Refiners should only refine ores to ingots

Aeon shared this feedback 40 days ago
Not Enough Votes

Why do we have refiners full on manufacturing things like magnets?


I think a refinery should do what the name suggests: Refine.


Also, It would be super helpful if we could see what is needed in the G menu to actually make the blocks instead of having the place a hologram just to see what is needed to make it.


And finally, we need a way to see which production block makes what component. So many times I've wanted to make something like a refinery but don't know which production block to make in order to craft the refinery because we have so many production blocks! The smelter suggests it does the job of a refiner which is all the more confusing when you see that it makes crafting components.


Please go back to the old way of a refiner and assembler. It made sense! this new version of 4 or 5 different production blocks all making different components is just a mess :(

Replies (6)

photo
3

this idea is covered in another topic as part of a whole on the games current complexity level VS what it will eventually become once the "fast tracked" method we currently seem to be in to help the game develop quicker is pushed forward.


https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/53725-fix-this-to-make-the-game-more-accessible-instead-of-oversimplifying-everything#comment-115217

photo
3

There are multiple topics that bring it up.


At its core, smelters should take raw ore, solids/powders/concentrates/scrap and produce only ingots or die-cast single material parts (eg plates or beams/bars)

Refineries should take one liquid or gas and transform it into another liquid/gas or combine it with ingots to produce other materials.

The assembler should take two or more materials to produce a single output.


Like the problem with the current setup is that it feels like the backpack became the smelter step and feels redundant, when it should be the first step, while things like the assembler and refiner should be literally too big to backpack produce.

photo
1

Just rename them. Instead of refineries they can be "manufacturers" or "advanced assemblers"

photo
2

There is only one tiny problem: we don't collect any ore in this game any more :)


Think about what happens when you use a drill. When you drill iron ore deposit you get a lot of pure iron resource. When you drill a soil, you also get pure iron resource just less of it. The original voxel material is destroyed forever. You simply cannot collect raw materials in this game.


There is no need for the refinery to do what its name suggests, because there are no ORES. Your drills are now refineries filtering "ingots" straight from the ground.

photo
6

How to produce a motor in SE2

  • Preheat your smelter
  • Go and dig up some dirt
  • Put it onto a baking sheet
  • Bake it at 180 °C for 30 minutes

Done! Here is your freshly baked motor (be careful, it's hot!).

c13ab58fbb133bc47f068affa7f067a5


32196e6b0dbfecb4d30a007363563530

(Sorry for that post)

photo
1

LOL =)))

photo
photo
5

In the SE world components are made from either a single ore or multiple ores.

Multiple component types may be made from the same ore.

In SE2 the volumetric feature has not been included.

The recycling of components back to an earlier state(ingots) has not been included.

The naming of production machines is no longer intuitive.

The backpack is now a magic box capable of storing 8 tons with an ion drive flight system packed into a tiny bag that is able to propel the engineer in atmosphere at little energy cost.

On top of the 8 ton load and flight system, the backpack can convert multiple ores into fully manufactured components.

The hydrogen thrusters on my ship find it difficult to compete with the lift efficiency of my backpack.


Making blocks is a process likened to pouring water into a jug, the progression of build states is the only thing that would have you believe otherwise.

My hand drill can teleport material either into my backpack or into another dimension. It has a drill tip that can carve a hole large enough for the engineer to walk through, but the excessively heavy small block drill can hardly bore a hole larger than it's tip.

When a block is destroyed the debris will turn into ghosts and fade into nothingness.

After I have built the 5 component production machines and have bowed to the Colony Clanker enough times I become the master of the Almagest system.


SE1 is not perfect, the players of SE1 begged for SE1s short falls to be addressed. They were told that the VRAGE2 engine could not resolve many of those short falls. For years they asked for a new SE, an upgrade on the old system to boldly go where SE1 could not.

SE2 alpha gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

Taking away ingots will not expand the player base. It satisfies a number of impatient SE1 players who want to get from A to B as quickly as possible and have little care for the journey.

There are manly popular games that have greater complexity in their production build chains, there are mainly games with mining features that use ingots that cater for wide audiences and are not considered complex.


New players will find SE2 alpha as a disjointed legacy of the former game.

Ingots are not an additional complexity putting off a potential player base, but in fact ingots held the production chain gameplay together.

photo
3

The ingots step is necessary to "make sense" in keeping with other games and reality. All metals transform to ingots first with few exceptions (eg steel which uses iron ore/scrap plus a carbon source, and stainless steel (which is a more complex alloy requiring up to 6 materials))

Only Concrete (Calcium), Coal/Oil/Diamonds/Graphite/Graphene (Carbon) don't have a ingot step because their starting material is not a metal. Uranium also does not have an ingot step because it's processing is far more complicated (Ceramic Uranium Fuel + Deuterium reactor or Yellowcake Enrichment, then Enriched Ceramic Uranium fuel + water)


The Reactors in SE2 lack the waste process from Uranium as well, they just seem to consume Uranium and ... I don't know jettison the waste products, even while on the planet. The fact there is no water (or other moderator) is a missing part, and likewise no waste material left in the reactor when consumed, suggests that the 'reactor' is some weird hyper efficient RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) reactor. Even other games that recognize the nuclear fission reactor process, recognizes that you can't just stick mined uranium straight into the reactor, because uranium "ore" is less than 2% of the mined material.

photo
2

This is exactly what is logical and correct, and what all engineers are waiting for!

photo
3

Totally agree with everything here, seems like the production machines have just been turned into progression steps for the player to be able to craft the rarer components but if they go to a few unknown signals they can usually get some of those rare items and craft what they need, it seems pointless at the moment. Having the ingots in SE1 and having to figure out and construct systems to manage the sorting, storage and processing is one of the things I got the most enjoyment out of the game. Hope we eventually get it back again.

photo
2

100P


SE is based on the "PREMISE" that the game simulates "real world" physics. Of course it's a game, so it can only do so much.


However...

The backpack goes too far. The lack of ingots goes too far.


Why bother with a physics system at all?

If this simple straightforward system of Dig ore. Refine to ingot. Manufacture component is "too hard" on players. Why should we expect them to be capable of dealing with the implications of an actual physics system?

How is the overly complicated mess of the current production system easier on new players than having ingots in the production chain?


I'm not playing SE2.


The reason I'm not playing it, is because the gameplay is just atrocious. The stupidity of the ingots debacle just makes it so much worse. One irritating thing on top of ten others. Every time I try to play, I end up rage quitting.


I hope when they think they're done with development, they'll have addressed these issues.

Please Keen.

Please address these issues.

photo
2

True, I gave up on SE2, too.

The gameplay is absurd and contradicts all logic.

It is not just a placeholder for development purposes, as some people are arguing. This is the intended gameplay Keen has chosen for SE2.

There are tons of good ideas on this site on how it could be done better. Every aspect has been discussed across multiple threads multiple times.

And what do we hear from Keen?

Nothing.

Will they ever fix the mess they have made?

Unknown.

Only time will tell.

photo
1

Some of the “white knights” argue that it is indeed how it should be in a finished form. But I don’t mind them as much now. I heard many times on dev streams that a great deal of mechanics related to mining and production is very much still under discussion. And it is understandable tbh. It feels like they are focusing on base engine systems rather than on finished gameplay features atm.The overpowered backpack/jetpack and a barebone simplified production might be indeed just a placeholders in order to test those base game systems like, you know, basic flight in and out of planets, interaction with terrain and grid physics. Don’t forget that it is a brand new game engine and all those basic things are pretty ambitious and have to be tested, polished and optimized. I stopped playing it on regular basis. I tested it. I reported bugs and gave my feedback about various things. I continue interesting conversations in here. As many of us I am primarily interested in gameplay mechanics as this is a game after all not a technology showcase. I think there is still a long journey until we can truly enjoy playing this game. And it’s fine. As long as devs actually understand the importance of gameplay over technical perfection or idiotic marketing ideas.

photo
1

I still don't think that this is just a placeholder. Why would Keen introduce a placeholder system when all the requirements for the "real" system were already there right from the beginning?

  • The blocks are there (smelter, refinery, assembler, etc.).
  • Time was spent on the 2D/3D artwork for all items.
  • Item processing through blocks and item generation through mining voxels work.

They are already creating missions that use the production system. Everything will have to be adjusted if they plan to change it later.

If they wanted to speed things up to test other game systems, they would only need to reduce the waiting times and ingredient amounts for the production steps.

Removing ingots and adding a magic backpack is not a matter of development resources—it's a matter of game design.

Marek wanted to make the game more accessible, he introduced this new system as a solution to make things "better."

So the problem is much bigger than just having to wait until Keen releases the "real" production system. We have to convince Keen that their current approach is terrible.

The good news: Everything has already been written down on this site multiple times.

The bad news: Now it's up to Keen to take that feedback into account and change the game accordingly.

photo
1

Yeah Keks, I am worried too about this game following too much the idea of appealing to the widest possible audience instead of focusing on what this game was already strong at. They should be building on top of those solid foundations that players like me, you, and thousands upon thousands of others have spent countless hours playing, improving those foundations instead of creating hollow, untested and already widely criticized oversimplified gameplay on top of pretty impressive visuals.

Ultimately, I think that's a bad strategy imo.

People like me and you will play this game, get frustrated, write bad reviews and spread bad reputation. So not many of those "wide audiences" they are trying to appeal to will even buy the game in the first place.

I like that they are putting a lot of resources into building the best game possible, and I understand that they want to make something accessible to a wider audience. But let's be honest: 90% of their marketing is SE1 players.

Those are the people who already know what Space Engineers is, what makes it special, and what they are expecting from SE2. If you alienate that audience by removing or oversimplifying the core gameplay they loved, I don't think you magically gain a bigger audience. I'd say the original game was never too complex, not for any particular gameplay system in isolation. Sandbox games are inherently more involved and will never attract casual players, nor that this game actually needs them. Accessibility won't improve much by simplifying systems that were not complex to begin with. The gameplay that makes sense and is grounded in reality can only make the game more accessible. Complex != Complicated. Sometimes, having a bit more complex game mechanics can lead to a much better engagement for all kinds of players. People who like hardcore survival or automation games will complain that it is still way too simple, while players who like to just smash ships together in creative will always say it is too complex. Even if you give them a single button to press, they will still say, "Oh, why do I need to press this button so often?" :)

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