VS2.3 Feedback: Creating an Emergent Engineering World

Dirk shared this feedback 20 days ago
Under Consideration

For the TL;DR folks: The Thesis

Space Engineers already gives players some of the most incredible tools in gaming to build almost anything.

From my perspective as a player, one of the biggest opportunities for SE2 is not simply adding more blocks, more terrain, or more locations, it is creating a world that continuously gives players meaningful reasons to use those tools.

I would love to see planets and space become collections of regional engineering challenges rather than simply collections of terrain.

Not: "What can I build?"

But: "What should we build for this?"

The magic of Space Engineers has always been that the game gives us the tools and lets us solve problems our own way.

I don't think the future is turning SE2 into a traditional mission-based game.

I think one of the most exciting opportunities for SE2 is creating a universe that generates problems, opportunities, and changing world states (defined below) — while still allowing players the freedom to decide what matters to them.

Not a traditional mission-based game. Not a checklist. A sandbox where the world creates situations, and engineers decide how (or if) they respond.




The Feeling I Think Is Missing (as of VS2.3)

One of my favorite things to do in SE1 was build something with a purpose.

I built a large rover. Then I built a trailer that became a mobile base. I explored half a planet with it and had an incredible time designing and improving it.

Eventually, though, I reached a point where the engineering challenge was over.

The rover worked. The trailer worked. The problem was solved. There was no longer anything in the environment asking me new questions.

That is the feeling I hope SE2 can solve. Not because the building is bad — the building is amazing, but because the best part of Space Engineers is when the world gives engineers a reason to innovate.




This Is Not About More Vehicles. It Is About More Reasons To Build Them.

I love the idea of building ground vehicles, aircraft, ships, drones, and bases.

The engineering systems are already fantastic.

The game does something extremely important by not telling players exactly how to solve problems. That freedom is what makes Space Engineers special.

The opportunity I see is creating more situations where players naturally start asking:

  • "Should we bring the rover or build a walker?"
  • "Do we need drones for this?"
  • "Can we automate this?"
  • "Should we build artillery instead?"
  • "Do we need a convoy?"
  • "Should we attack now, or prepare first?"

Those conversations are the heart of Space Engineers for me.

The question then becomes: how does the game create those situations while preserving the freedom that makes SE2 special?




Planets and Space Should Have “Engineering Identities”

The: "Why would I design/build different things?"

I would love to see planets, moons, and regions of space encourage different styles of engineering. Not because the game tells us: "You need this vehicle." but because the environment naturally creates problems that require different solutions.

Example: Sandstorm Region

Constant extreme winds make aircraft unreliable.

Visibility is poor.

Long-range operations become difficult.

Players naturally begin designing:

  • Rovers
  • Walkers
  • Sensor towers
  • Mobile repair vehicles
  • Ground-based logistics systems

(From the recent showcases, it looks like wind and sandstorm mechanics are already being explored. This is exactly the kind of system that can create meaningful engineering decisions!)

Example: Electrical Storm Region

Frequent lightning creates infrastructure challenges.

Large ships may require:

  • Redundant power systems
  • Protected infrastructure
  • Backup grids
  • Decoy systems
  • Or just ground vehicles for if you get disabled.

While ground-based operations may become more reliable, the important part is not the storm itself.

The important part is that the storm makes players ask: "What do we build to survive here?"




Regional States and World Pressure Create Engineering Opportunities

The: "Why would those problems continue to matter after I encounter them?"

"I think a pressure system could create incredible emergent opportunities.

---Quick Clarification:----

One important clarification: when I say "pressure," I do not mean constant urgency or a system that forces players into a checklist of objectives.

The pressure should primarily affect the world, not the player.

A threat, environmental challenge, or faction conflict should change the state of a region. Ignoring an infestation might reduce productivity in that area. Ignoring pirates might make trade routes less reliable and generate more encounters. Ignoring a faction conflict might change who controls a region, prices at stations goes up.

However, these situations should reach some form of equilibrium rather than endlessly escalating until the player is forced to respond.

The goal is not punishment.

The goal is creating a universe where player choices have meaning.

At a point, the situation will create an equilibrium. By equilibrium, I mean that problems should reach a stable state where they continue influencing the world without endlessly escalating until the player is forced to respond.

  • Pressure is on the world, not the player.
  • Consequences are regional, not game-ending.
  • Problems create choices, not obligations.
  • Equilibrium prevents endless escalation.

---End Clarification---

I think this distinction is important. I do not want SE2 to become a game where players are constantly completing objectives from a checklist.

The magic is allowing players to choose. A problem should exist in the world, but the player should decide:

  • Ignore it.
  • Solve it immediately.
  • Prepare first.
  • Return later.
  • Approach it in a completely unexpected way.

The goal is not to force players into every encounter. The goal is to create a universe where there are always interesting problems available for players who want them.


These systems could also create some of the most memorable multiplayer experiences. Not every problem should be something one engineer solves alone (though they could with some clever engineering). A regional challenge should naturally create moments where players say:

  • "Anyone want to help us clear this infestation?"
  • "We need engineers to build defenses before the next storm."
  • "We need a fleet to retake this sector."

With the goal not being requiring multiplayer. The goal is creating situations where cooperation naturally emerges.




Example: Regional Challenges and Pressure Mechanic

Infested Region

An infestation exists in a region.

If ignored, it becomes more established and begins affecting the surrounding area.

  • Small nests may expand or become larger. Mining operations may become less productive.
  • Travel becomes more dangerous.
  • Nearby colonies may struggle.

However, the infestation should not endlessly grow until the player is forced to stop everything else. Instead, it reaches a new regional state.

The area becomes more difficult and less productive, but it remains a problem the player can return to whenever they choose.

The player can decide:

Do we eliminate it early?

Do we fortify nearby colonies first?

Do we build automated defenses?

Do we bring drones?

Do we build a heavily armored assault vehicle?

Do we wait until enough engineers can tackle it together?

The interesting part is not the creature itself.

The interesting part is the engineering decisions leading up to the encounter.

A small digression: this also opens up boss battle type stuff where if left too long it can spawn a big monster that could take REALLY clever engineers or just multiple engineers to deal with. I want to watch youtube videos of Engineers taking on some big battle, their plan of attack, and how they fared.




Example: Rogue AI Mining Complex

An automated mining operation has gone rogue.

Mining drones gather resources. Transport drones feed factories. Defense drones protect the operation.

The player could attack directly.

Or:

  • Destroy logistics first.
  • Disable resource gathering.
  • Build an infiltration vehicle.
  • Create a drone counterforce.

Engineering, automation, logistics, and strategy become equally important.




Example: Faction Conflict / Civil War

Two factions are fighting over territory.

The player decides how involved they want to become.

Do they:

  • Support one side?
  • Remain neutral?
  • Become a contractor?
  • Trade with both?
  • Take advantage of the conflict?
  • Eliminate everyone?

A conflict like this creates reasons for:

  • Defense construction
  • Vehicle design
  • Logistics
  • Escort missions
  • Base expansion

Again, the game does not tell the player the answer.

It creates the situation, the engineer creates the solution.




Unknown Signals Could Become Opportunities, Not Just Locations

Unknown Signals are one of the biggest opportunities for emergent gameplay.

Instead of always being locations to loot, they could represent situations:

  • A colony needing help
  • A stranded engineer
  • A failed automation system
  • A damaged communications network
  • A hidden enemy base
  • An opportunity waiting to be discovered

Example:

You discover a small farming outpost. The farmer needs water delivered from a nearby lake.

The player could:

  • Build a water transport drone
  • Build a rover tanker
  • Create a pipeline
  • Automate the entire process

The reward is not just a container of resources.

The reward is that the player changed the region/area. More or less is on the devs for how they think the reward should be weighted, given the challenge.




Persistent Problems Create Engineering

Engineering games thrive on pressure. Pressure creates innovation.

A regional problem should not simply be:

"Clear the hive. Done forever."

It could become:

"Clear the hive before it grows."

Or:

"Ignore it, and now the problem is larger."

Examples:

Malcontents left unchecked:

→ Establish stronger bases.

→ Trade routes become unsafe.

→ Colonies struggle because supplies stop arriving.

The important thing is not necessarily endless combat. The important thing is that the world continues asking new engineering questions. This prevents the: "I built one perfect ship and now I am done." problem.




Different Worlds Could Have Different Levels of Problems

Not every planet or region needs to be equally developed.

That could actually make exploration more interesting.

A moon may focus on:

  • Survival
  • Resource scarcity
  • Extreme environments

A developed planet may have:

  • Trade networks
  • Factions
  • Infrastructure
  • Political conflicts

NPC systems will likely add an enormous amount of depth to this. This is simply the structure I think could create long-term replay-ability.

Level 1: Small Problems (the Unknown Signals?)

A newly discovered region.

Examples:

  • Repair a relay
  • Help a stranded NPC/faction
  • Automate a farm
  • Restore power
  • Build a basic outpost
  • Remove a small threat

Level 2: Regional Challenges

A developed area with larger problems.

Examples:

  • Pirate activity
  • Environmental hazards
  • Resource shortages
  • Faction conflicts
  • Infrastructure failures

Level 3: Civilization-Scale Problems

Established worlds with major stakes.

Examples:

  • Defending trade routes
  • Expanding colonies
  • Maintaining planetary defenses
  • Managing faction relationships




Why This Belongs in the Base Game

Mods will always create amazing scenarios. That is one of Space Engineers' greatest strengths. However, I think the foundation of this gameplay philosophy is valuable enough to consider as part of the base game.

Not because mods should not exist. Quite the opposite.

A built-in framework for:

  • Regional problems
  • Factions
  • Encounters
  • Environmental challenges
  • Persistent world events

would give modders an incredible foundation to build upon.

I’d also advocate that players could enable or disable these systems depending on the experience they want.




Why I Think This Fits Space Engineers

One thing I absolutely love about the new construction contracts is that they already move in this direction. Instead of simply telling me: "Go here and interact with something." They ask me: "Engineer a solution within these constraints." That feels fantastic! It feels like being an engineer instead of completing errands.

The opportunity I see is expanding that philosophy beyond contracts. The world itself should continuously create engineering problems.

A planet.

An asteroid field.

A faction conflict.

A trade route.

An unknown signal.

All of these should make players naturally ask:

"What do we need to build to solve this?"

That is where the endless replay-ability of Space Engineers can come from.


Not simply from having more places to visit (though I'll never complain about that), but from having more situations that challenge players to design, adapt, cooperate, and innovate!

Best Answer
photo

Engineering needs to emerge from simple gameplay rules.


Examples:

  • If you can easily mine/transport using flyers on planets, there will be no need to use rovers or build anything clever.
  • If you can't collect true raw materials, you don't have a problem transporting heavy loads or being able to design machines to put raw voxels back into the world (for example, to make roads to make better use of rovers in the first place).
  • If you can find all the resources on the asteroids, you don't need planets at all. Mining and transporting in zero-g is much more convenient.
  • If hydrogen thrusters are universally better, there is no need to use other kinds of thrusters, you will use the same ship to fly everywhere. Instead of landing on the planet and using a dedicated atmo ship for horizontal flight, you will just fly there with the same ship. Same for space. It would be much more interesting if you needed all sorts of thrusters equally, promoting a variety of ship designs in each environment.

What you have proposed in this topic is even more advanced stuff. I like it. But it should be built on top of simple solid base sandbox rules. I like the concept of infested planets, but there has to be an actual reason to do anything on the planets in the first place. The current N1 "goal" in the early game is to get into space ASAP. Then you are going back to Verdure to do boring "colonising" missions. Colonise for what? What is an intrinsic reason beyond just following the orders of soulless "colonisation authority"?


If you design a game around colonisation, you inevitably make a worse free-form sandbox game, and as a consequence, all the possible emerging engineering needs.

Replies (7)

photo
1

you have got a lot going here.


to eventually get se2 to the point where the player base is actively keeping pirates from becoming a colonization threat, where plants might overgrow and cripple trade routes for land vehicles, and where fauna could potentially take over an entire planet because nobody decided that the problem was worth doing anything about.


i very much like the direction you are thinking. and the potential for constant feedback from players doing contracts might eventually bring a completly uninhabitable planet into a less risk more gain scenario sounds brilliant for future game additions.


"The Colonization Authority has been picking up increasing activity from Renegades coming in from sector 13Alpha. Long range sensors detect what may be a dwarf planet they may be using as a base of operations in this sector. The CA has requested you set up a listening post to pick up comm traffic to gauge their numbers and activities."

photo
1

Exactly stuff like this. And I threw in the "Equilibrium" in there because if you want to screw around and do nothing but build war ships and grief colonies, you could...


My thought with the Infestation was that it's like Pitch Black where they overwhelm and destroy a bunch of the mining town so the miners come in, rebuild and then get back to work. But if you build robust defenses you could keep it somewhat safe but it will overrun robust defenses. The counterstrike is, during the day, you go into the hive structures and about 80m below the surface there are nests that are suspiciously just under 1-2 warhead blasts in size that you need to destroy to destroy the infestation. Then after you've killed the final one the boss emerges and starts wandering and griefing the mining town. Get your shorts in gear and engineer something!


It'd be a HELL of a compelling reason to engineer some wacky stuff to solve a complex problem. I'd have the monsters either fly or crawl but shoot spines so it's not just dominated by air. I'd play the hell out of that scenario. Just sounds like fun. :).


"actively keeping pirates from becoming a colonization threat" And yeah. Otherwise why have the Colonization %? Is it just a participation trophy.

photo
1

im glad someone looks at the game like i do, you beat me to this one absolutely great write up. this is the same type of thinking that my combat system proposal used to outline the signature and heat system i proposed, having areas of the game world have different global effects that affects you in some way. great stuff i think marek is planning on something like this from what he has talked about.

photo
1

IMO

> I don't think the future is turning SE2 into a traditional mission-based game.

I agree, but you need to have some level of dynamic missions just so the player has a reason to engage with the game or it becomes like EVE or Elite without an end-goal.


Think about what the logical end of SimCity is. There isn't one. You just achieve the correct equilibrium of "I don't need to do any more manual work on this part, it's all automated, it all works as intended" When you get to a point where you are basically doing nothing, that's when the game is effectively done. With for example, Satisfactory, there is a "end point" in the story, but you can just keep going, unlock everything else you haven't found, see how much power you can extract from the planet, etc. But ultimately there's nothing more to engineer a solution for after all the resource nodes are exploited.


With SE2, the resources are not unlimited, so a fully automated system is impossible, because eventually either you run out of resources in a location OR, the game doesn't have logic blocks to do so in an automated way, so you'd be moving a mining platform to different locations. Think about an automated rover that locks on to a resource, and then just drills downward until it hits the resource, then it does a grid search (effectively creating an open pit mine) to gather all the resources, while dumping the spoil somewhere else.


Likewise with smelting. The game has no waste products, no slag to deal with.


The needs of the engineering challenges vs combat ones are something that keeps things interesting, but ultimately you don't want the game to become a PvP/PvE combat sandbox because that makes the engineering parts unimportant. If you're going to utilize combat, they should be engineering solutions (Eg Star Wars Death Star exhaust port in the equatorial trench weakness) over "let's just keep shooting at it until it goes through the armor and hits the pilot/core.

photo
3

Quote: "Exactly stuff like this. And I threw in the "Equilibrium" in there because if you want to screw around and do nothing but build war ships and grief colonies, you could..."

YOU are the threat that the SECTOR responds to.... lol

photo
1

I LOVE this idea SO much. Think about all the engineering Puzzle games out there. Besieged comes to mind first. Maybe even things like Polybridge. What if the world was full of puzzles.

"Unknown Signals" become "Distress Calls"

If you ignore the swarm, eventually it takes over settlements. Those settlers become refugees. Contracts are generated to liberate the settlement. First you clear it, then you defend it, then you upgrade it to defend itself. Next you explore to find where they're coming from, dig deep, fight your way through, nuke the nest. OR dig a tunnel beside theirs. Who needs to fight, go around.

Colonization progress becomes a Score of how many settlements are currently operating / out of how many exist.

Pirates move in, % drops. If you don't care about %, just ignore it. Or conquer it and go for the highest % you can achieve.

Current Challenges are Get mobile. Get Ore. Get to Space. Get combat ship. Get Bored. MOAR!

Regional Hazards? Yes Please! I remember back a dozen years ago, my kids and I played ARK survival evolved. The most fun we ever had was in the most difficult area in all the maps. Couldn't build there, had to fight your way in, grab the loot, and get out in one piece. Died? start over, grab your stuff on the way in next time, if you make it that far.

SE 1 and 2 need Something.... There is some experience missing to make the games perfect. I think it's complex, and would be difficult to implement, but this could be it.

A REASON TO ENGINEER.

photo
1

ohh dont forget after you have cleared the swarm, after youve taken care of refugees, then helped build the colony defences up better, stronger, more reliable... then you gotta take the contract to haul the refugees BACK to their colony and how to maintain the systems you helped build for them. after which the CA gives you a fancy new ship blueprint.

photo
1

"Colonization progress becomes a Score of how many settlements are currently operating / out of how many exist." OOH! I like this! I don't explicitly want to own 7 bases per planet and maybe 1-2 small space bases per sector just for PCU and other reasons. It would be nice to have grids you build for the Colonization Authority (or a faction) be usable. Example: the CA says they need a base installed at this location on the edge of a region fraught with sandstorms. You go to the planet, build the blueprint that they give you. It's less "Engineer-y" but the idea is that once you hand it over to the local faction/CA (or however the NPC is going to shake out; Keen's Choice) as your colonize and get better, the NPC's add stuff to it and it becomes a base similar to the ones in the Frostbite scenario (just not destroyed) with maybe a few other buildings and more features/amenities (now has a refinery too that you can use). This can all be weighted on faction standing. Maybe you have to pay space credits to use the stuff. It gives you hours of game time with Space Credits. So if you need an hour of building stuff, you can use it. Then you can get refueled and get some new additions made in their hangar, then head out.

OMG for a second I saw Mos Eisley as a location. I'm in a round hangar inset into the ground welding on my ship. i was told to land in Hangar A12 and that's where my ship is. All because I helped the CA get started with a Smelter, a box and 2 automated turrets to get it started. Those are still there and can defend against pirate drones that are sent in from time to time if you're visiting.


Long story short, the Colonization score could be how big and stocked the local bases are. Caveats are: I don't know how the CA interacts with the story vs the local faction(s) and I'd love for there to be the 4 main factions that all have proprietary things they bring to the table that you need to trade/steal/pillage/align with to acquire the frames to build. Means you have to interact with the factions and trade... I've been saying that for a while now though.

photo
photo
1

The players are in 4 groups (using a high-performance car analogy):


1. The Garage Tinkerer - Loves to design, build, and tinker with his car. The more tools he has, the happier he is.


2. The Car Enthusiast - Loves to collect, learn, and be a part of rare or interesting cars, and show them off.


3. The Race Car Driver - Loves to race cars, on regulated fair tracks, to attain accolades and fame.


4. The Road Warrior - Loves to test things. Break a rare car, cheat on the rules, modify the car into something else entirely if needed... the conquest with win or lose decides what needs there are.


Each group of people correlates to SE2 different player groups, and all are clamoring to be the 'true scotsman' that should decide what is good for the future and what is not.


Tinkerer wants more tools to build more things, the Enthusiast wants interesting things they can find and experience, the Racer wants rule on balance for different systems and more rewards for accomplishing things, and the Warrior wants meaning to his fights, a reason to strive and overcome challenges. So, what can Keen do to satisfy this?


1. Tinkerer - more tools and ways to modify things.

2. Enthusiast - More customization, more social connections/shows, more lore or history on things in-game.

3. Racer - More loot to grab, more rules and balance passes to enable other player combat be even and be more bounded in-game, more faction rankings, more achievements to have in-game.

4. Warrior - Change of ownership. ...Life, in-game. A living world.


So...which group will be of the greatest importance to the future of the world?


The Warrior.


Everything is a derivative from his ideas and motivations.


Tinkerer builds based on his requirements (why have a car faster than another?)

Enthusiast documents the changes brought by him to the world (German cars from WW2 are extremely valuable)

Racers demo a war to people in a closed system (Hot-Rod cars used by moonshiners running from police became racing cars, later)


You may dislike the Warrior, you may try to ignore him...but you have to respect him.


If you dislike this, this importance only applies to Survival Mode.

photo
1

you strike me as an enthusiast. bnainz


im a tinkerer/enthusiast.


i think space engineers DRAWS OUT tinkerers. you cant really do any of the others without being able to modify something on the go, make it suit your style of play.


enthusiasts specifically showing off their tinkered creations "such and such made this thing... i DID THIS! (big reveal) to it"


the racer... i hate this guy. some things fit, but not the entire game revolving around it.


the warrior.... few might admit it, but this is something that we all inherently want out of a game. distraction from IRL. we want to hop into it and create, destroy, compete, show off.... i wouldnt call the road warrior, but maybe the RV family vacation type.

photo
1

We all are part of the different groups, I just tried to show the warrior gives motivations to the other groups. I need a better ship, from the tinkerer.

The racer type are great Generals, Admirals, Captains...they can systematize and correlate for a win, for everyone. Everyone benefits.

So, my point was the need to prioritize the Warrior's needs, as they will trickle down to the others, after the 'world' is made.

They need meaning.

How to achieve that? Transfer of ownership of stuff, basically. Agnostic systems design (systems that work for you or the a.i. acting independently... can an npc blueprint your ship? Your base? And build their own? Needs ownership limitations in place to blueprint something, in Survival, for the Warrior's needs, as one example). And finally the ability for the A.I. to disobey. You can develop in influences/motivations in code to try to get the npc to do what you desire from them...but they need the ability to disobey. How? Dunno, rng or some seperate table that tracks that stuff for them, maybe. That enables life in game.

photo
photo
3

"Regional engineering challenges" sounds very promising. I am not a fan of working through to-do lists (aka contracts) and would rather see challenges that come across in a more "natural" way while you are doing your thing in the game world.

I mean exploration, research, production, logistics, automation, life support, surviving in hazardous environments, etc. These are the things that could be much more fun if they were implemented properly – and they could be even more fun if the world required different solutions in different regions.

Instead, what I actually see is that Keen wants to make many things as easy as possible to allegedly provide a better FTUE for new players. Unfortunately, this is the complete opposite of making the game more interesting, and it won't improve accessibility either (the real problems lie elsewhere).

Materials from environmental voxels everywhere, magic backpack building, a simplified production chain, an overpowered jetpack, etc... These are things that actually remove many possible challenges from the game and make things boring and unbelievable.

The game should be easy to learn but hard to master. SE2 doesn't reflect that very well right now.

photo
1

So true. I dislike the backpack building on principle alone. Stone into materials is fine for the beginning, but the yields should be EXTREMELY rare. There's a Reason it's called Dirt, not Ore.

The harder something is, the more victory you feel when you conquer it. SE2 has felt a little .... bland so far. Engineering better? probably. Graphics? Yes. Map? Cool. but it feels like too much handholding. If you like building from the backpack, there's no reason to build the machines. There's one less reason to engineer. Go play creative mode. (not bashing, I play creative more often than survival) Checklists, quests, Ok, that sector's done. Next? Story elements are cool and all, but too much takes away the victories you get by figuring it out yourself.

I know we're probably in the minority here, but I think it's worth saying. Just look at the Frostbite achievement from SE1 - what is it, 0.4% completed still? That scenario was a ton of fun. Underground so no fliers, random turrets to defeat, safe zones to disable so you can clear it. Inventory management issues. It was FUN! I played it twice. The first time I Looted EVERYTHING (except steel plates) and had this massive rover full of cargo containers that barely fit through the tunnels. I kept running into quest steps I couldn't complete because I looted that reactor a while ago, now I can't go shut it off. But it was Fun! Still completed it in the end. Second time, I did things the way you were supposed to.

You've given us all these tools, but why use them? Why have food enabled? Why build a rover at all? Why pressurize your ship? Why do anything at all?

I have fun playing with the No Suit mod. No jetpack, no helmet. You have to build scaffolding to get up to that wind turbine that got damaged. You have to pressurize the ship or you don't survive space. Thrusters of all kinds should be expensive, so you Have to build rovers first. Have food give bonuses to people who eat it, but you don't have penalties if you don't. Requiring eating is just tedious. Hungry? Press 3, eat, back to work.

Start new players in a safe area, but make things like thrusters require ores that are only found in that hazard area over there. you want to fly? Got to earn it. Want Space? Oo boy, you are gonna have to work for it. Give us reasons to automate drones, build trains, and take down those pirate bases. I Love Factorum and Prototech in SE1 - Keep going! The foundations of these ideas are there!

photo
2

the backpack building is a core of the game and a good change. does it need balance yes but we also dont have an endgame

photo
2

Factorio and Minecraft both have very well balanced systems compared to SE2's backpack building.

One of the main limitations is that you can't smelt ores in your inventory; you always need a dedicated smelter or furnace to turn ores into ingots before you can craft items from them. This alone is a major difference to SE2 that shouldn't be underestimated. Along with other limitations, these systems feel well integrated and not overpowered.

I hope Keen will balance it in a similar way.

photo
1

right now we are still setting the ground work.


contracts right now are the path to setting you up to mastery as you encounter new/different situations and scenarios within the games world.


later on... well.. maybe we will have the tutorial contract line, which leads us to a run down, barely hanging on colony that with our help starts to prosper, leading us to go explore and find other colonys that then estabalish larger and more complex trade routes between them, opening further contracts to do more emergent gameplay opportunity.

photo
photo
3

Engineering needs to emerge from simple gameplay rules.


Examples:

  • If you can easily mine/transport using flyers on planets, there will be no need to use rovers or build anything clever.
  • If you can't collect true raw materials, you don't have a problem transporting heavy loads or being able to design machines to put raw voxels back into the world (for example, to make roads to make better use of rovers in the first place).
  • If you can find all the resources on the asteroids, you don't need planets at all. Mining and transporting in zero-g is much more convenient.
  • If hydrogen thrusters are universally better, there is no need to use other kinds of thrusters, you will use the same ship to fly everywhere. Instead of landing on the planet and using a dedicated atmo ship for horizontal flight, you will just fly there with the same ship. Same for space. It would be much more interesting if you needed all sorts of thrusters equally, promoting a variety of ship designs in each environment.

What you have proposed in this topic is even more advanced stuff. I like it. But it should be built on top of simple solid base sandbox rules. I like the concept of infested planets, but there has to be an actual reason to do anything on the planets in the first place. The current N1 "goal" in the early game is to get into space ASAP. Then you are going back to Verdure to do boring "colonising" missions. Colonise for what? What is an intrinsic reason beyond just following the orders of soulless "colonisation authority"?


If you design a game around colonisation, you inevitably make a worse free-form sandbox game, and as a consequence, all the possible emerging engineering needs.

photo
1

Yeah, wheels need roads, or smooth dirt. If we cannot 'backfill' voxels, it becomes limiting. You now need tank tracks, or horses (mech legs!)


Keen had a good idea with different levels of sector colonization, it just needs another layer, in conjunction with factions: Nodes

How about this? Each sector level, to advance, also needs a node to be built up that will benefit the people there. Large things like Trade Ports, Shipyards, Large Mining stations, Large Ice Mining Stations, Security Base, etc. Have them randomly assigned (from a list of them), randomly placed (appropriately, of course), using the contract system. And generate contracts along side what we already have, in addition, that also relate to the needs of these nodes.(edit- or maybe have the general contract system also influence this, depending on which faction is offering one)

The kicker? A sector can 'degrade'. Destroy these nodes, the sector level decreases. But, new contracts are generated (hence the random nature of type and location), allowing it to regain levels.

Factions can own sectors. They offer their own contracts for these nodes. Which one you choose, will determine ownership of that level to that faction (but would also require npc accepting and completing contracts, to be fully dynamic...). They compete. Ownership can change each with sector level (maybe?). Then, we can see a factions unique influences as they generate npc, ships, new contracts, items available to trade, is it high security or low security, etc. Would be cool.

Edit: Or just use pirates destroying nodes, or the 'bad guys' that come up.

photo
1

On second glance, it may be a bit ambitious.


1. CA ownership of the sectors, then.

2. Different Factions can control the different nodes, though. Gives them (and you) some sort of benefits, perhaps.

3. Nodes are destructible, and respawnable.

4. Colonization levels go up or down with nodes built or destroyed.


Faction vs Faction? Would be cool, but pirates or 'the bad guys' could be used. Creates a 'goal' for players. Also, with repeated play-throughs, would be cool to choose different factions for the different nodes, making each sector it's own distinct flavor as you play each time. A unique experience, each time.

photo
1

i like the ambition... i can see it fitting into a sort of CA "main sector" under strict control, as the game develops and changes, renegades can start to gain control of sectors through action or inaction on player part, you could eventually end up with 3 different peoples game worlds all with 3 very different sector control schemes.


imagine if in se1, there was a map, and had sectors... you would have mining cororations controling a sector, logicsitics companys working out of one sector helping other sectors to trade and build and progress.. scattered pirate sectors all over.

photo
1

personally the colonizing becomes a little samey after a while but I think it does do something really important: it forces the player to engage with other environments their vehicles may not be suited for. at the same time, should the player really be forced to make a bunch of different vehicles, or just a few main ones? and should it be possible to make multirole vehicles that do everything instead? I think so

photo
photo
1

All of you guys are all over the target.

Thoughts: I need to figure out how the CA will interact with factions to give better input on how the build should work. I'd love to provide feedback here, but alas that will be for another time. It depends on how they implement any of this (if indeed they do).


"The kicker? A sector can 'degrade'."

The only thing I see that could cause "player strain" (an unfun experience) is to have the road you meticulously built disintegrating behind you. I have advocated for this, and my take is that only certain sectors can and should be that way. Like one of the sectors is the pirate stronghold. In truth, no matter what you do there, the pirates will keep spawning and spawning bigger and bigger/more ships. It's sort of "uncolonizable". So there's a section(s)/sector(s) that just has no way for you to put a foothold into it and that unresolvable threat will randomly pick a sector to start ticking down. Or maybe it will only select certain sectors. I would personally like to be able to hit M and look at the map after a good fight near the end of the game and see 100% colonization across all sectors. Get the trophy for it. Then take a remedial transport contract only to find that 1-2hrs of gametime later, the pirates have infiltrated the ____ sector with stolen Infestation eggs. Broods are starting to pop up across the ____ region on _____ planet. :). Do you do more contracts and let it get worse knowing how much of a BA engineer you are, or do you go address it sooner rather than later? Or do you ignore it and let the decay happen just to do it all over again because building and engineering is fun? Maybe you have 3 or so uncolonizable sectors with threats in them that will start ticking down on your Colonization score. You can pay Space Credits for mercenary/local faction "contracts" that will keep sectors safe.


"Faction vs Faction? Would be cool, but pirates or 'the bad guys' could be used."

I advocated long ago that we should be required to pick a starting faction. That faction will come with its own set of things you can ultimately build and you'd need to trade with other factions to get frames to build other things. 1 faction maybe has good weapons. One has good engines. One has good mining/production equipment... things like that. Maybe the Pirate faction comes with a bunch, but it's all stolen so it's limited... Who knows. Could be super fun. The question I have is what should the core game be and what could be a mod? If the core tenets in my OP was there, could the mods come rolling in? It would be killer!


"there was a map, and had sectors..." This is the dream for SE2... we already have the map. I'm super excited about this.

photo
3

Im a big fan of the part about the whole Enviroments driving the design of "what do i need to solve this issue" and the need to explore those new Enviroments to get a new technology or resourse related to the solution.


As given by some Examples such as:


Earth Like:

-The easy planet with a little bit of everything, all solutions will probably work but only can find basic materials

-Only real goal is to get familiar with the game and prepare to go explore the game more


A Sand Storm Planet With Winds:

-Wind too strong to fly, at least not using something stronger like hydrogen.

-Let's build something more heavier and grounded.

-Unlock Bigger Wind power generators and some solicon for better spinny components


A Hot Planet:

-The surface is too hot to grow anything, non heavy blocks and parts get damaged over time based on exposure

-Need to cover builds well using heavy armor/structure blocks

-Unlock Heavy Armor and the resourses for it on the planet


Water Planet:

-The Air is toxic and too thin to use atmo thrusters and there is no land to drive on

-Travel by water and base under it to avoid the toxic air, Process water for air

-Unlocks some sort of Chemistry mechanics like poisons or some materials for speed upgrades or better/bigger batteries components


Storm/Lightning Planet:

-Constant lightning storms targeting grids and the ground, anything not grounded will take great damage

-Build hight points to catch lightning, Use decoys to save important parts

-Unlock some lightning catcher to generate power, Some material used to make new things like the catcher or Railguns


Planet with Heavy Gravity:

-A way of there idea of a planet very rich in resourses, no atmosphere and hydrogen will most likely fail too and leave you stranded and crashing, you'd want to use a drop pod equiped in basic tools and materials and do a small new start and build a base, movement slowed down and maximum storage of character and components cut proportinally to the gravity strength.

-Vehicles will fail, driving or flying, maybe if walkers are a thing they might be useful, but the idea would be to have a stationary base, mine using drills on pistons, move using around using elevators and some kind of assembly belts. To get off the planet you'd need to gather enough supplies to build A space Elevator.

-Unlock stuff, maybe just a planet made enterily of resources, or unlock optimized/compact storage to fight the reduced storage capacity on the planet, oh which outside it the compact storage will be an upgrade to the base storage.

photo
2

On a further note, dynamic vs static game content in contracts:


Currently, the contract system is curated. Which is fine, for the tutorial and the main story. Which players will do a couple times. Then you tie progression to this linear system, and players are made to go through the curated content each time they start a new game, instead of concentrating on organic/dynamic challenges the original poster so well enunciated on. That will create a disconnect between the two, and players will get annoyed progressing through, again, instead of working through progression challenges alongside organic/dynamic challenges, as posted above, whereas they fit beneficially.


Separate block progression from the tutorial/main story, and create a progression system that will progress 'with' the player, that will compliment them and their journey, as they work through the types of dynamic challenges that were posted above.


(edit) A way to do that with the contract system/unknown encounters, is to keep the different types, but incorporate a 'living' dynamic controller layer above, that directs their placement. Either faction based, planet based, or all combined, etc. A logic that keeps track of everything, so there is a 'reason' you encounter a signal, or a contract is populated. A system that controls, based on events that occur. A simple RTS mechanism, such as X4 and others have.

photo
2

Here is the illustration for players:

-You fly to a faction trading station to sell some ore. There are pirates nearby. You get there, trade for credits and leave, to go mine some more. You come back, and repeat the process, evading the random pirates that spawn around you in the process.


And, here are the questions that highlights the problem of why it isn't dynamic/emergent/organic/etc:


1. Where does your money go? Do the traders do anything with it? Where does their inventory come from? How does it's stock availability change over time? Is there any point to the faction owning it? What benefit does it give to them?

2. Where do the pirates come from? If they randomly spawn, does that mean it will happen forever? Do they have infinite supplies and capital to keep sending these 'wandering' pirates?

3. If the trading station is an infinite money generator, why not just mine and sell forever? Make all the money you want, buy whatever you want? No research, no progression. Pure mining.

4. What about the other civilian traffic around the base? Are they just cosmetic, too? Do they have any meaning in the world, any goals of their own, apart from existing around you?


The trap for the game development, is to keep the random systems, but then more variety is added. The underlying questions are not answered with more variety, though. That is the emerging problem that is never changed.


Solution: One method, is to have a change of ownership for grids and the sector 'regional' areas for factions. Pirates can take over a base. Pirates can take over your ship, and then use it to attack other people. Factions can expand by building new bases. Resources logistics and the capital needed will decide what different factions are able to do, beyond just their a.i. goals and personalities types.

-The trading station needs funds and resources desperately to build up a defensive fleet, from their faction's blueprints. Ore and component requirements for this build-up will determine the market value of their goods. You selling to them, even if it is at a loss on some things, will enable them to succeed or be taken over...or they might abandon it. Now your selling has a meaning. Your work done mining has a meaning to the world. You decisions shape the outcome of situations that emerge. Dynamically.

-Their prices for ore will change as their needs are met. Logistical convoys send ore/components/capital/grids/items to other bases they have as needed, creating a supply and demand.

-The pirates have a base they built up in the area, and the loot and supplies they take goes there. The goal is to take over the trade station, and either sell their own stuff there, or convert to it into another base of operations. If their base is destroyed, they will move to another area by another station, pirate enough stuff to build a base again, build out their fleet again, and the cycle repeats. Can have this buildup predicated on the spawning of a couple ships, and if left unchecked, will follow this pattern. Or something different for different pirate factions.

-Factions. They, depending on their a.i. behavior, try to expand in different ways. Trade empire, military power, alliances, ground bases, etc. Would be a pain to create and balance, and yet it would be totally unique and present new challenges for players each time.


Maybe something is like this in the works already, I don't know. This only applies to a pure survival mode, anyway. Remove this stuff you get a creative mode (sand) or a storyline progression (box). You can't just combine the two to make a (sandbox), ironically. A third element is needed, the overhead controlling logic.

photo
1

I like the idea that you can mine/trade as a goal rather than colonize by yourself. Maybe the player simply picks the role they would like rather than being forced to colonize?

photo
1

I would go with the underlying functionality that exists in the game "Starflight" or at least it's sequel.

Basically in that game there are encounters, they are not random, but they are avoidable. If you want to make a trade route between Base A and Base B, and Alien C always pops up between A and B as a straight line, so you need to setup waypoints to avoid them. This is also kind of how it works in Wing Commander (Star Citizen's predecessor), where patrol routes are usually designed to avoid asteroids and mines, but sometimes you have to go through those fields to sneak up on a target. Your choice is either A: Deal with Aliens/Pirates/Renegades who will demand tribute or surrender your cargo, or B: Risk the asteroids/mines which means you need to stay under 75m/s.


In a game world that everyone is human (a bit boring), that you basically would have factions that align along political divisions that have their reflections in reality (Puritan communism (where you can trade with but can not negotiate large price swings, and will attack if you try to loot their ships/stations), Anarchist libertarian (which negotiate a large price, but will choose "we're done, and I'm taking your stuff," if you tick them off), and "Corporate Capitalist" (which is kind of the default faction) which pays you to do things, and will buy or sell without caring about how the goods were acquired. You could just have various kinds of highwaymen type of pirates that drive small, agile spacecraft that target your engines until they stop functioning so they can board your ship and take your stuff.

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