Oversimplification
TL/DR: Please don't oversimplify, or at least add legacy mode later.
The quality-of-life improvements in SE2 are appreciated, but they risk gutting the thing that made the original great, the fact that we had to build our quality of life.
Refining ore, sorting materials, ejecting gravel, automating logistics through scripts, none of that was busywork. It was the puzzle. It was the reason our ships and stations had value. They weren't just props that moved and looked nice, they were solutions to "real" engineering problems we'd defined ourselves. Remove the problems, and you remove the point of the solutions.
The resource loop has the same issue. In SE1, material scarcity shaped everything, where you built your base, how you defended it, what you kept in reserve in case a ship was lost or damaged. Flying with one ship felt genuinely precarious. Now, if you can circle a few asteroids and rebuild from scratch in a session, that tension evaporates. The stakes were never about the ship itself. They were about what it cost to lose one.
There's a broader principle here worth considering, look at FromSoftware. For years, the loudest voices online demanded an easy mode. From Software ignored them. Their games kept selling, first entry, second, third, because the players who connected with the design kept showing up, and new players followed organically. When you design for everyone, you often end up designing for no one.
SE1 built a fanbase around a specific kind of satisfaction, hard problems, self-imposed, solved on your own terms. That fanbase will follow you to SE2 if you give them reason to. New players will follow that fanbase. That's natural growth. Changing course at this point means having to rebuild your fanbase.
If the new direction is here to stay, a legacy mode preserving the original systems would go a long way. Give the old guard somewhere to live.
I like this feedback
"Build our quality of life" great analogy,
"Build our quality of life" great analogy,
One of the popular arguments I keep hearing is that ingots are an unnecessary step in the production chain that just “make you wait.” And while I agree that arbitrary waiting timers should not be a thing in a game, that has nothing to do with ingots.
My best bet is that removing ingots was done to simplify the FTUE.
But then, the backpack building, for some reason, ends up dictating how the entire production system works?
And why shouldn’t a player be able to actually SEE how things are being produced in the backpack, or be able to order things manually? In games like Minecraft, you have to open a crafting menu to make anything. I’ve never seen a single person in my life complaining about it being too complicated :)
In the context of the new, more complex production graph we’re going to have in SE2, adding an ingot step wouldn’t change much. We can already “order” production top-down thanks to production lines - ingots would just be another dependency. They could actually simplify things once you start considering things like proper recycling.
Another argument I hear is that first-tier components already take the role of ingots, which is obviously not true, because they are not universal.
Even more interesting is the idea that ores are basically ingots now, and components can be recycled back into ores. Conceptually, this kind of “ore” is closer to ingots - but besides the misleading name, it has some serious implications.
It would mean either we are dealing with 100% pure element deposits, or that drills are basically mini refineries filtering out impurities and collecting only pure elements. I think both assumptions are bad. The first one can have some sense for an asteroid ore, the second one is maybe more plausible overall, but drills don’t really give any reason to think of them as mini refineries. And then what does the refinery block actually refine if you already start with pure material?
It just doesn’t really hold together from any angle, and it breaks immersion - which was something that made SE stand out.
I won’t repeat the full list of what ingots enable, I’ve already covered that elsewhere. Instead, let’s look at the common issues that are often (incorrectly) attributed to ingots.
Waiting time?
No - if you have enough power, you should be able to refine ore relatively fast. Instead of building tons of refineries, you could build fewer and just increase power input. The energy requirement makes sense - that’s what makes ingots more valuable than ores. But player time is more important, and you shouldn’t be stuck waiting. Refining should be at least as fast as mining.
Another issue is collecting “stone.”
I understand why people didn’t like it in SE1- you often end up with a full containers of stuff you don’t need while mining for something specific. But that can be solved without removing ingots.
"Environmental voxels" could contain the same element as nearby deposits, just in lower concentration. That way, you mostly collect what you’re actually looking for. When you refine it, you get the ingots you want.
Note: even gravel in SE1 wouldn’t be such a big problem if it actually had a use - like for building structures.
So what do we end up with?
No waiting, no useless gravel, one extra step in the production chain—but in return, a more believable system and a lot more gameplay options that emerge from mass/volume reduction and power usage for making them.
One of the popular arguments I keep hearing is that ingots are an unnecessary step in the production chain that just “make you wait.” And while I agree that arbitrary waiting timers should not be a thing in a game, that has nothing to do with ingots.
My best bet is that removing ingots was done to simplify the FTUE.
But then, the backpack building, for some reason, ends up dictating how the entire production system works?
And why shouldn’t a player be able to actually SEE how things are being produced in the backpack, or be able to order things manually? In games like Minecraft, you have to open a crafting menu to make anything. I’ve never seen a single person in my life complaining about it being too complicated :)
In the context of the new, more complex production graph we’re going to have in SE2, adding an ingot step wouldn’t change much. We can already “order” production top-down thanks to production lines - ingots would just be another dependency. They could actually simplify things once you start considering things like proper recycling.
Another argument I hear is that first-tier components already take the role of ingots, which is obviously not true, because they are not universal.
Even more interesting is the idea that ores are basically ingots now, and components can be recycled back into ores. Conceptually, this kind of “ore” is closer to ingots - but besides the misleading name, it has some serious implications.
It would mean either we are dealing with 100% pure element deposits, or that drills are basically mini refineries filtering out impurities and collecting only pure elements. I think both assumptions are bad. The first one can have some sense for an asteroid ore, the second one is maybe more plausible overall, but drills don’t really give any reason to think of them as mini refineries. And then what does the refinery block actually refine if you already start with pure material?
It just doesn’t really hold together from any angle, and it breaks immersion - which was something that made SE stand out.
I won’t repeat the full list of what ingots enable, I’ve already covered that elsewhere. Instead, let’s look at the common issues that are often (incorrectly) attributed to ingots.
Waiting time?
No - if you have enough power, you should be able to refine ore relatively fast. Instead of building tons of refineries, you could build fewer and just increase power input. The energy requirement makes sense - that’s what makes ingots more valuable than ores. But player time is more important, and you shouldn’t be stuck waiting. Refining should be at least as fast as mining.
Another issue is collecting “stone.”
I understand why people didn’t like it in SE1- you often end up with a full containers of stuff you don’t need while mining for something specific. But that can be solved without removing ingots.
"Environmental voxels" could contain the same element as nearby deposits, just in lower concentration. That way, you mostly collect what you’re actually looking for. When you refine it, you get the ingots you want.
Note: even gravel in SE1 wouldn’t be such a big problem if it actually had a use - like for building structures.
So what do we end up with?
No waiting, no useless gravel, one extra step in the production chain—but in return, a more believable system and a lot more gameplay options that emerge from mass/volume reduction and power usage for making them.
A tragedy? In some ways, yes...
Currently, there are two fundamentally different groups of players in the SE2 universe:
"veterans," who have often been playing as space engineers in the SE1 universe for several years—some for as long as ten years. Veterans want a more complex game because they are familiar with the "game mechanics." But “veterans” don’t spend much money; at most, they buy DLC, and not even all of it.
“Newcomers” are the second main group. For newcomers, a complex game with intricate mechanics and rules is a surefire way to turn them off. But—newcomers are a source of revenue; they are the ones who should be generating income for game developers. And developers must not deter them with the game’s high complexity...
What can be done about it? To be honest—I don’t know...
Probably the best solution would be to design the game universe as a highly complex system with intricate rules and mechanics. Because over time, newcomers will become veterans, and overly simplified rules will no longer satisfy them—and they’ll go elsewhere.
But how can we help newcomers? An acceptable solution could be a “training camp” with simplified rules, limited block functionality, and other simplifications of complex rules.
The player should complete very simple tasks/missions focused on a specific set of activities, such as orientation, movement, using a jetpack... initial missions should not last more than 15–20 minutes and should be completable in less than 5 minutes. Gradually, the complexity of the missions would increase... And the player would learn the rules and mechanics of the game.
A tragedy? In some ways, yes...
Currently, there are two fundamentally different groups of players in the SE2 universe:
"veterans," who have often been playing as space engineers in the SE1 universe for several years—some for as long as ten years. Veterans want a more complex game because they are familiar with the "game mechanics." But “veterans” don’t spend much money; at most, they buy DLC, and not even all of it.
“Newcomers” are the second main group. For newcomers, a complex game with intricate mechanics and rules is a surefire way to turn them off. But—newcomers are a source of revenue; they are the ones who should be generating income for game developers. And developers must not deter them with the game’s high complexity...
What can be done about it? To be honest—I don’t know...
Probably the best solution would be to design the game universe as a highly complex system with intricate rules and mechanics. Because over time, newcomers will become veterans, and overly simplified rules will no longer satisfy them—and they’ll go elsewhere.
But how can we help newcomers? An acceptable solution could be a “training camp” with simplified rules, limited block functionality, and other simplifications of complex rules.
The player should complete very simple tasks/missions focused on a specific set of activities, such as orientation, movement, using a jetpack... initial missions should not last more than 15–20 minutes and should be completable in less than 5 minutes. Gradually, the complexity of the missions would increase... And the player would learn the rules and mechanics of the game.
To boil it down, and I'm in that camp:
Many players want SE1 but with the engine, possibilities and functionality of SE2 - especially the unified grid system.
And I doubt we'll be happy if we do not get that. An absolute nightmare would be to be "stuck between" SE1 and SE2 because SE1 is the actual game one wants, but some fundamental features like better voxel rendering, stability and the unified grid system are "locked away" in a SE2 package that is too simple, to gamey and too console oriented.
To boil it down, and I'm in that camp:
Many players want SE1 but with the engine, possibilities and functionality of SE2 - especially the unified grid system.
And I doubt we'll be happy if we do not get that. An absolute nightmare would be to be "stuck between" SE1 and SE2 because SE1 is the actual game one wants, but some fundamental features like better voxel rendering, stability and the unified grid system are "locked away" in a SE2 package that is too simple, to gamey and too console oriented.
"Making you wait" is inevitable if there are large amounts of resources to process, unless you give the player abundant processing capacity. Which gets ludicrous at some point. The backpack in its current form is already pushing the limits IMHO.
In SE1 you need to build refineries and assemblers for serious throughput, not only for processing the more advanced ores. Going from the survival kit to a refinery is an achievement. Actually, I think the SE1 refinery throughput could be bumped up a bit for better differentiation from the survival kit.
"Making you wait" is inevitable if there are large amounts of resources to process, unless you give the player abundant processing capacity. Which gets ludicrous at some point. The backpack in its current form is already pushing the limits IMHO.
In SE1 you need to build refineries and assemblers for serious throughput, not only for processing the more advanced ores. Going from the survival kit to a refinery is an achievement. Actually, I think the SE1 refinery throughput could be bumped up a bit for better differentiation from the survival kit.
Thanks for the detailed write-up this is a very clear articulation of the “systems depth vs. accessibility” concern that keeps coming up in SE2 discussions.
The core point here isn’t really about any single feature like ingots, gravel, or auto-processing it’s about whether SE2 preserves the need to design solutions or shifts too far toward removing the problems those solutions solve.
We understand the concern that simplifying production chains, resource loops, or inventory management can reduce friction, but also potentially reduce the sense of ownership and engineering challenge that came from SE1’s systems. At the same time, part of SE2’s direction is specifically about lowering early barriers so more players can reach the creative and engineering space faster.
Striking that balance between “approachable” and “meaningful complexity” is something the team is actively iterating on, and we’re seeing a lot of internal discussion around where systems should be streamlined, where they should remain deep, and where optional or scalable complexity might make sense.
Nothing in this area is considered fully final especially around progression, production depth, and automation systems — and feedback like this is exactly the kind of input that helps clarify where the current direction may be overshooting or missing important aspects of SE1’s design identity.
Appreciate you taking the time to lay it out so clearly and consistently across systems.
Arron, Community Manager
Thanks for the detailed write-up this is a very clear articulation of the “systems depth vs. accessibility” concern that keeps coming up in SE2 discussions.
The core point here isn’t really about any single feature like ingots, gravel, or auto-processing it’s about whether SE2 preserves the need to design solutions or shifts too far toward removing the problems those solutions solve.
We understand the concern that simplifying production chains, resource loops, or inventory management can reduce friction, but also potentially reduce the sense of ownership and engineering challenge that came from SE1’s systems. At the same time, part of SE2’s direction is specifically about lowering early barriers so more players can reach the creative and engineering space faster.
Striking that balance between “approachable” and “meaningful complexity” is something the team is actively iterating on, and we’re seeing a lot of internal discussion around where systems should be streamlined, where they should remain deep, and where optional or scalable complexity might make sense.
Nothing in this area is considered fully final especially around progression, production depth, and automation systems — and feedback like this is exactly the kind of input that helps clarify where the current direction may be overshooting or missing important aspects of SE1’s design identity.
Appreciate you taking the time to lay it out so clearly and consistently across systems.
Arron, Community Manager
In my opinion, the "we want to be inclusive of new players" is simply a veil they put in front of us to hide the truth of the matter. That being that they don't want to invest the time, money and developers to create a system of depth. They KNOW they have a hardcore player base going back for over a decade who support SE1. But, the bottom line is money. They don't want to spend what they need to in order to bring back what made SE1 great. This is my opinion, anyway.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - backpack crafting makes me feel like I am in Creative Mode. There is little to no thought that goes into it. I just load up my backpack or welder ship with ore and POOF - there is my item. No thought, no consideration for component storage or quantities. Meh. The more that goes on, the less I am drawn into SE2 with the current crafting system.
In my opinion, the "we want to be inclusive of new players" is simply a veil they put in front of us to hide the truth of the matter. That being that they don't want to invest the time, money and developers to create a system of depth. They KNOW they have a hardcore player base going back for over a decade who support SE1. But, the bottom line is money. They don't want to spend what they need to in order to bring back what made SE1 great. This is my opinion, anyway.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - backpack crafting makes me feel like I am in Creative Mode. There is little to no thought that goes into it. I just load up my backpack or welder ship with ore and POOF - there is my item. No thought, no consideration for component storage or quantities. Meh. The more that goes on, the less I am drawn into SE2 with the current crafting system.
Sajnos azt kell mondjam hogy az SE2 egy gyönyörű grafikával ellátott üres játék. OK még csak alfa állapot. Túl leegyszerűsített hátizsákból építkezés??? Max elfogadom kreatív módban. Túlélő módban legyen már valósághű! Bányászat úgy mint az SE1-ben. Ércek felkutatása, kibányászása, finomítása felhasználható anyaggá formálása...
Az új játékosoknak egy oktató küldetés készítése ami bemutatja az alapvető játék lehetőségeket. Ne Laposítsuk el az SE1 örökségét egy jó grafikával ellátott túlegyszerűsített játékkal. Keen szerintem rossz az irány......
Unfortunately I have to say that SE2 is a hollow game with beautiful graphics. Okay, it's still in alpha. Oversimplified backpack building??? I accept it in creative mode. It should be realistic in survival mode! Mining like in SE1. Finding ores, extracting them, refining them into usable materials... Make a tutorial mission for new players that introduces the basic gameplay features. Don't simplify the legacy of SE1 with an oversimplified game with good graphics. Keen I think this is the wrong direction......
Sajnos azt kell mondjam hogy az SE2 egy gyönyörű grafikával ellátott üres játék. OK még csak alfa állapot. Túl leegyszerűsített hátizsákból építkezés??? Max elfogadom kreatív módban. Túlélő módban legyen már valósághű! Bányászat úgy mint az SE1-ben. Ércek felkutatása, kibányászása, finomítása felhasználható anyaggá formálása...
Az új játékosoknak egy oktató küldetés készítése ami bemutatja az alapvető játék lehetőségeket. Ne Laposítsuk el az SE1 örökségét egy jó grafikával ellátott túlegyszerűsített játékkal. Keen szerintem rossz az irány......
Unfortunately I have to say that SE2 is a hollow game with beautiful graphics. Okay, it's still in alpha. Oversimplified backpack building??? I accept it in creative mode. It should be realistic in survival mode! Mining like in SE1. Finding ores, extracting them, refining them into usable materials... Make a tutorial mission for new players that introduces the basic gameplay features. Don't simplify the legacy of SE1 with an oversimplified game with good graphics. Keen I think this is the wrong direction......
“Systems depth vs. accessibility”
Systems depth does not mean it should be impossible to progress unless you have an engineering PhD :)
Production does not have to be complex to set up and use in the game. The DEPTH comes from having meaningful gameplay benefits once you DO APPLY engineering, and this is what motivates your NEED TO CREATE.
But do not forget that this is also a sandbox game.
That means any artificial limits or “intended progression paths” will eventually fail miserably because:
The best way to achieve depth is through simple core mechanics like:
1. A proper refining step where the mass of raw materials is reduced.
1a. Optionally, refining could also produce waste or byproducts for players who want even bigger engineering challenges to solve.
2. Mass vs. Volume. Volume could play a huge role when designing cargo ships or considering ammo storage for the warships.
3. A simple temperature system that encourages players to think, plan, and engineer better solutions that provide BETTER results. Not to block players from doing something, but to reward them for doing it well.
3a. High energy demands for production.
3b. Production requiring cooling, optimal temperature ensure production is running on full speed.
3c. Power generation requiring cooling, things like reactors and h2 generators can produce more power with sufficient cooling consuming same amount of "fuel"
3d. Welding requiring cooling, you can build and repair grids faster when the temperature is not too high.
Then there can be additional balancing and gameplay features/tweaks to promote more variety in ship and infrastructure designs.
1. Helicopters and rockets should not be the best way to transport heavy loads on planets. Rovers and proper cargo ships should excel at that role instead.
2. Production lines, as they currently exist, solve too much, too easy. I think they can still work as they are, but there should be ways to improve and optimize them through engineering.
One idea would be production ratios for items crafting, allowing players to come up with the most efficient setup possible. If a production block has a queue but is still waiting for materials, it might continue consuming energy. That means inefficient layouts would waste power. And energy, as I said, should play a major role in production gameplay.
If you switch production to different types of items, the optimal setup might change. Of course, players would need proper monitoring tools for this. You should be able to see things like idle status and idle statistics for different production block types, so you can actually “play the game” of optimizing your factory by:
3. Speaking about production modules and NPCs
NPCs could also be hired to boost or tweak production (or other aspects). For example, once you hire an NPC, you could ask them to follow you and bring them near your production facilities. They could have general “skills,” such as reducing power consumption, or more specialized ones, like boosting the speed, efficiency, or yield of specific items or categories of items.
The same thing apply to production modules. You might discover very powerful modules as rare loot, encouraging exploration, or “save” and hire a particularly talented NPC engineer who provides enormous bonuses for certain production tasks.
This would add another layer of gameplay on its own. You could naturally gravitate toward producing things for which you found the best modules and NPCs. On multiplayer servers, this could also act as a natural balancing system, ensuring there is no single perfect setup or universally optimal production strategy.
By combining modules and NPCs in different ways, players could optimize for different items and goals: producing faster, spending less energy, reducing PCU usage. It would encourage trading and cooperation between players and with NPC factions.
And I want to emphasize this one more time: None of these systems are meant to prevent players from producing things.
They are meant to encourage players to engineer BETTER solutions, To feed that “need to create.”
These mechanics are not about reducing accessibility. You can still perfectly produce things with no much "brain" involved, and it would be not very different, especially on a small scale, where it does not really matter to optimize that much.
But the important part is this: once you DO discover a better solution, it feels genuinely rewarding. And that is the gameplay loop behind production and survival in general that makes Space Engineers tha game worth playing for 1000s of hours.
“Systems depth vs. accessibility”
Systems depth does not mean it should be impossible to progress unless you have an engineering PhD :)
Production does not have to be complex to set up and use in the game. The DEPTH comes from having meaningful gameplay benefits once you DO APPLY engineering, and this is what motivates your NEED TO CREATE.
But do not forget that this is also a sandbox game.
That means any artificial limits or “intended progression paths” will eventually fail miserably because:
The best way to achieve depth is through simple core mechanics like:
1. A proper refining step where the mass of raw materials is reduced.
1a. Optionally, refining could also produce waste or byproducts for players who want even bigger engineering challenges to solve.
2. Mass vs. Volume. Volume could play a huge role when designing cargo ships or considering ammo storage for the warships.
3. A simple temperature system that encourages players to think, plan, and engineer better solutions that provide BETTER results. Not to block players from doing something, but to reward them for doing it well.
3a. High energy demands for production.
3b. Production requiring cooling, optimal temperature ensure production is running on full speed.
3c. Power generation requiring cooling, things like reactors and h2 generators can produce more power with sufficient cooling consuming same amount of "fuel"
3d. Welding requiring cooling, you can build and repair grids faster when the temperature is not too high.
Then there can be additional balancing and gameplay features/tweaks to promote more variety in ship and infrastructure designs.
1. Helicopters and rockets should not be the best way to transport heavy loads on planets. Rovers and proper cargo ships should excel at that role instead.
2. Production lines, as they currently exist, solve too much, too easy. I think they can still work as they are, but there should be ways to improve and optimize them through engineering.
One idea would be production ratios for items crafting, allowing players to come up with the most efficient setup possible. If a production block has a queue but is still waiting for materials, it might continue consuming energy. That means inefficient layouts would waste power. And energy, as I said, should play a major role in production gameplay.
If you switch production to different types of items, the optimal setup might change. Of course, players would need proper monitoring tools for this. You should be able to see things like idle status and idle statistics for different production block types, so you can actually “play the game” of optimizing your factory by:
3. Speaking about production modules and NPCs
NPCs could also be hired to boost or tweak production (or other aspects). For example, once you hire an NPC, you could ask them to follow you and bring them near your production facilities. They could have general “skills,” such as reducing power consumption, or more specialized ones, like boosting the speed, efficiency, or yield of specific items or categories of items.
The same thing apply to production modules. You might discover very powerful modules as rare loot, encouraging exploration, or “save” and hire a particularly talented NPC engineer who provides enormous bonuses for certain production tasks.
This would add another layer of gameplay on its own. You could naturally gravitate toward producing things for which you found the best modules and NPCs. On multiplayer servers, this could also act as a natural balancing system, ensuring there is no single perfect setup or universally optimal production strategy.
By combining modules and NPCs in different ways, players could optimize for different items and goals: producing faster, spending less energy, reducing PCU usage. It would encourage trading and cooperation between players and with NPC factions.
And I want to emphasize this one more time: None of these systems are meant to prevent players from producing things.
They are meant to encourage players to engineer BETTER solutions, To feed that “need to create.”
These mechanics are not about reducing accessibility. You can still perfectly produce things with no much "brain" involved, and it would be not very different, especially on a small scale, where it does not really matter to optimize that much.
But the important part is this: once you DO discover a better solution, it feels genuinely rewarding. And that is the gameplay loop behind production and survival in general that makes Space Engineers tha game worth playing for 1000s of hours.
Replies have been locked on this page!