Backpack building should be less efficient

Wilhelm shared this feedback 40 days ago
Not Enough Votes

I put this comment in another thread and figured it should reside in feedback of its own.

Simply put, if backpack building remains a thing, then it should be less efficient than building in base machinery. For example, building via backpack should take something akin to 1.25-1.5 more raw materials than creating them first in a base machine.

Backpack building is space magic already, there should be some incentive for users to use a gearforge, for example. As it stands now they're equivalent so making anything via gearforge first is kind of pointless.

Replies (9)

photo
1

The end goal here is to give Space Engineers a choice between convenience and efficiency. Backpack is handy for 'just gotta get it done', but should take a lot more resources to do things, i.e. good for small patch work and quick fixes. Building something larger should encourage more pre-manufactured goods to take better advantage of the materials you go out and mine.

photo
4

In my opinion backpack building should not even exist in this game unless second game wants to be RTX makeup to a shallow game mechanics with worse exploration and colonization than No Man's Sky yet demanding more resource than that game for what... This much convenience in the game is already don't need creative mode so what happened to the Space and its Engineer? All the (empty hopes&)Space but the Engineering. No point in engineering a proper base for ingot conversion. I'll never support this shallow "backpack building" mechanics. Might as well call it "Lego Space Engineers" at this point.

photo
1

I'll admit I'm not a fan of backpack building in general as a concept, it's space magic as I've said above. Definitely prefer the SE1-style production chain (so far). Refineries should refine, smelters should smelt also.

My point here is that if we're going to get backpack building as a feature, it should be much less efficient than the same work done at large energy hungry production stations.

photo
1

I've been back in SE1 a lot lately and after that backpack building feels like a cheat code or a state between 'survival' and 'creative'. Just too OP.

photo
photo
2

By backpack building, do you mean the ability to use raw ore, to make very advanced parts, which usally takes a machine to make? Because I do agree that mechanic is really OP.


My favorite thing in building games has to be the ability to use items and resources from storage while nearby or while its in the system of your base X-distance from player, or in the tubes made to feed resources to storage.

This should be used more in games where traveling from storage where you have the parts stored, then to the build over and over again to get it done. That kind of monotony I really find annoying, but I think we should have to build the parts from the forges or machinery instead of being able to build parts from raw unprocessed ore.


I do hope and feel like they are getting into the process of this ingame where it can be more of a reality in the game as it grows. Since SE2 is very early access, maybe they have the raw ore building as a system to help protect us as we play just in case we crash and have nothing around us to build with. But that might be wrong, idk. But this is a good topic to bring up!

photo
1

I would 100% prefer proximity to storage as a mechanism for building vs. backpack building, if you wanted to give your space buddy a little logistics drone that you could deploy (or that deployed when you were near a friendly grid) and it would follow you and 'automagically' pulls components you needed while building (with a time delay compared to having it handy) out of storage in range, I would absolutely support that.

The primary equation in either case though is 'convenience vs. efficiency' The local convenience store might have the item you want and it's a lot closer, but it's gonna be more expensive. Backpack building should take more raw materials to make the same item than using finished goods, or if you pull items out of inventory, that should have a time delay (slower) compared to having the stuff in your pack.

photo
1

If we're keeping backpack building devs, the more I think about it the more I think that it needs to take twice as much material (and time) to do anything from the backpack, vs. done at an actual production station or having the materials on hand in your backpack.

photo
1

i.e. there should be some incentive to migrate from pure backpack building to processing raw materials in a base. Currently that incentive is only 'you can't make that in your backpack', which really isn't a good motivation.

photo
photo
1

I agree.

photo
1

i agree. *edit* with the caveat that its not quite space magic... your inventory cant be FULL and still build items. i like that little nuance.* furthermore, i would like to see (when it gets added) the recycling of items suffer a similar penalty.


nothing is ever 100=100. so disassembly of blocks back into their component parts should suffer a loss of raw materials.

photo
1

Yeah, a loss of raw materials make sense.

photo
photo
1

I agree, machines should be much better than backpack building, to encourage players to create machines, bases, or ships for manufacturing.

photo
1

I don't mind a few 'shortcuts' to processes, but definitely they need to encourage (by game mechanics) people to use the right manufacturing process to make things. I'm curious if the 100 item build limit is a reflection of the idea to 'just use backpack building' to fill in the larger scale building.

photo
1

i suspect the 100 item build cap is a place holder to limit game instability. i have no doubt it will change as the game gets further into its development. but right now, it makes sense to try and slow things down.

photo
1

Fair point, it's easy to assume what we see now is final game logic and obviously it isn't.

photo
photo
3

I have a very comprehensive suggestion regarding this topic.

The related topic:

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/54718-proposal-backpack-levels-modules

photo
1

Interesting. I'd like it if the starting 'jetpack' was atmospheric/ion with the hydrogen boost. Meaning, you can't climb out of the atmosphere but it runs on batteries in gravity and can move (gently) in space via ions (also battery) but you have the limited hydrogen boost in both cases.

This is mostly a headcanon issue for me, because I'm used to SE1 hydrogren jetpacks where it always consumed hydrogen fuel. Since they don't unless boosting it feels weird to say they're hydrogen jetpacks that have unlimited fuel unless boosting??

The other benefit is that you wouldn't be able to use the jetpack to fly off a planet unless you possibly boosted with a few of the reserve bottles?

photo
1

Yes, I like the idea of an atmospheric thruster. Since the system I proposed is modular, it could be implemented as one of the upgrade modules—a backpack-mounted atmospheric thruster. It might even perform better than ion thrusters in an atmosphere, so that's something worth considering.

If the altitude module isn't well received or doesn't fit the gameplay, it can simply be removed thanks to the modular design.

By the way, in the system I proposed, the hydrogen propulsion isn't just a temporary boost. It's a module that provides a full hydrogen jetpack. Of course, it should come with trade-offs—for example, it could have a risk of exploding if it's damaged during combat or overheats.

photo
1

My main thought for the pack being that it has all three thrust types but most of the work is done by electrical systems (atmospheric in planet and ion in space. They're slow by last a long time as long as suit power holds. Hydrogen for short fast boosts.

The primary reason is something like this would prevent the jetpack from (at the start) being a way to launch yourself into space. Theoretically with enough hydrogen refills you could make it, but not right away

photo
photo
1

Maybe the backpack building should be tiered based on surroundings.

Like if you are in the middle of nowhere, and standing on top of just iron ore, the backpack building still costs the same amount of time and resources as though you put it through the entire production chain with only as though only the necessary machines exists. (Parallelism = 1)

If you build the necessary machines first but haven't built the items, the backpack defers to the machines, so they can be run in parallel. (Parallelism = number of nearby refiners + 1)

If you build the items in advance, but they are in storage or machines nearby they are used first. The game should support storing the larger parts, and removing them to storage (Eg installing something upside down should let you just pop it off, move and rotate it to where you want it and pop it back on), right now you are incurring a time penalty every time to deconstruct and reconstruct those parts.

photo
1

I'd be interested in a backpack drone interface for your base that if you're near a drone base station, it can go fetch resources for you out of base storage (if the drone base station is connected to that grid via conveyors) so that the backpack building is fetching the materials you need out of grid inventory in real time, though perhaps much more slowly (2x) than having the materials in your backpack already. This would seem more realistic than being able to take ore and turn it into finished goods in a 3x2x1 (feet) backpack that also has thrusters, oxygen/hydrogen tanks and a battery pack.

photo
1

Plus can store 8 tons of materials!?!?!!

photo
photo
1

Honestly, I really like backpack building because of its convenience (and because I feel like crafting sub parts of sub parts of blocks is kind of just a waste of time, without much fun around it, especially when it's just automatically done by a smelter/assembler and has no routing/recipe interest to it, like in Satisfactory, Factorio or Minecraft), but I understand it is currently a little overpowered, and I honestly think your solution is genius. This is probably the best way, game design wise, of making the whole production line be relevant, while maintaining the convenience of backpack building.

Leave a Comment
 
Attach a file
You can't vote. Please authorize!