Extra production steps and assembly lines ***ARE*** gameplay

RestInPieces shared this feedback 20 days ago
Not Enough Votes

After playing with the new production system, I have to say, I am disappointed.

The old production chain wasn't a chore. It created gameplay. Designing refineries, storage systems, conveyor networks, and automated assembly lines was meaningful and rewarding.

Instead of making the game poorer, I would argue not for just bringing back ingots - which made logistics, storage, and transportation more meaningful - but also expanding industrial production even further.

A mining outpost feeding a refinery, which supplies multiple factories like a steel mill for armored components, an electronics fabricator for producing high-end automation chips and nanites, or nuclear facilities producing fuel rods for reactors and railguns. Some of their waste combined with other resources could feed a chemical plant producing chemicals for healing, high-end batteries and maybe more efficient fuels. Interstellar travel could require a special manufactured material - not just a big chunk of power. Provided it's not just a free fast travel gimmick as it is now.

Building larger ships stops being a matter of feeding resources into a single smelter and instead becomes the culmination of an entire industrial ecosystem that you designed.

If you want to remove friction and drudgery, remove the atrocious repetitive contract system and replace it with actual colonization where valuable infrastructure and research is rewarded instead.

Replies (5)

photo
2

Agreeing with this is easy, but the committed direction of SE2 is at odds with that desire.

I say SE2 should fork, one version that wants to be NMS(*) minus the good bits, and another that wants to be SE1 x 10.


(*). Not that NMS isn't trying hard to be SE and ED + aliens, animals and an infinite number of rock species that all look the same across the universe, but somehow all have different names.

Though I have to admit that the NMS undersea looks awesome.

photo
1

Yeah, too soon to say. The production chain might even increase in complexity, with what they already have planned (but kept hidden from us). So introducing different game modes, makes more sense than, trying to force one version of gameplay, on all users. As such, it also makes more sense, for the development cycle to prioritize developing the current system; then, adding additional content for a "classic" mode.

photo
photo
1

agree

photo
1

I am also disappointed by the lack of meaningful production line; it's fairly easy to build a small factory that can produce everything we could ever need. I miss having to care about the base layout and what is connected to what. In Se2 building large ships is mostly a matter of collecting the ore, a large chunk of the ship building can be done with the backpack crafting.

photo
1

the contract system is obviously far from finished and the devs have mentioned refining the production chain and items many times. Check out the dev streams and a lot of these posts would be answered 😅 would be nice if people would take a little more time before posting here so that completely unanswered issues get focused on

photo
1

Can you link a single written dev source that says that they plan on expanding the production chain?

photo
2

@Booth - I would love to share such optimism, but when a game is a big chunk of its way through development there is less incentive to make such changes. Balancing gameplay can be a tough nut to crack, it can be a gradual and iterative process that would be deeply affected by significant changes in the production chain. It would be more effective to implement such changes earlier rather than later, to test and refine levels of satisfaction. In terms of any mention of changes to the production chain by KSH on the streams, I detect a degree of resistance and hesitation by Keen given the current reasoning and the split of opinions offered by the player base. Much is to do about where the players game focus is, and for many SE players it is within the intricacies of the game, within the breadth and depth of play, whilst other players are easier to sate.

photo
1

One year and three-quarters since the release of the first public version... (27. 1. 2025)

photo
1

Also keep in mind the devs own descriptions about their 'vertical slice' method, where they introduce features 'when they're mature' (I think that was the word they used), as in 'we're developed this feature to a state that we think it'll be good to go' instead of releasing a bunch of half finished features in a buggy mess. This means that if we get a feature in a VS release, that's pretty much how they've planned it to work, pending other feature's impacts.

I too would love to see a specific dev comment about how the production chain is planned if not this. I don't frequent the dev diaaries, so it could be there, but from what they said at the outset (which I poorly paraphrased above), I would be surprised that short of us providing the feedback as we've been doing, they'd change much of anything core-feature wise and would simply focus on bug fixing.

photo
1

https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceEngineers/streams


There isn't anything written that I've seen, but at the end of every stream they take questions. At least two of the streams in the last couple of months have talked about the production chain, I can't remember the exact wording but honestly ... burden of proof is on the person raising the issue, I'm not about to go sift through them all 😅


My main point, is that while its great that we have this portal, if you're truly invested enough that you want to be heard, then you should be invested enough to at least go through the QandA portions of the streams to see where the current goals are and how similar questions are being addressed. For an example, I know that ingots have been mentioned at least once in the last month or so ... my memory is terrible so if I'm recalling it then it couldn't have been that long ago 😅


This way, when you raise an issue or make a request, you can integrate what the dev team has already stated and can make sure you're not just saying the same thing that's already been said.


Sorry if that first post came off as a bit rough, wasn't trying to be a butt, was just early in the morning and I didn't state that as nicely as I could have.


Side note, I agree that the production chain needs a little work, and I'm certain that either the stream before the last or the one before that, they mentioned that the recipes could still change, again I definitely recall something about ingots being thrown around. Personally I think the balance is "almost" perfect for the early game, hardcore long time SE players will disagree but Keen is very obviously trying to gain new players and they can only do that by making the early game easily accessible. That said, strengthening the mid and end gameplay loops with more complex recipes would go a long way towards satisfying the hardcore players while still maintaining the low bar for entry required for a game to be truly accessible for most people. Should also note that ores WILL be more sparse as development continues, this has been mentioned many times, and that will go a long way in making the game function more as the OP here has requested. Right now, ores are pretty well everywhere, and if you go to Kemik you can get everything you need to build anything in the game, when the ores are redistributed and more sectors are available that will make a big difference.

photo
3

I try to follow Marek's blog, read their newsletter, watch the youtubers who summarize the news, I've watched some of their streams - I heard no such thing - and most importantly, more than a tangible year of development. Don't try to police or discredit posts with things you vaguely remember to be thrown around, buried somewhere in a series of devstreams - especially not that far in development - it's not like they announced it yesterday.

When it was announced there was backlash, and many said "wait don't complain that's just them preparing to expand it in other ways" etc. Well I did wait.

In the end you can just agree to disagree, I can respect that. And keep in mind that this and other posts like it, will eventually fade out because people will not be interested enough to make them. Until then I will voice my opinion and awe at their technical achievement (it's an inspiration to me as a dev) and beautiful art, and at the same time be amazed by their incompetence/indifference to create an actual gameplay loop, or even a coherent/pleasant tutorial: "Go to 'the barn', fetch this, fetch that, fetch more, repair this by fetching that, hey make a hydro spaceship!". I mean... they increased accessibility... because they do want new players...?

edf4658ae6437181042baa40caf14c11


Anyhow indifference from me and others will soon follow - please have patience! Cheers.

photo
photo
4

A lot of questions are indeed still unanswered.

"Survival Foundations" VS, what is it? We get overly simplified production on one hand and, at the same time, boring contracts as the main "survival" path on the other. "Classic" (I hate calling it that way) survival was added as an afterthought later, buried in a submenu. No wonder so many people were infuriated by this.

This is a new game, ofc, and we expect new mechanics, but not at the cost of removing the majority of the valuable ideas that made the original game great. If before there were 100s of ways to design things, plan logistics, cooperate and engineer contraptions, now it feels like all of that has been trivialized in the name of "accessibility" and some unknown "vision" that the devs never actually try to explain anywhere.

For now, it seems like they are trading many of the good attributes of the original game for things we can find in countless other games, instead of doubling down on its true original identity and strengths.

I know it's hard to make a sequel better than the original title. This is why certain games, especially sandbox survival games, never get a sequel in the first place, tbf. And if you want to make something like "Minecraft Legends" in the world of Space Engineers, then don't make fools out of your loyal customers. Name it something different and state clearly what kind of game you're making.

Oh, and it's interesting that after the initial backlash from releasing this "baby-accessible", oversimplified survival gameplay, many other features are now being blindly copied from the original game instead of being "reimagined" or significantly improved.

Think primitive wheel suspensions, the same automation blocks, the same mechanical blocks, the same weapons so far. Many of those things could have been done in a different, new way. But no, they're mostly being ported with mild improvements.

Many people have been asking for additional mechanical blocks, subgrid control, better and actually useful wheels and suspensions, but we can see only those marked as "not planned".

If things continue like this, I don't think I'll be interested in playing this "SE Dungeons" in the long run, or recommending it to anyone.

photo
1

It is not all bad, perhaps. Logically, the things they release first will be the things from SE1, since they are already developed. All the truly 'new' stuff will come last, since it takes longer to develop, as seen from the ideas they are bouncing around from their concept art. They have a truck load of feedback, abit some a bit painful, but worth gold for years to come. Better feedback in a forum than reviews on Steam.

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