gameplay incentive to recycle in the first place.

That said, scrap and ingots are different things and serve different roles, both in gameplay and in real life.

“ore → ingot → part” is entirely redundant and unnecessary

I have to disagree here.

Beyond simplifying component recipes—since they would no longer account for different inputs (ore vs. scrap) and different quantities—ingots are useful for many other reasons.

Here are some key gameplay features ingots allow or improve:

Logistics simplification
Ingots greatly simplify logistics and allow for convenient stockpiling and transportation.
Separation of refining and manufacturing
With ingots, you can separate refining and manufacturing stages both in time and space. You gain flexibility to decide where and when to refine: refine directly at the mining site, or build dedicated refining bases near cheap, easily accessible energy sources,
and then transport the refined material wherever it’s needed.
Stockpiling and on-demand manufacturing
Stockpiling ingots has always been a valuable option, allowing faster, on-demand manufacturing with lower energy requirements.
Universal resource medium
Ingots are a universal, dense and purified first-stage resource, making them ideal for trading or be found as loot in missions, encounters, or contracts.

There are also many interesting topics around so-called “compound ores.” I won’t go into detail here, as there are dedicated discussions on the subject, but ingots are essential if you want to extract multiple resources from a single ore.

3

Deon Beauchamp ●

One does not have to be at the expense of the other. Scrap requires reprocessing to get to an ingot state.

Reply URL

2

Rabiator ●

In real life, ores have considerable percentages of non-metals. High grade iron ores for instance are around 70% iron according to Wikipedia. Even if you choose to disregard the extra effort for separating the iron from the stuff it is chemically bound to, refining has intrinsic usefulness in getting rid of the dead weight. SE2 it is current form ignores this by always letting the user make 1kg of components from 1 kg of ore. Convenient but irritating to those of us who know the difference between ore and refined metal.

Scrap might likewise need some processing before it is used in making new part, such as removing bits of other materials embedded in the scrap. Think, for instance, of the steel frame of a windows with some glass still sticking in it.

That is why I favor keeping ingots. That does not mean backpack building from ore should disappear, but I think making it more efficient to build from ingots would make sense.

Reply URL

3

4Peace ● ●

I appreciate your effort to emphasize the importance of recycling.

As Rabiator said, scrap is generally denser and should produce more, require less energy, and leave less waste after refining. This is not only more realistic, but also provides a strong gameplay incentive to recycle in the first place.

That said, scrap and ingots are different things and serve different roles, both in gameplay and in real life.

“ore → ingot → part” is entirely redundant and unnecessary

I have to disagree here.

Beyond simplifying component recipes—since they would no longer account for different inputs (ore vs. scrap) and different quantities—ingots are useful for many other reasons.

Here are some key gameplay features ingots allow or improve:

Logistics simplification
Ingots greatly simplify logistics and allow for convenient stockpiling and transportation.
Separation of refining and manufacturing
With ingots, you can separate refining and manufacturing stages both in time and space. You gain flexibility to decide where and when to refine: refine directly at the mining site, or build dedicated refining bases near cheap, easily accessible energy sources,
and then transport the refined material wherever it’s needed.
Stockpiling and on-demand manufacturing
Stockpiling ingots has always been a valuable option, allowing faster, on-demand manufacturing with lower energy requirements.
Universal resource medium
Ingots are a universal, dense and purified first-stage resource, making them ideal for trading or be found as loot in missions, encounters, or contracts.

There are also many interesting topics around so-called “compound ores.” I won’t go into detail here, as there are dedicated discussions on the subject, but ingots are essential if you want to extract multiple resources from a single ore.

Reply URL

1

Jrolla ●

"Logistics simplification

Ingots greatly simplify logistics and allow for convenient stockpiling and transportation."

This isn't true, at least not completely. I grew up in Duluth, MN, a major shipping port. I can tell you for a fact, the ocean tankers transporting taconite are not transporting ingots, they carry basically straight up ore that is transported many many miles by train first straight from the mines. The only reason I say basically, is because taconite has A LOT of waste rock to actual ore quantity, so they smash the ore into fine powder and use magnets to pull out the taconite and then melt the taconite into little pellets to transport as a high grade ore instead of like 65% waste rock, taconite is a special case here due to its waste %. Coal was always transported as straight up ore as well... Ore is much easier to load and unload from ships also, you can't just dump ingots down a chute like ore is loaded lol...

"Separation of refining and manufacturing

With ingots, you can separate refining and manufacturing stages both in time and space."

This is so far into the future and the tech was advanced to the point of turning ore into components with no ingots(which is literally done with some stuff today), why wouldn't you skip the step of ingots? You do realise steel can be made into actual items in the same plant they smelt it in right? There's literally a plant not far from me that does it... Ore comes in on train, steel beams and other stuffs shipped out... Compounds, well that's probably a different story where each metal is in ingot form. It would require a massive plant to smelt say 3 different ores constant and also house all the molds for your product and the finished product. I'm no smelting expert, so just guessing on compounds, but I know for a fact steel is done this way.

I'm not saying I don't miss ingots in the game, but if you want to talk realism, you need to also talk truth... At this point of our civ, we literally don't really need ingots either. It all depends on the situation. Out in space with nothing really, if you could skip ingots and build steel plates straight from ore so you could build an air-sealed base to actually live, you know you would! If you could transport the components you need for a new base instead of the ingots themselves, you would!

"Logistics simplification

Ingots greatly simplify logistics and allow for convenient stockpiling and transportation."

This isn't true, at least not completely. I grew up in Duluth, MN, a major shipping port. I can tell you for a fact, the ocean tankers transporting taconite are not transporting ingots, they carry basically straight up ore that is transported many many miles by train first straight from the mines. The only reason I say basically, is because taconite has A LOT of waste rock to actual ore quantity, so they smash the ore into fine powder and use magnets to pull out the taconite and then melt the taconite into little pellets to transport as a high grade ore instead of like 65% waste rock, taconite is a special case here due to its waste %. Coal was always transported as straight up ore as well... Ore is much easier to load and unload from ships also, you can't just dump ingots down a chute like ore is loaded lol...

"Separation of refining and manufacturing

With ingots, you can separate refining and manufacturing stages both in time and space."

This is so far into the future and the tech was advanced to the point of turning ore into components with no ingots(which is literally done with some stuff today), why wouldn't you skip the step of ingots? You do realise steel can be made into actual items in the same plant they smelt it in right? There's literally a plant not far from me that does it... Ore comes in on train, steel beams and other stuffs shipped out... Compounds, well that's probably a different story where each metal is in ingot form. It would require a massive plant to smelt say 3 different ores constant and also house all the molds for your product and the finished product. I'm no smelting expert, so just guessing on compounds, but I know for a fact steel is done this way.

I'm not saying I don't miss ingots in the game, but if you want to talk realism, you need to also talk truth... At this point of our civ, we literally don't really need ingots either. It all depends on the situation. Out in space with nothing really, if you could skip ingots and build steel plates straight from ore so you could build an air-sealed base to actually live, you know you would! If you could transport the components you need for a new base instead of the ingots themselves, you would!

URL

3

4Peace ●

This is so far into the future and the tech was advanced

It is not the future. The Almagest system is 10k light years away, not 10k years into the future. The technological level is roughly the same as it was in SE1. We still use chemical engines and staff.

do realise steel can be made into actual items

Initially, I was enthusiastic about smelting into steel products like steel plates and tubes, which can be more realistic, yeah. But then I started to think about the gameplay consequences of not having basic iron ingots. You are basically forced to store raw iron ore for maximum flexibility, because once you make a steel plate, you can't convert it to steel tube. So, while it is technically possible to stockpile all basic components, in practice it is inconvenient. You can still have plenty of steel plates, but if you don't have tubes, you are forced to go mining again. Or recycling, which is still less convenient and ingots can only improve the recycling mechanisms (as I have already mentioned).

The simplicity of logistics is not only about reduced volume and mass of the ingots compared to ore, but also better flexibility than components, as you care about one item type rather than dozens of different components. And you will still be able to stockpile components, of course, when it makes sense. Who knows what complexity of production chains devs will come up. What I was trying to explain, as many think that ingots are just an "unnecessary step", but they are actually essential to help you simplify production chains and recycling recipes, while also allowing for better separation of concerns.

Compounds

I think you misunderstood the concept of "compound ores". They are voxel materials containing multiple "elements" (like stone did in SE1). It would be extremely difficult to use this ore directly in crafting recipes for components. The easiest solution is to be able to refine this ore to ingots first. Having a compound ore is both realistic and better for the gameplay. We now have even more resources in the game. Collecting them all requires even more mining trips. Compound ores can solve this issue.

This is so far into the future and the tech was advanced

It is not the future. The Almagest system is 10k light years away, not 10k years into the future. The technological level is roughly the same as it was in SE1. We still use chemical engines and staff.

do realise steel can be made into actual items

Initially, I was enthusiastic about smelting into steel products like steel plates and tubes, which can be more realistic, yeah. But then I started to think about the gameplay consequences of not having basic iron ingots. You are basically forced to store raw iron ore for maximum flexibility, because once you make a steel plate, you can't convert it to steel tube. So, while it is technically possible to stockpile all basic components, in practice it is inconvenient. You can still have plenty of steel plates, but if you don't have tubes, you are forced to go mining again. Or recycling, which is still less convenient and ingots can only improve the recycling mechanisms (as I have already mentioned).

The simplicity of logistics is not only about reduced volume and mass of the ingots compared to ore, but also better flexibility than components, as you care about one item type rather than dozens of different components. And you will still be able to stockpile components, of course, when it makes sense. Who knows what complexity of production chains devs will come up. What I was trying to explain, as many think that ingots are just an "unnecessary step", but they are actually essential to help you simplify production chains and recycling recipes, while also allowing for better separation of concerns.

Compounds

I think you misunderstood the concept of "compound ores". They are voxel materials containing multiple "elements" (like stone did in SE1). It would be extremely difficult to use this ore directly in crafting recipes for components. The easiest solution is to be able to refine this ore to ingots first. Having a compound ore is both realistic and better for the gameplay. We now have even more resources in the game. Collecting them all requires even more mining trips. Compound ores can solve this issue.

URL

1

Jrolla ●

LOL

"Space Engineers 2 is set in the year 11,983, nearly 10,000 years after humanity initiated the "Bering Project" in 2083"

Nope, not in the future at all... Even if you only go by the 2083 date, that's 50 years of advancement... We already have 3D printers making things out of raw material, 50 years ago they would have called you crazy. Or computers or cell phones...

You aren't forced to store raw ore if you constantly smelt and produce things... Making ingots is an extra step not necessary at all to process ore into product. The only way it even makes sense is trade(again not really for ocean shipping), or the complete lack of industry or the lack of a want to create needed factory. Why would I take the time to smelt into ingot, if I can smelt it straight into a mold? Why would I want to store ingot when I could be storing actual product aka components??? In the time it takes for your ingot to cool in it's mold, you could have made a steel plate with the same molten iron you just smelted... Specifically for in game, what's the difference if you're storing ore or ingots? It's not taking up the space ore truly would and it's no inconvenience to have raw ore on hand anyways, I always do in SE.

Recycling/Grinding can just give you the components(or partial if you like) back like you would if you actually disassembled anything, like this should be common sense. Never been to a junkyard I take it, full of recycled car parts. I mean you seriously going to tell me an engineer only has a grinder and welder as tools? I understand not coding in a bunch of different tools and visuals/movements, but you would have actual tools too. And said grinder somehow miraculously converts items into ore/ingot/component? Scrap, sure feasible, then convert scrap to ore/ingot. But I view the grinder/welder as a placeholder for an entire toolbox! Go weld up a wind turbine or wheels without any other tools, I want to see how well it rotates. Go weld glass, um yeah... So, toolbox makes much more sense here yeah? Meaning your grinder would disassemble items, not cut them into pieces just cause that's the visual.

Compound ore, multiple ores in one rock? Uh, no thanks because that entails RNG even more-so than just finding an ore vein. The way SE is, is more realistic than what that suggests to do. Silver mines had what in them? Right, silver. You weren't mining uranium in a silver mine... Can you get mixed veins? Yeah, but it's not as common as consistent veins. I for one am glad stone is gone, and would prefer to not have all ore act like stone did. On the other hand, I also agree there should be waste product mining such as stone, because mining pure ore is practically impossible. However, not having said waste product also means you don't need to waste PCU using sorters to crap out the stone from your ship =)

I was meaning compound ingots(alloy), like brass... Not ore veins. The entire post was about ingots, not veins. A factory working with brass for example would need to smelt both copper and zinc, double the needed smelters as steel(Edit: meant copper), double the space. In this kind of scenario, I could understand them importing ingots instead of both ores to smelt in one place. In SE we have a super advanced 3D printer that can make all kinds of things, no need for the massive factory we measly humans here are restricted to... If SE was like IRL, your entire typical base, ya know big with everything you need, would strictly be a steel plate factory... Again, no thanks on that.

LOL

"Space Engineers 2 is set in the year 11,983, nearly 10,000 years after humanity initiated the "Bering Project" in 2083"

Nope, not in the future at all... Even if you only go by the 2083 date, that's 50 years of advancement... We already have 3D printers making things out of raw material, 50 years ago they would have called you crazy. Or computers or cell phones...

You aren't forced to store raw ore if you constantly smelt and produce things... Making ingots is an extra step not necessary at all to process ore into product. The only way it even makes sense is trade(again not really for ocean shipping), or the complete lack of industry or the lack of a want to create needed factory. Why would I take the time to smelt into ingot, if I can smelt it straight into a mold? Why would I want to store ingot when I could be storing actual product aka components??? In the time it takes for your ingot to cool in it's mold, you could have made a steel plate with the same molten iron you just smelted... Specifically for in game, what's the difference if you're storing ore or ingots? It's not taking up the space ore truly would and it's no inconvenience to have raw ore on hand anyways, I always do in SE.

Recycling/Grinding can just give you the components(or partial if you like) back like you would if you actually disassembled anything, like this should be common sense. Never been to a junkyard I take it, full of recycled car parts. I mean you seriously going to tell me an engineer only has a grinder and welder as tools? I understand not coding in a bunch of different tools and visuals/movements, but you would have actual tools too. And said grinder somehow miraculously converts items into ore/ingot/component? Scrap, sure feasible, then convert scrap to ore/ingot. But I view the grinder/welder as a placeholder for an entire toolbox! Go weld up a wind turbine or wheels without any other tools, I want to see how well it rotates. Go weld glass, um yeah... So, toolbox makes much more sense here yeah? Meaning your grinder would disassemble items, not cut them into pieces just cause that's the visual.

Compound ore, multiple ores in one rock? Uh, no thanks because that entails RNG even more-so than just finding an ore vein. The way SE is, is more realistic than what that suggests to do. Silver mines had what in them? Right, silver. You weren't mining uranium in a silver mine... Can you get mixed veins? Yeah, but it's not as common as consistent veins. I for one am glad stone is gone, and would prefer to not have all ore act like stone did. On the other hand, I also agree there should be waste product mining such as stone, because mining pure ore is practically impossible. However, not having said waste product also means you don't need to waste PCU using sorters to crap out the stone from your ship =)

I was meaning compound ingots(alloy), like brass... Not ore veins. The entire post was about ingots, not veins. A factory working with brass for example would need to smelt both copper and zinc, double the needed smelters as steel(Edit: meant copper), double the space. In this kind of scenario, I could understand them importing ingots instead of both ores to smelt in one place. In SE we have a super advanced 3D printer that can make all kinds of things, no need for the massive factory we measly humans here are restricted to... If SE was like IRL, your entire typical base, ya know big with everything you need, would strictly be a steel plate factory... Again, no thanks on that.

URL

1

Pembroke ●

The logistics argument, I think, fails. Simply because you can always set up an equivalent "ore only" system for any "ore to ingots" system.

Let's consider a set up where you process ore into ingots at a 2:1 ratio, and where 2 ingots are needed to make an item called X. Let's also have a storage container that has the capacity to store either 1,000 ingots or 1,000 ore. Clearly if you now fill that container with ore, you have enough material to make 250 units of X. That is, to craft X you process those 1,000 ore into 500 ingots which you then use to craft 250 units of X. However, if you filled your container with ingots instead, then you would have enough materials to craft 500 units of X. So, clearly in this system it is advantageous to store ingots instead of ore. Completely agree. So, does this mean that we must have ingots? No it does not.

We don't because we could also have an alternative setup with just ore and no ingots, that would give us the exact same result. Here it is: The crafting recipe is changed to "2 ore make 1 item called X". We now fill our storage container with 1,000 ore. That 1,000 ore is now enough to craft 500 units of X.

Let's compare the set ups:

- The first allows you to store enough resources in a single container to make 500 units of X.

- The second allows you to store enough resources in a single container to make 500 units of X.

No difference.

Here's the reason why there is no difference: As long as your crafting recipes are such that ore can ONLY be crafted into one, single other thing, that other thing is completely unnecessary. You can always just replace it by modifying your crafting recipe ratios.

Are graphs familiar to you? If yes, then the above is a direct consequence of how graph simplification works. The crafting recipe system can be represented as a directed weighted graph. If this graph has a node that only has one (1) vertex leaving it, you can "collapse" that node with its neighboring target node.

And incidentally, that also gives you an out here. If you really want ingots, all you actually need to have, is add at least one other thing than ingots that need ore to craft them. If there's a choice that ore can be turned either into A or into B, you no longer can simplify the graph. You now have 2 vertices leaving the ore node in the crafting recipe graph. If you have this then both A and B are necessary and can not be "simplified away".

So, just come up with something else in addition to ingots and ingots become necessary. If there's only ingots, then ingots are not necessary.

If you want an example of a real game, just consider Satisfactory. There iron ore can be used to craft either iron ingots OR steel ingots. This forces the distinction between ore and ingots. Both must exist.

But if there's only one target, then it's redundant.

The logistics argument, I think, fails. Simply because you can always set up an equivalent "ore only" system for any "ore to ingots" system.

Let's consider a set up where you process ore into ingots at a 2:1 ratio, and where 2 ingots are needed to make an item called X. Let's also have a storage container that has the capacity to store either 1,000 ingots or 1,000 ore. Clearly if you now fill that container with ore, you have enough material to make 250 units of X. That is, to craft X you process those 1,000 ore into 500 ingots which you then use to craft 250 units of X. However, if you filled your container with ingots instead, then you would have enough materials to craft 500 units of X. So, clearly in this system it is advantageous to store ingots instead of ore. Completely agree. So, does this mean that we must have ingots? No it does not.

We don't because we could also have an alternative setup with just ore and no ingots, that would give us the exact same result. Here it is: The crafting recipe is changed to "2 ore make 1 item called X". We now fill our storage container with 1,000 ore. That 1,000 ore is now enough to craft 500 units of X.

Let's compare the set ups:

- The first allows you to store enough resources in a single container to make 500 units of X.

- The second allows you to store enough resources in a single container to make 500 units of X.

No difference.

Here's the reason why there is no difference: As long as your crafting recipes are such that ore can ONLY be crafted into one, single other thing, that other thing is completely unnecessary. You can always just replace it by modifying your crafting recipe ratios.

Are graphs familiar to you? If yes, then the above is a direct consequence of how graph simplification works. The crafting recipe system can be represented as a directed weighted graph. If this graph has a node that only has one (1) vertex leaving it, you can "collapse" that node with its neighboring target node.

And incidentally, that also gives you an out here. If you really want ingots, all you actually need to have, is add at least one other thing than ingots that need ore to craft them. If there's a choice that ore can be turned either into A or into B, you no longer can simplify the graph. You now have 2 vertices leaving the ore node in the crafting recipe graph. If you have this then both A and B are necessary and can not be "simplified away".

So, just come up with something else in addition to ingots and ingots become necessary. If there's only ingots, then ingots are not necessary.

If you want an example of a real game, just consider Satisfactory. There iron ore can be used to craft either iron ingots OR steel ingots. This forces the distinction between ore and ingots. Both must exist.

But if there's only one target, then it's redundant.

URL

2

4Peace ●

I see some good points here, but for the most part you’re deliberately smashing together real-life examples and gameplay purpose 🙂

I’ll respond to the claims you made, while staying more within the realm of the game.

About the future setting Space Engineers has always portrayed a “tangible” future. We once expected flying cars and full solar system colonization by the year 2000, yet here we are—still driving wheeled cars and using chemical rockets to barely reach orbit and (soon™) return to the Moon.

In my opinion, the game reflects this perfectly. It makes assumptions where they make sense. Tool abstraction, for example, is a good one—I agree with you there. And we’re already moving toward better explanations with things like area welders and potential block-based tools that help justify how complex or high-tech blocks are built.

What isn’t explained well so far is where all the waste material goes after refining. And when recycling eventually gets added, how do we do it without making even more obnoxious assumptions—like grinding components straight back into raw ore?

That’s the kind of thing that completely breaks immersion and makes the world stop being believable.

“Why would I take the time to smelt into ingots?”

I’ve already given several examples earlier, so I’ll summarize:

Refining and purification are energy-intensive processes.
It often makes sense to do them upfront in locations with cheap and abundant power—think large dams or water-cooled nuclear reactors.
Ingots are pure, dense, and universal.
That makes them ideal for transport and trade. They simplify logistics because: ore is bulkier and less dense, components are too numerous and specialized. Supplying a few ingot types is far simpler than shipping dozens of different components.
Ingots are valuable because effort has already been spent.
They’re desirable loot and trade items because someone invested energy and infrastructure to create them. They combine the universality of ore with the value of components.
Stockpiling makes sense.
Ingots are perfect for stockpiles—compact, flexible, and ready for on-demand manufacturing.
Also, let’s be honest: shiny golden ingot stockpiles are cool 😄
Gameplay balance and simplification.
Ingots simplify component recipes once proper recycling and scrap systems exist. They help balance backpack building while still letting players build a lot using only a few resource types instead of juggling dozens of components.

About compound ores I don’t see how ores containing multiple resources would make gameplay worse. On the contrary.

Having 15+ dedicated single-ore deposits just forces players into more repetitive mining trips. Slightly randomized compound ores would make exploration far more valuable:

you could always discover better mining sites
sell information about rich deposits
choose between fewer large outposts or many small ones

This enables more interesting gameplay than constantly hopping between tiny ore pockets.

If you want real-life parallels: cobalt is often extracted as a byproduct of copper mining, nickel commonly occurs alongside iron, and so on. Of course, compound ores would still have a dominant element—but gaining secondary resources is a good thing, both realistically and for gameplay.

From a design perspective, this can be tuned however we want:

basic resources (like nickel) could be common but vary in richness
certain sectors or even biomes could have especially rich or poor deposits
energy use and waste management become meaningful decisions

More concentrated ores mean less energy spent and less waste produced for the same output. Combine that with specialized refinery modules, and you suddenly have strong incentives for specialization, trade, and infrastructure planning.

Also, you wouldn’t need sorters on ships. “Waste” (which isn’t really waste—but that’s a topic in another topic) should be produced after refining, and it should be usable in many ways.

Good waste management is something gameplay could benefit from enormously—if done right.

I see some good points here, but for the most part you’re deliberately smashing together real-life examples and gameplay purpose 🙂

I’ll respond to the claims you made, while staying more within the realm of the game.

About the future setting Space Engineers has always portrayed a “tangible” future. We once expected flying cars and full solar system colonization by the year 2000, yet here we are—still driving wheeled cars and using chemical rockets to barely reach orbit and (soon™) return to the Moon.

In my opinion, the game reflects this perfectly. It makes assumptions where they make sense. Tool abstraction, for example, is a good one—I agree with you there. And we’re already moving toward better explanations with things like area welders and potential block-based tools that help justify how complex or high-tech blocks are built.

What isn’t explained well so far is where all the waste material goes after refining. And when recycling eventually gets added, how do we do it without making even more obnoxious assumptions—like grinding components straight back into raw ore?

That’s the kind of thing that completely breaks immersion and makes the world stop being believable.

“Why would I take the time to smelt into ingots?”

I’ve already given several examples earlier, so I’ll summarize:

Refining and purification are energy-intensive processes.
It often makes sense to do them upfront in locations with cheap and abundant power—think large dams or water-cooled nuclear reactors.
Ingots are pure, dense, and universal.
That makes them ideal for transport and trade. They simplify logistics because: ore is bulkier and less dense, components are too numerous and specialized. Supplying a few ingot types is far simpler than shipping dozens of different components.
Ingots are valuable because effort has already been spent.
They’re desirable loot and trade items because someone invested energy and infrastructure to create them. They combine the universality of ore with the value of components.
Stockpiling makes sense.
Ingots are perfect for stockpiles—compact, flexible, and ready for on-demand manufacturing.
Also, let’s be honest: shiny golden ingot stockpiles are cool 😄
Gameplay balance and simplification.
Ingots simplify component recipes once proper recycling and scrap systems exist. They help balance backpack building while still letting players build a lot using only a few resource types instead of juggling dozens of components.

About compound ores I don’t see how ores containing multiple resources would make gameplay worse. On the contrary.

Having 15+ dedicated single-ore deposits just forces players into more repetitive mining trips. Slightly randomized compound ores would make exploration far more valuable:

you could always discover better mining sites
sell information about rich deposits
choose between fewer large outposts or many small ones

This enables more interesting gameplay than constantly hopping between tiny ore pockets.

If you want real-life parallels: cobalt is often extracted as a byproduct of copper mining, nickel commonly occurs alongside iron, and so on. Of course, compound ores would still have a dominant element—but gaining secondary resources is a good thing, both realistically and for gameplay.

From a design perspective, this can be tuned however we want:

basic resources (like nickel) could be common but vary in richness
certain sectors or even biomes could have especially rich or poor deposits
energy use and waste management become meaningful decisions

More concentrated ores mean less energy spent and less waste produced for the same output. Combine that with specialized refinery modules, and you suddenly have strong incentives for specialization, trade, and infrastructure planning.

Also, you wouldn’t need sorters on ships. “Waste” (which isn’t really waste—but that’s a topic in another topic) should be produced after refining, and it should be usable in many ways.

Good waste management is something gameplay could benefit from enormously—if done right.

URL

2

4Peace ●

Reply to this comment

You’re absolutely right that ingots can be (mostly but not entirely) substituted by ore from a purely mathematical or graph-theory point of view (if you don't consider scrap and hypothetical compound ore). No one is saying this is impossible.

However, doing so requires a large number of very specific gameplay tweaks and assumptions. Yes, you can theoretically collapse the graph—but the real question is: why would you want to?

Only to remove a single step from an already complex production chain?

Ingots have unique properties that ore simply does not have—many of which I’ve already mentioned—and they are strictly superior for nearly all of the use cases you describe:

logistics and transport
stockpiling
trade and loot
abstraction of energy-intensive refinement
separation of refining and manufacturing in time and space

Yes, you can design a system where ore directly crafts into everything by adjusting ratios (what about scrap tho?). But that approach flattens the system and forces you to encode multiple meanings into a single resource type. At that point, ore is no longer “ore”—it’s just a disguised universal currency, except not a very good one.

I’ve considered ore-only systems many times myself. They work on paper, but in practice ingots are simply better suited for gameplay depth, clarity, and long-term flexibility.

They give designers and players more levers to pull:

meaningful choices about where refinement happens
incentives for infrastructure and specialization
clearer progression and balance points
allow for a straightforward recycling
more room for modding and future expansion

So yes, collapsing the graph is possible. But removing ingots doesn’t meaningfully reduce complexity—it just hides it, while throwing away a resource layer that is extremely valuable and, in many cases, strictly required, for sandbox gameplay.

URL

3

irreality.net ●

They left Solar System spent 10K years in hibernation, only making stops to refuel their ship. So their technology is at level of 2083 or whatever year it was when they left their home.

And they have advanced 3D printers called Assemblers, which can build complex stuff from basic metals.

They are compact, affordable and energy efficient. In SE2 one can carry them in backpack, run with it and fly without consuming the fuel together with 3.2 tons of rocks. This is great technology.

URL

1

Jrolla ●

Almost everything you have here requires a complete change to the system... As it is, there is no waste, so no you aren't creating less components from raw ore than you would with the same weight in ingots... If this was the case, there would be no discussion here would there? Ingots would be more efficient to store than ore... Even still, I always keep raw ore stored too. Also, why do you think all the ore veins are small? I've found rich deposits that I filled my mining ship up with several times and still haven't cleaned it out. They most certainly exist on Kemik! Verdure is said to have nothing but small veins though.

You don't need the ingot to have pure ore lol... You do know it's the smelting that purifies it right? You can pour the pure molten ore straight into product molds instead of the ingot mold, what here isn't computing? Any simple metal can and is done this way already, alloys are different but we're not dealing with alloys much in SE2 besides steel that I'm aware of. Ore is not the only thing you need to make things either. You turn titanium into titanium sheets, which are both used in builds as a component, and a component to making a higher tier component.(pretty sure titanium was one of them that specifically did this) We don't even have the full production system yet and it's already pretty deep, I don't see how cutting out ingots kills gameplay depth. It just cuts out a process that was automated for you anyways and cuts down on micromanagement time. It also wouldn't surprise me if there are new components added for certain updates like water, making it even deeper.

Compound ore, if done how things are here on earth, would not result in that many mines that hauled out more than 1 mineral. If we go by your example of nickel and iron, if those 2 were coded to specifically sometimes be mixed veins, yeah sure that's not what I meant by RNG. What I mean is, I would assume more towards it being coded as randomly generated mixed veins just how ore is randomly generated to an extent already. RNG could mean you never find the silver, as example, you need even though it's supposed to exist on planet/moon. So what if your vein has mixed ore if the RNG never hit the ore you really need. It's quite out of the ordinary anyways in IRL terms if you look big picture and not just a couple of examples that happen to be found close in certain places. The Iron Range is named as such for Iron, not nickel =)

Ingots only purpose really, is to provide a factory that isn't doing the actual smelting process product they just heat in a furnace to reshape. Ingots make sense in trade, yes, but pretty dang sure more ore is shipped in boats than ingots. I can tell you ore is easier to load/unload(always) and safer to transport on boat than ingots, unless you use the shipping container method instead of tanker(still not as safe). You can't just dump ingots down a chute into a boat, they do with ore and they fill the entire inside of the boat(I mean there's a limit of course) not just some containers with limited space on top of the deck. In SE however, ingots would make a lot more sense for trade, but again with no mass difference it negates this. If this changes, we have an entire different story here.

Almost everything you have here requires a complete change to the system... As it is, there is no waste, so no you aren't creating less components from raw ore than you would with the same weight in ingots... If this was the case, there would be no discussion here would there? Ingots would be more efficient to store than ore... Even still, I always keep raw ore stored too. Also, why do you think all the ore veins are small? I've found rich deposits that I filled my mining ship up with several times and still haven't cleaned it out. They most certainly exist on Kemik! Verdure is said to have nothing but small veins though.

You don't need the ingot to have pure ore lol... You do know it's the smelting that purifies it right? You can pour the pure molten ore straight into product molds instead of the ingot mold, what here isn't computing? Any simple metal can and is done this way already, alloys are different but we're not dealing with alloys much in SE2 besides steel that I'm aware of. Ore is not the only thing you need to make things either. You turn titanium into titanium sheets, which are both used in builds as a component, and a component to making a higher tier component.(pretty sure titanium was one of them that specifically did this) We don't even have the full production system yet and it's already pretty deep, I don't see how cutting out ingots kills gameplay depth. It just cuts out a process that was automated for you anyways and cuts down on micromanagement time. It also wouldn't surprise me if there are new components added for certain updates like water, making it even deeper.

Compound ore, if done how things are here on earth, would not result in that many mines that hauled out more than 1 mineral. If we go by your example of nickel and iron, if those 2 were coded to specifically sometimes be mixed veins, yeah sure that's not what I meant by RNG. What I mean is, I would assume more towards it being coded as randomly generated mixed veins just how ore is randomly generated to an extent already. RNG could mean you never find the silver, as example, you need even though it's supposed to exist on planet/moon. So what if your vein has mixed ore if the RNG never hit the ore you really need. It's quite out of the ordinary anyways in IRL terms if you look big picture and not just a couple of examples that happen to be found close in certain places. The Iron Range is named as such for Iron, not nickel =)

Ingots only purpose really, is to provide a factory that isn't doing the actual smelting process product they just heat in a furnace to reshape. Ingots make sense in trade, yes, but pretty dang sure more ore is shipped in boats than ingots. I can tell you ore is easier to load/unload(always) and safer to transport on boat than ingots, unless you use the shipping container method instead of tanker(still not as safe). You can't just dump ingots down a chute into a boat, they do with ore and they fill the entire inside of the boat(I mean there's a limit of course) not just some containers with limited space on top of the deck. In SE however, ingots would make a lot more sense for trade, but again with no mass difference it negates this. If this changes, we have an entire different story here.

URL

1

Jrolla ●

Yeah, the backpack has already been drilled into the devs. It's my understanding it's getting a rebalance at some point. I always laugh at people going off about realism, when like you said we can carry a truck worth of stuff!

The backpack isn't the assembler however, it's the old survival kit minus the respawn. It literally only makes the most basic of components for you. In 50 years imagine what a 3D printer might actually be like, I mean look what computers did in 50 years...

Um, flying consumes your battery instead of fuel now, unless you use the boosters in which case you burn up hydrogen...

URL

2

irreality.net ●

@Jrolla

It is not about ingot as a bar shaped item but about in-game representation of "pure metal" in contrast to "raw mined rock" which contains dirt, air, other metals, etc.

In SE1 it was already simplified because except "Stone" which resulted in three various metals and gravel, all other "ores" produce single type of metal with no waste. Essentially it is "ore compression" process (using EVE Online terminology) where we remove everything not needed (mainly empty space taken by air) but also reduce mass as much as possible - and mass is essential for flight, space travel etc.

In-game it is simple process (hey I just built refinery!) but requires some infrastructure, energy, build, planning etc. It adds one more activity to a game.

In SE1 if I have platinum mine on some distant moon it does not make sense to transport tons of rock for thousands of kilometers. So I "compress" it by installing refinery. This comes with engineering tasks, challenges, logistics etc. In multiplayer one might be not interested in this process and opt-in to buy platinum from other players or NPCs.

But still the value is in tiny bits of pure platinum metal, not tons of regolith "stone" mined at some moon.

Then until I decide what to do with that platinum I want to transport in neutral form, it can be bar, it can be tiny ball, it can be earing... does not matter as long as I can transform it to whatever is needed when I have to. So I know I have amount of iron, amount of platinum, and amount of gold.

Now if I want to make an pair of earrings, necklace or computer motherboard I'm interested in just few grams of pure gold (whatever shape it is), not truck loads of raw mined rock.

It is not about realism (because it is just a game) but about world's consistency. If someone shows me a planet with water, trees, flowers and singing birds, and space with stars, planets, moons and asteroids and uses phrases like mass, gravity, energy I expect that this world is consistent and rational. It can be simplified but it is simulation and model of some physics and rules.

And in rational, consistent and immersive world no one will run around with tons of "copper ore" rock in their backpack just to make few meters of copper wire and think "hey I need to mine more tons of rock because now I don't need wire anymore but copper connectors".