Thermal Mechanics: Reentry, Detection, Heat Management

Watched your video and I have to say good sir, it's the most thoughtful one I've seen on the subject. I strongly disagree with heat management being a mechanic as the proposal sits right now and drafted a video response to your own video here. It runs long, but you gave us pretty much a full systems proposal so there's alot to analyze and go over. I must say there are some parts that concern me greatly due to phrasing and not enough elaboration on certain things. The proposal has merit and I certainly wouldn't call it useless, but I will say it needs more thought and expansion in the realm of benefits vs the sacrifice required in the realm of build freedom. Currently for how you've proposed it for someone like myself I don't see enough to make me want to run it. You've got a great start in some of the challenges to overcome with it, the form some of the blocks would take and so on, but I wish there was more elaboration in certain areas, and more potential benefits mentioned. I agree with you that if as a community we're going to have some tougher conversations that now is the time to do it.

As part of my response, I do go over some ways to potentially balance the scales and give some more return on investment for hesitant players and perhaps even those who may be opposed to it. You've got good bare bones of a system, but it needs more polish and thought. Admittedly my response ran long, but feel free to agree/disagree with any of it.

Video response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGlCvuTPc80

I'm pretty much certain heat would be a turn on/off setting on a world or server level. The main benefit of letting the heat system for later is it could be done more thoroughly with all necessary considerations, whereas the detriment would be players would have to wholly redesign their already built ships if they wanted to play with the system.

On the other hand, introducing too many toggles and settings is gonna get overwhelming for new players, more so than a well explained mechanic. It all comes down to the tutorials and in-game hint system, imho.

I also just created an account for that and you gave me the Idea, if you build the radiators outside they cool quick but are exposed and if you hide them they cant work as efficently. Th

Yeah, exactly! Would really love to see this.

Dude building high heat producing factories and putting some sort of liquid cooling system in it would be Stationeers level engineering and really make this a Space ENGINEERS game.

Yeah would see more factories on water. Makes water valuable and dangerous at the same time because it’s the best place to build then to run your factory efficiently. It’s like an strategy game where all gold is in the middle and conflict occur more easy.

It should toggle on and off. Like an update.

The Szenario where you always need two sets of ships from keen build with and without heat management is probably harder to implement.

The easier Szenario is if it just draws the efficiency down. Standard ship don’t have cooling equipment, then they are just slower then they could be. So could be ship always work no matter which blocks are build in there.

Of course you could switch of the limiter and risk overheating.

I’d say it should be core because if you add it later then builds which did not engineer for heat will constantly shut themselves off from overheating until cooling blocks are added. It would require people to update a lot of workshop builds.

I usually don’t worry then the game has mod support all the mistakes are usually fixed by the community and how we can play how we want it. So that’s way I believe does SE1 survived so long.

This is the problem with the heat system and why it shouldn't implemented in its current form. It's little more than a weapon to punish people who build "incorrect" or in this case "with no thought out design." If someone is able to get a ship put together with 50+ turrets that doesn't just blow itself up and all of its turrets, that sounds like thought out design to me. If you or others really want to have some kind of limit for yourself and your crew, then server admins in SE1 already have the ability to place limits in the server settings on how many blocks of various types a grid can have. An admin could limit a grid to 10 gatlings and 20 thrusters just to quantify something if they wanted to. This is an easily portable thing into SE2 that addresses the balance issues without a need for an entirely new mechanic. Also who gets to decide what is "crammed with turrets" and what isn't? Who gets to decide what is "real thought out design" and what isn't? Problem the heat advocates have is the system as it sits now demands too much sacrifice from everyone for little to no positive benefits in return. If someone is able to make a grid work with 50+ turrets without it blowing itself up, that sounds like thought out design to me. If all else fails, just don't play with those people.

agree with many of the points you raised.

Here are some arguments that don’t fully align with yours (again, this doesn’t mean I disagree with everything else):

1. I don’t really buy the argument that people should have full freedom to build “gun bricks.” They should be able to build them — but not as a default, unbalanced option on official servers. For the same reason, you also shouldn’t be able to build “radiator bricks,” which is why I suggested limiting radiator effectiveness (if radiators are even needed at all).

2. As for now, welders will always be preferable to having a crew member go out and repair blocks manually. A welder should generate a meaningful amount of heat as an additional drawback.

I should add a few clarifications to the heat system I have in mind, beyond what I already described in my earlier comment:

• Radiators can be placed anywhere, just like internal thrusters — mainly for performance reasons.
• No active heat-dumping blocks. Otherwise you can still build a “gun brick” by just adding enough water vents or similar active cooling.
• Heat accumulators come with a significant downside: they add mass to your ship.

In the end, I’d probably rename the OP’s suggestion to “Ship Heat Management” rather than a generalized heat system that affects too many aspects of the game.

And finally, here are my answers to your five questions:

1. Why would I want ship heat management?

Mainly because I want more balanced and engaging combat and ship-building. Weapons would naturally overheat instead of relying on arbitrary cooldowns. Large, powerful weapons, thrusters, or reactors would naturally require larger hulls. It adds another tactical layer to both combat and warship engineering.

2. What negatives does this give me?

A slight performance overhead, but not significant if implemented in the simplified way I described.

3. What positives does this give me?

More interesting engineering choices and better overall combat balance.

4. What purpose does this system serve?

Better engineering and better combat decisions translate into better outcomes.

5. What form does this system take?

Some blocks generate heat and transfer it to the hull. The hull passively dissipates heat into the environment.

I also commented under your YT video with this.

There is a way to add heat mechanics to the game. You won’t be thinking too much about it until you decide to make a ship with too many weapons or thrusters. So don’t worry about the complexity or accessibility of the game.

@4Peace: and that right there is the problem and why this heat mechanic is a bad idea as proposed currently. In its current form it's little more than a weapon to punish people who dare build in a way they don't like while hiding behind ambiguous terms like "too many weapons or thrusters". It's players trying to set a limit for everyone else of "you can only have this many weapons and thrusters and no more, and just to make sure you don't get out of line we're going to punish you with this heat mechanic". If your concern is a grid having too many thrusters, weapons, etc. Keen literally gave server admins the ability to go into the settings and limit how many blocks of various types a grid can have on it. If an admin wants to limit grids to 10 gatlings and 20 thrusters just to throw numbers out there, they can. This exists right now and can be ported to SE2 without the need for an entirely new mechanic.

The other issue you and the heat advocates have is something I outlined in my response video I did to Diggrok, if someone is able to do the proper engineering to make a ship with 50+ turrets work without blowing itself up, what concern is it of yours? Use the previous server admin limitation tools or just don't play with those people and call it good. All the so called balance issues heat advocates talk about can be addressed now using systems and methods that already exist. Not to mention, who gets to decide what is "too many thrusters and weapons"? Because what you consider alot and what I consider alot are likely 2 different things.

If you want people to get on board with this, then you need to give people reasons to WANT to do it. If myself or others are going to be expected to alter our builds and give up some of the build freedom we've had for over 10 years now, what kind of return on my investment am I getting for it? What are the positive benefits that would make me want to say "you know what I'm glad I have this heat system turned on"? Because right now all I'm seeing is token gestures essentially of "you can have heat seeking stuff and detection" which may or may not work half the time if someone can just conceal their heat signature. Or worse yet it's all focused on "but gun bricks" and similar stuff. If I'm going to be asked to give up some of my build freedom to make "gun bricks" or similar things people don't like, then I'm going to expect an equal or greater value in return from the heat system being proposed. Can I channel some of that heat into a flamethrower turret? Could I perhaps supercool a ship and make my reactors even more efficient than normal? Cause right now the proposal is like a product demanding $500 of investment for only $200 worth of return in value/entertainment. Why would I or anyone else do that?

Lastly, this is a general statement and not at you specifically. But if people are constantly losing to "gun bricks", ships with internal welders and similar, that tells me one of several things is going on. Either your build/piloting isn't as good as you thought, their build/piloting is just better than yours, you're using bad tactics, or perhaps all of them. Alot of the heat advocates are worrying WAY WAYY too much about dictating to other people how they can and can't build when it doesn't effect them at all unless they choose to be effected by it. If you want more people get on board with the idea of heat, then the heat advocates need to come up with some more positive benefits to it than just what little token things I'm seeing here.

As a long-time Space Engineers player, I just have to weigh in here — what’s the point of this game if we’re forced to act like NASA interns instead of having fun?

We play this game for the joy of building ships, being creative, and messing around freely in space — not to crunch numbers like “space accountants”! The heat system described here sounds super technical, but games are supposed to be entertainment, not NASA entrance exams. I spend hours crafting a ship excited to blast off, explore, and team up with friends on projects — the last thing I want is to stop and calculate “how much heat will I generate exiting the atmosphere?” or “is my power output enough for cooling?” That kind of over-complication sucks all the fun out of the creative process.

Not everyone plays for ultra-realistic simulations. Most of us just want to live out our space dreams casually — no need to master advanced thermodynamics, memorize physics formulas, or break out a calculator. The magic of Space Engineers has always been turning wild ideas into functional ships with minimal friction, not barring players from enjoying the game unless they’re physics whizzes. If I wanted to solve a full physics exam just to leave a planet’s atmosphere, I’d actually submit an application to NASA instead of sitting here staring at a screen, crunching numbers that kill the vibe.

There’s nothing wrong with offering a hardcore mode for players who love deep dives into technical details — but don’t force every player to go through that! A simplified heat system or optional difficulty sliders would make so much more sense. Let casual builders create freely without being bogged down by overly complex mechanics, and let hardcore players get their fix with the detailed stuff. Over-complicating core systems like this will only drive away a huge chunk of the player base. After all, we’re here to play a game, not sit through a mandatory space physics class!

captainbladej52 and Niran

I advice you to read other comments on the topic. In fact, the OP's suggestion might be an overkill. I still upvote it because DEVS usually read not only the original suggestion. My own suggestions in past were often made to the game but only partially or changed in a substantial way yet still marked as "solved in game".

At least read this comment where I propose a simplified version.

You should consider heat mechanic not as a complicated and realistic system but as a gameplay mechanic that can (and I think surely will) improve certain game aspects. You do not need to calculate anything to fly your ship into orbit or while doing almost anything. You should be caring about it even less than having enough fuel for your ship. But when it comes to balance things like combat it can be very handy tool, especially for vanilla servers, then ofc custom servers can tweak and tune things however they like.

I'm with the others that are against this idea. Although I agree in a real-worl situation this is absolutely a thing to manage. But we're not in a real-world situation. I would want the freedome to fly my "brick" right into the atmosphere and only consider weight, which is enough for me. However, make it a toggle I can turn off, so everyone is happy.

I really hope Space Engineers 2 gets a simple but meaningful heat-management system, something like cooling tubes or basic routing. I’ve reached the point where I’m craving actual design challenges. Right now you can throw thrusters, batteries, and components anywhere, build a total Frankenstein ship, and it still flies. Aside from hydro setups, nothing really forces you to think. Just imagne somebody would say the hydro engine game loop is to complex and i hope it dosent get implemented. What why?!

I don’t want hardcore realism that punishes you, but I do want ship design to matter. Building a random blocky toy ship that works no matter what isn’t challenging or satisfying. A light layer of heat management would make layouts feel like real systems instead of a Rubik’s cube of functional blocks.

And I it would give, the smallest gridsize small tubes inside a corridor and outside for example, a real purpose. The detailing alone would make ships look greate just Imagine a tiny cooling line taking damage, failing, and venting steam just like the air pressure release when you open a door to space. You’d have to step outside, track down the leak, and patch it up, exactly like those repair scenes in sci-fi movies. It would add so much immersion.

Huh!? What do you mean it's supposed to be simple and straightforward? It's a space engineering game.

If not vanilla it will be there in mod form once they finally give me a non-hacky scripting platform. I've been working on a fully simulated heat management system in SE for 2 years off and on. I only stopped working on it when SE2 was announced since i didn't want to spend another full year optimizing it only to release it on a dead platform.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3420134294

My biggest concern with Keen building their own thermal system is the ability to disable it. They are unlikely to build a system that will satisfy players. Simple systems are almost always very easy to abuse. Instead of encouraging players to build nice looking ships, the meta bricks will just be a bit uglier. As long as their system can be disabled i don't care one way or the other.

Thank you so much for your your effort.

All of the issues you're describing here can be addressed with existing tools you have as a server admin right now without the need for new mechanics. If you choose not to use those tools, that's a YOU problem and doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.

What I'm getting from your statements is that you've had issues with so called meta players in the past. If that's the case, why are you playing with those people and allowing them on your server? Anytime I played a game such as SE, Ark Survival or similar and there was one guy that was an issue consistently, we either booted them from the group or didn't play with them anymore in the extremes. Often before hand we would all agree to certain build limitations if we were concerned about performance, or didn't want to just meta-game it to death. If they were available, sometimes we would use specific admin tools to further place limits we wanted. All of which was accomplished without new mechanics.

If performance is a concern, you as a sever admin can go into the settings and add restrictions so that a grid could only have 10 gatlings at most and say 20 thrusters. You can specify the restrictions block by block if you want. This is something Keen gave to servers in SE1 that can be moved to SE2 and is something you have available right now. This should be a walk in the park for you to just change a few settings. Then boom you have your limits you want to protect performance and further enforce on your server how you all want to play, and no one outside of the server has to be effected. Beyond saying to make sure you're playing on the best quality of machine possible I'm not going to comment on the hardware side of things as that's an obvious one and folks can afford what whey can afford for servers. If you're still concerned about performance after using the server limitations and made sure your hardware is good, you can institute PCU limits which further limit the size of ships and grids. If there are problematic grids being built already, then step up as a server admin and tell them not to do it for the good of your server. Point being you have options right now that you can use, you just have to sit down and put them into action.

As for builds overall, if you don't like so called meta ships, the solution is simple. DON'T USE THEM. Don't build them, don't fly them, don't have anything to do with them. No one is forcing you or anyone else to build so called meta ships. Build what you like and if you and your crew come across someone on your server that's potentially causing an issue with said meta ships, tell them you would prefer them not to do that, and if they give you grief then you step in as an admin.

Heat detection isn't going to solve your issues with lag nor is it going to magically fix the issues you're talking about. It's going to just tell you "hey there's a ship here". And if they're able to hide their heat signature it won't even tell you that.

As for why a meta player is going to build you a "weird useless ship" as you pretty much summed it up, this is because to them they're trying to use the Most Effective Tactic Available, aka meta. In other words they're trying to get maximum survival and damage they can think of out of a design. If you just don't like the designs then don't use it. Their builds are just as much a valid part of the game as yours are even if you don't like them. Gun bricks and similar are just as valid as little timmy building an Arwing from Star Fox. Also who gets to define when "a ship looks like a ship" or similar?

If you want better combat balance there are ways to do this now with tools you already have without all this other stuff needed. Right now this heat system is little more than a weapon to force one group's playstyle on the entire community as a whole in its current form. If those said "gun bricks" or similar are constantly winning this tells me that one of several things are going on. your build/piloting isn't as good as you think it is, their build/piloting is better, your tactics need to change, or perhaps all of it. If they've put in the proper engineering to make said brick work, what's the issue other than not liking it? What's stopping you or folks from just not playing with those people or using the tools you have now?

Heat management would be awesome. Just make it an option. I would love more sim stuff though.

It's not the detection that gives me pause. It's everything else with it and all the downsides alot of folks are proposing along with it while there is little to no positive benefits beyond potentially some sensors. Not to mention alot of folks focusing on stopping "those darn gun bricks" and similar. Like being asked to make $500 worth of investment for $200 worth of return or entertainment, why would I ever do that? In its current form it's incomplete and is a weapon for people to punish "wrong build" for folks to shut down builds they don't like.

I'm sorry but I also must call shenanigans on "this is an engineering game" as this can be applied to nearly any argument or feature and is not valid on its own. There's engineering and having challenges, then there's adding things to manage purely to have things to manage and restricting build freedom for next to nothing in return. I'm here to have fun, not have to bust out a bunch of spreadsheets like it's EVE Online or similar. Everything the heat advocates say they want can easily be accomplished by using systems we already have now. I outline alot of the issues in my video I posted above. Right now the heat system is a hard pass for me because it requires too much sacrifice in the realm of build freedom and elsewhere for very little return for said sacrifice. Should heat advocates in time flesh it out more and give more thought to actual benefits then perhaps minds including mine may change. But for now it's a bad idea that's little more than a weapon for punishing "wrong build".

I would love to know do we talk here about this absolut crazy realistic heatmanagment or do we talk about heatmanagment in its entirety? Because i see a lot of creative fun and benefits to it.

@Steve I suspect we are talking about it in terms of it being a game mechanic.

-Balance people want it so that there's a a mechanic to use to encourage reduced use of internal thrusters/gravity drives/gun bricks/fully welderized ships/ect... by necessitating that such a ship be larger to accommodate the heat-management required to run all that stuff.

-Engineering people are looking for more stuff to engineer, as well as a functional reason to encourage both themselves and others to build more interesting designs. Some are probably also looking for a way to challenge themselves with a ship that would melt if they turned everything on so they can have a challenge in making good use of a ship that requires balancing what they have on or off.

-Realism people want it because heat management is realistic.

-Stealth/detection people want it as a way to add a stealth/detection mechanic to the game with which they could pull sneaky shenanigans against people running hotter and so more easily detected grids.

-Simplicity people don't want it because it's extra complexity.

-Build freedom people don't want it because the extra complexity may inhibit building how they want to build.

-Art people are split, either liking how radiators can look and subsequently wanting them, or disliking how radiators look and subsequently not wanting them.

-And I'm sure there's other groups I'm missing...

Personally I like the idea.

-The system doesn't need to be super complicated: stuff generates heat, if it gets too hot it starts taking damage until it cools off (probably about when being disabled by said damage causes it to stop producing heat if the pilot doesn't stop using it), heat sinks take heat from other things and store it, radiators entirely remove heat slowly (possibly with some variation in effectiveness based on environment), active cooling entirely removes heat quickly but burns some manner of coolant (think cooling things with water and then venting the steam).

-It doesn't need to be hard to learn, a quick tutorial segment and some adjustable A/V heat warnings for the pilot/crew should be adequate,

-it would be a "realistic" balance mechanic to inhibit tiny bricks with server-crippling numbers of fixed gats slapped on the front and larger bricks that are just an external shell of turrets over several layers of armor and a bunch of internal thrusters or grav-drives,

-It would encourage more interesting builds,

-Provided there was still a minimum detection range it would allow for a kind of stealth/detection play for those that want it without combat just being "grinder-monkeys-r-us" while giving everyone else a kind of detection/radar that isn't just a script or mod and typically detects things to sound an alarm before they're shooting at you.,

-And just like food/radiation/weather/damage/oxygen it can be a toggle in the server settings so that people who want it can have it and people who don't can leave it out.

Thank you for your answer. I actually never thought about this in a way of detection, but I thinks this stealth game loop is an entire thing for them selfs.

If was more or less curious about the opposing opinion from the comment before if he actually only dislike the hardcore realism thing, because there a some engineering holes like I said early for example a missing system for a transport ship.

Exactly. This is very similar to how food was introduced in SE1. I remember being against it at first too. On the surface it looks like just another bar you have to babysit next to energy and oxygen, but in practice it added a lot to the game and made existing mechanics more meaningful.

Suddenly pressurized space is not just for roleplay or looks, you actually need it to grow food. You are not building a bigger base just because you want to, but because you need room for farms and the infrastructure to support them. That extra bit of survival pressure justifies the small inconvenience of caring about a food bar. And if you really hate it, you can turn it off. But as a default it creates good balance. You can survive much easier on an Earth like planet than in space. FTUE starts on an Earth like world for a reason. You have plants, animals, economy stations, unknown signals, ice everywhere, so food is not a big problem early on.

Hydrogen thrusters are another good example. They are basically the best thrusters in SE1 in terms of weight/performance/universality, but you need pipes and hydrogen to support them. I do not remember people complaining that this is too complex or that it hurts build freedom. You get clear advantages, and in exchange you accept engineering constraints and tradeoffs.

The same applies to heat mechanics. Keep it simple. Another heat bar to manage is fine if it comes with benefits. Better thruster efficiency, better power generation, shorter weapon cooldowns, less detectability at range, stuff like that. Early game and FTUE players should barely notice it. It should only become noticeable when you scale up, spam weapons, run dozens of reactors, or build really large ships and bases.

A system like this can add balance without hard limits. And just like food and radiation in SE1, players should be free to tune it. Want heat to really matter, turn it up. Do not like it at all, turn it off. As long as the default settings are reasonable, it adds depth without forcing complexity on everyone.

Balance gameplay how exactly? And what are the positive benefits to this system? Because all I see are negatives with nothing at all that could be remotely considered a positive benefit. If there were actual positive benefits to a heat system then perhaps I could be convinced and so could others. Right now all I'm seeing is a weapon for people to punish "wrong build" or people building in a way they don't like while hiding behind the combat balance argument. It requires too much sacrifice in the realm of build freedom for little to nothing in return. Like something demanding $500 of investment for maybe $100-$200 as a return on that investment. Why would I throw away $300 for nothing? If the heat advocates actually want to get people on board, they need to focus on positive reasons to make people WANT to use the system. Otherwise it's little more than a weapon to enforce how a smaller group of "hardcore" types think it should be. Everything the heat advocates say they want can be accomplished right now using already existing systems. So I've got to ask, what would be some actual benefits to me using this system? If I'm going to be asked to deal with a mechanic like this, what am I being given in return? What tangible benefits would it net me by turning this system on?

I’ve been following the discussion on thermal mechanics, re-entry, and heat management in Space Engineers 2, and I really appreciate the detailed ideas on managing heat from high-speed atmospheric re-entry, reactors, and weapons — it makes gameplay feel much more strategic and realistic. Also, just for fun, while imagining these high-tech scenarios, I picture myself in the Rodeo Vegas 2025 PFR Brown Leather Jacket — rugged, cool, and ready for whatever space throws at you.

@Bnainz Thrusters would logically put out an enormous amount of heat, and while the bulk of it would be directed away from the ship (assuming people aren't allowed to use internal thrusters or gravity drives again), it would still be necessary to deal with the rest. Of course if thermal-detection is a thing then the thrusters could instead (or simultaneously) produce a much stronger signal for such sensors to detect.

@Captainbladej52 Have you considered all the times it was suggested pairing it with stealth/detection would mean that running cold gives you the advantage of seeing warm opponents before they see you? "Surprise is half the battle" would suggest that gives you a roughly 50% bonus to something... Also, while it isn't a hard numerical benefit, a lot of people playing an engineering game are going to see an incentive to overcome simple challenges and improve as a benefit. They wont give you hard buff suggestions for it because to them its like exercise, the way the challenge changes the person overcoming it is itself the reward. If you can't agree with that and want hard numbers, fair enough, that's just your preference.

As for your apparent need to fly gun-bricks, I'm fairly certain this wouldn't stop you, assuming you turned it on (because if Keen adds this there's no way it wont have a server-toggle) it would just necessitate that your bricks be a bit larger to accommodate the extra space between the guns you'd need for cooling.

Finally, if you want more buffs for being cold than stealth, perhaps you could put together a list? You do occasionally seem to come up with or inspire ideas other people (myself included) wouldn't have otherwise thought about.

@Tael: Whether it has a toggle or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's little more than a weapon to punish "wrong think" or "wrong build" in its current form. They're free to suggest whatever they want, just as again I'm free to call it's a bad idea. I plainly said above, if they fleshed out why people should WANT to use it more, then perhaps more people would be on board including me. If they're going to do a heat system, it needs to be done RIGHT and not half baked. Right now at best it's half baked and an unfinished proposal, and at worst a weapon against "incorrect" build types. I don't have to like every single mechanic added, but if they're going to add said mechanics, then they need to be thought out and completed instead of just being half baked. If they're at least pushed to a proper starting point, I can fill in the rest from there with mods, or just turn it off.

That in mind I don't buy the "it's an engineering game" excuse because anything that increases complexity or does anything can be said to be valid because "it's an engineering game". Sure, people expect to have to do some engineering, but simultaneously it's also a game and meant to be fun. It shouldn't require a fully engineering degree from NASA or having to bust out spreadsheets the size of Texas to play either. Simply because something adds engineering or is realistic doesn't make it automatically good. Complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't make for good gameplay. It shouldn't be so complex it requires an engineering degree to play the game, but likewise it should at least require one to remain conscious at the keyboard while building. Less can be more in content development. I've never seen adding something to manage purely to have something to manage to be fun.

When creating content for games, people need to answer some basic questions while being as specific as possible. In no particular order they are:

When developing content for games you must be able to answer the following questions in no particular order.

1: Why would I ever want to go to this map, use this item, or interact with this NPC?

Why would someone want to visit a map? Is there some kind of objective there? Some kind of resource? Why would folks want to use the item? What does it give them? Why would they want to interact with or not interact with the NPC?

2: What purpose does this item, map, or system serve?

Why does this exist? What is it’s goal? If a weapon type item, why would they want to use it vs another weapon? What reason does this map, item, or system serve in the game? Can you accomplish your goals without the object or is it essential?

3: What form will it take?

How will this manifest itself in the game? What form does it present itself in? If it’s a weapon, is it a gun, is it a sword, is it a magic weapon? Just like there are many types of swords like Katana, long sword, Saber, claymore, or similar with “sword” being the general term to cover them all, there can be many variants of specific objects in game.

4: What negatives does this give me?

What challenges does it present? What potential downsides does it present? What are the tradeoffs in exchange for the positives it gives? Think opposite side of the coin of question 5.

5: What positives does this give me?

What benefits does it give? What ways does it make something better? What are the upsides in exchange for the negatives? Think opposite side of the coin of question 5.

The problem is too many heat advocates give surface level answers at best and those answers tell us nothing when that happens. With proper benefits in addition to tradeoffs it could be a worthwhile feature. If it's purely downsides with little to no benefits, then it's a hard pass for alot of people.

As for build types and what you call my "apparent need to fly gun bricks", I went over this in my video I linked above and even to the followup to a degree. I do not accept the "gun brick" argument as a valid argument. First, what is a gun brick? This definition is going to change from person to person and what I consider a "gun brick" another may not and vice versa. Nearly any build with a weapon can be said to be a "gun brick" if one twists it enough. Whether someone is using only 5 turrets, 50 turrets, or 500+, so long as they've put in the proper engineering to make it work and support it without the use of exploits, it's just as valid of a build and part of the game as a "proper" build. I would also say if someone is constantly losing to said "gun bricks" that tells me their build/piloting isn't as good as they think, their tactics need to change, and/or the other person's build/piloting is just better, perhaps all of it. Each individual server has the tools they need right now to stop this sort of thing if they choose to use it. They can restrict blocks in server settings, make agreements among each other to not use certain build types, and/or ultimately remove problematic players from their servers. I despise mill decks in Magic the Gathering as imo they take no skill to pilot and is just an absolutely garbage strategy that prevents others from even playing at all. However it's still a valid part of the game. If I go to tournaments where I'm likely to run into mill players or I know I'm going against a mill player, my solution is to have counters to it in the deck. My other solution is to simply not play with mill players if in a casual setting.

Likewise "gun bricks" are also a valid part of the game even though people may not like them. Whether it's me flying said gun brick or even Marek himself is irrelevant to the fact it's none of anyone's business so long as exploits aren't involved. I even give a specific example with a much older build of mine in said video (pre-warfare 2). Should a heat system be implement and it be subpar, I would absolutely either turn it off, or just mod in some super potent radiators or similar to nullify the mechanic. That said, whether I choose to build and fly a "gun brick" or not is irrelevant to the fact my ability to do so shouldn't be beholden to a few hardcore gatekeeper types trying to dictate for everyone what is a "proper" build and what isn't. When one of the chief selling points or THE chief selling point of the system is "combat balance" to "stop gun bricks and internal welders" or similar, that tells me it's not about the engineering, but about certain people wanting to force others to play like them instead of using the tools available to them now.

For the buff list you asked for, I gave some in my response to Diggrok. You may not have full context of some of it if you haven't watched either of our videos, but should be able to get a rough idea. For the system proposed by Diggrok, it's assumed that modules/blocks have a standard operating temperature range. So long as they're within this range they don't generate heat, or at least excess heat. As a block/module starts to heat up it can tolerate it's own heat for a time up to a specific limit. Once it reaches this limit it either needs to be allowed to cool itself off, the heat needs to be removed via heat sinks, or it starts eating overheat damage. Once it enters overheat territory it produces heat units. A potential downside was assumed that there is a loss of efficiency of certain blocks as they get too hot. Following is a few examples. Numbers and list were by no means final or exhaustive. These particular benefits were ones I proposed in addition to Diggrok's mention of turbines, heat recyclers, and sensors.

•Increased efficiency if sufficient cooling present: If reactor operates at normal efficiency while no heat units present, and 50% efficiency if 50 heat units present due to overheat, reactor could operate at 110% efficiency if at -10 heat units.

•Weapons could get a few additional shots off before getting too hot with sufficient cooling

•Gas tanks could drain 5% slower due to fuel being condensed. Gas tanks could store 5% additional gas if sufficiently cooled. If gas tanks get too warm they would lose benefits and can’t regain them unless cooled again. If gas tank gets too warm while it has the extra 5% it would trigger “pressure release valve” to vent the extra 5% gas to mimic propane tanks and similar today.

•Refineries and crafting blocks could refine/craft 5% faster. (percentages given for sake of discussion purposes. Some of this is purely for gameplay reasons and not purely realism.)

•“Heat Condenser” block to weaponize heat: Block that could be akin to custom air vent type block that “vents” heat for X distance in a direction in front of it and can superheat an area to get rid of intruders. If air vent seems too bland, consider heat turret type of weapon that would be pseudo flamethrower without the flame. Or perhaps make actual flamethrower turrets.

•Just as exposing plants to vacuum of space in SE1 can kill them, heat could perhaps be used to accelerate growth of certain plants.

•As heat opens the door for burnt/crispy skin visuals, it could also open the door for more chilled/cold visuals.

•Lack of heat could be used to preserve certain food items, and addition of heat can be used to cook or destroy certain items.

•Thermal vision for engineer suits

These are a few examples of things and again by no means exhaustive or final. If folks are going to propose something, then think it through, be as specific as one can and knows how. Right now it's like a business proposal where the heat advocates are trying to convince people to invest. In this case they're trying to convince people to sacrifice some of their previous build freedom in order to add this mechanic. Okay just as I would ask if it were cash irl, if I'm going to be asked to invest some of my build freedom, what am I getting in return? Because I'm going to expect equal or greater value in return for what I'm being asked to give up. Right now the heat advocates simply aren't there. Especially when most of the benefits they're proposing are things Keen was going to do anyways.

You're putting in a lot of effort against this POSSIBILITY of mechanics. There's not the slightest chance of you being convinced. No matter how good the argument is.

The correct thing to do, then, would be to make it optional. That way, we would see which option would be popular on dedicated servers.

There’s actually a lot of value in having a heat system.

People often argue that it “punishes” certain building styles, but right now you can throw a ship together with almost no thought and it will still fly from A to B. That lack of challenge is boring. If you at least have to think about heat—just like you think about hydrogen tanks or mining ships—you get a small puzzle to solve. That’s not punishment, that’s meaningful engineering.

The real benefit of heat management isn’t difficulty for its own sake. It’s that good engineering could let you fly faster for longer, or even let you overboost without damaging your thrusters. You could have functional blocks like:

• Vents to release heat
• Heat converters that turn heat into a bit of energy
• Heat tubes to route heat from thrusters, batteries, or generators into vents and converters

Like advanced assembler modules, but cooler because these parts would be visibly functional and not just decoration.

Damage would also feel more interesting. Instead of “we lost a few blocks but still fly fine,” you might have to fix your cooling system just like you need to fix hydrogen lines. Different damage types make ships feel alive.

My main focus is this: your ship should feel like a machine you engineered, not a pile of blocks placed at random. In real vehicles you always work within limitations that push creativity. Right now, the only limitation is avoiding accidental clang.

As for thermal vision or detection systems, that’s a much bigger gameplay loop on its own and can be handled separately. I don’t expect that to be developed at the same time as basic heat mechanics.

Imagine your nuclear reactor gets damaged and you have to repair the heat pipes before it overheats. You move close to the exposed, radioactive generator, and it slowly harms you. Your ship can’t reach full speed anymore, but you still need to escape. While your friend is getting blasted by radiation, you’re dodging more damage and trying to keep the ship alive.

Or picture your control panel warning you that a system is overheating, alarms going off, and you needing to react quickly. That kind of immersion is what I love.

I really want that and also many people didn't like the survival aspect and now they love the update, because it brings meaning to the spacetravel, becaue pressurized rooms where not nessesary before. Heatmanagment would bring meaning to the surroundeing / Iceplanet or desserplanet and form the inside your ship aswell. There is so much to love right there!

Laser weapons and tools.

SE2 will need them.

They, as end-game blocks, require a lot of cooling to function.

And again, anyone who wants to use them in any way "IN THEIR GAME" will have that option.

@Alliguierg Vasconcelos

While hit-scan weapon insanity was fun in the insta-gib games back in Unreal Tournament, I'd be concerned that even with massive power-requirements they'd still be too disruptive to combat-balance for SE.

@Captainbladej52

"Whether it has a toggle or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's little more than a weapon to punish "wrong think" or "wrong build" in its current form."

-I'm fairly certain only a server's admins can weaponize the ability to toggle server-settings, and I seriously doubt it will be any more punishing than needing to provide hydrogen for your hydrogen thrusters, power for your jump-drives, or the correct parts for your welders. In short, much like voluntary exorcise it is only punishment if you choose to take it a such.

Why would I use this feature?

-Challenge to produce self improvement, fun engineering a system, and to help balance the combat side of the game with a mechanic that produces a soft-cap on certain shenanigans in the event they would become an issue (such as gravity drives that let 1-1 scale capital ships hit the speed cap in any direction as soon as the key is pressed or gatling walls large enough to win as much by lag as they do by raw damage output).

What purpose does this system serve?

-Challenge to produce self improvement, fun engineering a system, and to help balance the combat side of the game...

What form will it take?

-Heat production and dissipation.

What negatives does this give me?

-Requires some extra thought and attention to detail when builds start getting really crazy.

What positives does this give me?

-Challenge to produce self improvement, fun engineering a system, and to help balance the combat side of the game...

"...surface level answers..."

- 42 (if you get it, get yourself a cup of something almost but not quite entirely unlike tea). Some folks think things through, some don't, but if you are expecting sensical answers giving deep insights to the question of life, the universe, and everything from the singular question of why people would want something they think would make a game more fun, then odds are you are unlikely to find the answers you get to be satisfactory.

"...gun brick..."

-The precise definition is entirely subjective, and yet everyone still knows what they are. Some folks think they need to be balanced, some don't, and others still just wish the engineers of said bricks were more creative in their design. Personally the last gun brick I faced irritated me by being a low-effort "throw resources at it until its big enough to win" design meant to prove size always trumps skill, so when we fought I cored it with some blast-doors from a gravity cannon mounted to a ship a fifth its size.

You want to put all your eggs in the turret basket and fly a gun brick? Go for it, heat-considerations will just make the design more interesting.

"List"

It generally looks good to me, save that I'd probably both not alter gas-flow-efficiency from tanks (I assume you're not trying to reduce someone's hydrogen-thruster output by starving the thruster of its fuel supply, and having a tank pull 5.3% more fuel out of nowhere to feed things on top of already having 5% more fuel stored just sounds silly), and that I'd probably cap buffs/debufs to specific blocks to no more than +/- 10% to avoid unexpected feedback loops making exciting events like fights bog down until its like watching two guys trying to box while submerged in molasses.

So, odds are you still don't want heat, and as Alliguierg said I suspect you can't be convinced, but I do hope in reading this you managed a slightly better better view of why other people want heat, and I do thank you for the list.

@Alliguierg Vasconcelos: In its current form with next to no positive benefits, you're absolutely right you'll never convince me. Because right now it's a bad idea and nothing but a weapon to punish people who don't build how a small group of hardcore gatekeeper types think everyone should build. When someone's main reason for wanting the system is stopping "gun bricks", internal welders" or similar with little to no thought to positives, this tells me it's not about the engineering but that person wanting to control how others build and/or them being unable to beat said gun bricks or ships with internal welders. So instead of improving their build/piloting or changing tactics, or using the server options Keen gave them to place limits for their individual server, they're demanding everyone else as a whole be restricted because they as a small handful don't like it. So yeah I'm going to oppose that every single time. The heat advocates who want to say "but combat balance" already have options such as the server settings that can place limits on the amount of turrets, welders, etc a ship can have. They can also make agreements among each other not to build certain ways, or even eject certain people from their server that are problems. Otherwise outside of their individual server, gun bricks and internal welders are valid parts of the game and they don't get to tell me or others we're wrong for using parts of the game Keen themselves implemented.

The correct thing to do is the heat advocates use the tools they're given instead of demanding everyone else be forced to play like them by default. I can count on one hand how many things I've seen heat advocates propose that can't be done by the tools we already have now.

So tell me, why would I voluntarily give up build freedom for a feature that's nothing but downsides in return and pure negatives? Just like investing in a business venture. If I'm going to be asked to invest $500 worth of cash into said venture, then I better get back $500 or greater in return for said investment, or it's a bad investment. Why would anyone thinking rationally ever be okay with investing $500 and getting only $200 and eating a $300 loss? Now apply that to game mechanics here. Why would I ever sign off and vote for a system that gives me less freedom than I have now and a ton of negatives? Do tell. If you want people to invest into the system and get on board, then start focusing on some positives to it or it's going to rightfully go nowhere.

@Steve Schreiner: My dude, all I'm hearing out of your post is adding difficulty for the sake of difficulty and I do not find that fun at all nor do most people. Everything I'm seeing in there is simply stealing existing build freedom from me, sticking a bunch of conditions on it to get back to where it was before, and pretending you've done me a favor. Like when an internet or cable company lowers my speeds, jacks up my bill, and adds a bunch of extra duplicate channels I never asked for all while pretending they've done me a favor. You say there's value in the heat system, but I've yet to see it. If there's all this value, why are the heat advocates either unwilling or unable to come up with more than token positives like "oh but heat sensors" even though they've said we're getting more sensor anyways? Why are the heat advocates unwilling or unable to name specific positives instead of giving vague subjective answers? But let's break down your post here.

"People often argue that it “punishes” certain building styles, but right now you can throw a ship together with almost no thought and it will still fly from A to B. That lack of challenge is boring. If you at least have to think about heat—just like you think about hydrogen tanks or mining ships—you get a small puzzle to solve. That’s not punishment, that’s meaningful engineering."

That's because it does punish people in its current form as there is no upside to what's being proposed. If I want to build a larger battleship or dreadnought with internal welders to keep the ship rolling when I'm going solo or without my full crew, I'm now being told by heat advocates my build is wrong because it doesn't conform to their standards of what is "challenging" and because it "doesn't require enough thought". So first up, where exactly do you people keep getting this idea that just because a ship isn't built to your particular standards that no thought went into it? I fail to see how building a ship with 50+ turrets on it that don't blow themselves or their own grid up is considered "thoughtless" but a ship that has 10 turrets on it doing next to no damage and dies to a single salvo is good. I also fail to see how people being able to build simple ships to get from A to B is a bad thing. That tells me that most anyone can pick the game up and make something passable without needing an engineering degree.

So tell me. What is my reward for solving this puzzle you speak of? If prior to adding said puzzle I only need to do steps 1 2 and 3 to get my ship going, and now I have to do steps 4 5 and 6 on top of it, what is my equal or greater return on investment? What is my greater or equal benefit to having to now include steps 4 5 and 6? Because "you get to solve a puzzle" isn't a good enough answer here. You've added difficulty for the sake of difficulty.

Here are 4 ships of mine that I've created using my rebalance mod.

Dreadnought: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3450440014

Cruiser: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3397484020

Destroyer: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3312561318

Fighter: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3060453355

The dreadnought is my second largest ship, cruiser is a mid sized ship, and the destroyer is my smallest large grid ship. The fighter is the all purpose longer range fighter from my second squadron. I already know you're going to call them gun bricks, but you can see some of the internal and external photos of the ships. You can also get an idea of the fighter from its photo. You can see some of the weapons and engines layout. Critical systems are covered by repair welders to keep them running in a fight. Ships are designed to attack from specific angles on a 3d plane and end the threat as quickly as possible. Are they cosmetically the prettiest ships, no they're not. However they do the job I need them to do. There's always stuff I could do differently after the fact, but it is what is is. Idk about you but I don't like my ships feeling super cramped inside. So tell me, what makes those ships any less thought out than a "proper" build? What constitutes my ships not being "meaningful engineering" but somehow yours or that of the next guy are? Be specific in your citations. If/when I port my stuff to SE2, why would I want them to be an inferior quality?

"The real benefit of heat management isn’t difficulty for its own sake. It’s that good engineering could let you fly faster for longer, or even let you overboost without damaging your thrusters. You could have functional blocks like:

• Vents to release heat
• Heat converters that turn heat into a bit of energy
• Heat tubes to route heat from thrusters, batteries, or generators into vents and converters

Like advanced assembler modules, but cooler because these parts would be visibly functional and not just decoration."

Nah dude, that's difficulty for the sake of difficulty. It's stealing build freedom from me, complicating it to get it back, and pretending you've done me a favor. See previous examples of the internet company lowering my speed, jacking up my bill, adding a bunch of junk on I didn't ask for, then pretending they've done me a favor. I can already fly virtually forever now with no issues so long as I have fuel/energy. So tell me, why would I ever want to use a heat system that now requires me to slowdown, pause and cool, then boost back, only to have to slowdown, pause and cool, then boost back up again, and repeating that cycle over and over, when right now I can just get up to speed and forget it until I'm where I need/want to be?

As for your heat converter thing, I'm going to ask the same question I asked Diggrok in his video. What kind of conversion rate are we talking about? Assuming max efficiency, how much heat would be removed by a single converter and how much energy would said converter give me? Assume a block the size of a standard 2.5m cube like a large grid cube now in SE1. We talking a few kilowatts, a few megawatts, a gigawatt or better? As for heat removal we talking like 2% heat removal, 50%+ or what?

Because all I'm seeing is a needless mechanic adding difficulty for difficulty sake and finding an excuse to introduce glorified deco blocks. Sure they function, but they're glorified deco blocks because it's adding a bunch of downsides just to make people put "visibly functional" heat blocks on stuff. What's the benefit to me here? Because again I can already fly infinitely or near infinitely now without a heat mechanic.

"Damage would also feel more interesting. Instead of “we lost a few blocks but still fly fine,” you might have to fix your cooling system just like you need to fix hydrogen lines. Different damage types make ships feel alive."

We already need to keep up with repairs now so this isn't adding anything new. Also damage is damage, it doesn't need to be overly complicated. Whether it's a hull breach in the armor, some conveyors that need to be fixed, or replacing a few internal blocks, it's all the same. At best heat is neutral in this instance that adds no positives or negatives and just exists. At the worst, it adds additional damage that wasn't there before. Also the part of your statement in bold is subjective. For me, damage is damage. It doesn't matter if it's a reactor, armor or so on. If you're able to enjoy it more then you do you.

"My main focus is this: your ship should feel like a machine you engineered, not a pile of blocks placed at random. In real vehicles you always work within limitations that push creativity. Right now, the only limitation is avoiding accidental clang."

And this right here is the problem. You're asking them to implement a mechanic that would impact the entirety of the community in some way based on vague ambiguous and ultimately subjective definitions that will ultimately differ from person to person. If you're going to want to get people behind you, you need to be specific with this stuff. So to the bit in bold I'm going to ask the obligatory questions. First, who gets to determine what is a "pile of randomly placed bricks" and what isn't? Also how are we defining the difference between a proper ship and said pile of bricks? What's the differing standard that says "this is a brick pile" and "this is a proper ship." You clearly have a standard in mind in your head or you wouldn't have made the statement you did. So why not tell us what that standard is? In SE you're limited by your time, imagination, physics, and your willingness/ability to use mods. There's more to it than just avoiding accidental clang as is. Overall if you're going to insist that there are ships that can be piles of randomly placed bricks, you need to be willing to define what that looks like. Lastly on this part of the subject, I consider my ships I linked above to be things I engineered. Some folks may say the engineering is bad or I should've done something different. However that doesn't make the builds any less valid. I don't have to like someone's build, but my disliking it on its own doesn't make the build invalid.

"As for thermal vision or detection systems, that’s a much bigger gameplay loop on its own and can be handled separately. I don’t expect that to be developed at the same time as basic heat mechanics."

Can it be handled separately, sure. But why would it be? If you're already adding heat to everything, just bite the proverbial bullet and stick the signatures and sensor on it. The bulk of it is already done by that point. You're just deciding how to broadcast the heat state, and how the sensor presents that data to the person on the other end of the sensor. Also I've seen enough of the "yeah we're going to give you all these negatives now and all the benefits later" to know that rarely ever ends well. With that said, we're right back to square one of "what are the benefits" since you're saying this could be added later. So again what are the benefits? Like specifically what new benefit would heat get me?

I mentioned thermal vision as just one example because if we're going to do a thing like heat it needs to be done right and there needs to be reasons for people to want to invest into the system and play with it. Right now it's like you're trying to convince me to buy a car from you but only talking about all the negatives with it. Okay what's my motivation to buy?

"Imagine your nuclear reactor gets damaged and you have to repair the heat pipes before it overheats. You move close to the exposed, radioactive generator, and it slowly harms you. Your ship can’t reach full speed anymore, but you still need to escape. While your friend is getting blasted by radiation, you’re dodging more damage and trying to keep the ship alive."

And there we've got another foolish restriction in bold for no good reason. You're also not adding anything new here. All you're doing is introducing another damage layer where one didn't exist before and now trying to artificially slow my ship on top of it when that didn't exist before. In order for the reactors in SE to spew radiation, they have to be damaged to the point they're non-functional. Adding in heat pipes on top of that just complicates the process even more for no discernable benefit. Plus I can pop a radiation syringe right now and buy myself the time I need.

Which brings me to the next big thing, having to add a bunch of heat pipes to everything vs having heat passively move to heat dissipation blocks would obliterate any performance you could ever hope to gain. In addition it would also be a nightmare trying to pipe up blocks that don't have conveyor access and similar. So why would I want inferior reactors? Again you're describing nothing but downsides here.

"Or picture your control panel warning you that a system is overheating, alarms going off, and you needing to react quickly. That kind of immersion is what I love."

We can already setup damage warnings for systems now. So what exactly is new here? Once more what's the positive to this? What's my benefit for accepting the tradeoff of overheat risk?

"I really want that and also many people didn't like the survival aspect and now they love the update, because it brings meaning to the spacetravel, becaue pressurized rooms where not nessesary before. Heatmanagment would bring meaning to the surroundeing / Iceplanet or desserplanet and form the inside your ship aswell. There is so much to love right there!"

People liked the food update and survival updates because they actually listened to players in telling them "we want (thing)" and gave it to them. People said they didn't want the food system to be another carbon copy/paste of "eat/drink or die" with no benefits, and Keen listened by giving us some survival buffs one could earn along with the food. In addition we can also eat various foods to not only fill the hunger meter but we can also heal from some of those foods if we don't have dedicated medpacks or easy access to a survival kit or similar in the moment. Point being Keen gave actual worthwhile benefits in exchange for the tradeoff of now having to worry about hunger. I was 100% opposed to a food system if it was going to be just "eat/drink or die" and the only "benefit" was "you don't die".

Adding a heat system as it is right now isn't going to get you that same "on second thought we actually love this" kind of reaction you're hoping for. The food system got that "we actually love this" because there were tangible benefits to the system in addition to the downsides. The heat system has no tangible benefits that are equal or greater than the multitude of downsides being proposed. So again why would I want to sacrifice a ton of build freedom for a bunch of restrictions for nothing in return? Why would I want an overall lesser quality of game? Because that's ultimately what this is right now. It's the cable company jacking my bill up, lowering my internet speeds, and adding on a bunch of junk I never asked for and pretending they did me a favor. If you want more people to come onboard, then give folks some actual positives they would get for being willing to suffer the tradeoffs.

@Tael: your comment wasn't showing on my screen when I drafted my above responses so I'll address it now. You at least tried to answer the questions so you get credit for that part. Simultaneously you also fell into that same pitfall of ambiguous vague answers as did the guy that commented on my youtube video. I'll address that in a moment.

"-I'm fairly certain only a server's admins can weaponize the ability to toggle server-settings, and I seriously doubt it will be any more punishing than needing to provide hydrogen for your hydrogen thrusters, power for your jump-drives, or the correct parts for your welders. In short, much like voluntary exorcise it is only punishment if you choose to take it a such."

The point behind Keen giving us the ability to restrict certain blocks in the server settings is to deal with the exact issues the heat advocates describe of said gun bricks or similar that people complain about. If gun bricks, internal welders or similar are a concern, server owners already have a means to deal with it. Meaning the whole "we need heat to balance combat" is not true. The issue isn't new mechanics. The issue is that the new mechanics are making the blocks worse for no discernable benefit for being willing to deal with the tradeoff. For something to be a tradeoff there has to be a positive benefit in addition to the negative. There is currently no positive benefits.

If previously I could do 1 2 and 3 to get my ship to where I want, and now I have to do 4 5 and 6 on top of it with no equal or greater benefit, then yes that is a punishment. If before hand I had to 1 2 and 3 to get my ship where I want, but now if I can't get my ship to where I want even after doing 4 5 and 6, then yes that's a punishment and not voluntary under the system. It's the system saying "do this or else" and yeah nah.

"-Challenge to produce self improvement, fun engineering a system, and to help balance the combat side of the game with a mechanic that produces a soft-cap on certain shenanigans in the event they would become an issue (such as gravity drives that let 1-1 scale capital ships hit the speed cap in any direction as soon as the key is pressed or gatling walls large enough to win as much by lag as they do by raw damage output)."

And that right there in bold once again is what tells me it's not purely about the engineering or the self improvement you mention, but the heat advocates trying force people to play like them and play gatekeeper as to what is and isn't a valid build. And yeah they don't get to do that. Also there is a huge difference between a ship that's slapped a bunch of guns on it, and a ship using an exploit like a gravity drive. Keen has long since classified grav drives as exploits, but they've never patched it because they think it's neat. Gravity drives aren't a valid comparison here. If balance is a concern, see again that servers can utilize already existing servers and settings to balance things for their particular server without having to implement a new mechanic that EVERYONE is beholden to. Also what are we calling balance? Because my definition and yours are different things. In one of my posts I posted 4 of my builds as an example. The guy I responded to isn't required to like them, and will call them gun bricks I guarantee just as I'm sure you will. However my builds are just as valid as his and vice versa. Him not liking them doesn't automatically make them invalid.

If server owners have concerns but don't use the tools available to them now, that's a them problem, not a me problem. Also what is a gatling wall?

"What purpose does this system serve?

-Challenge to produce self improvement, fun engineering a system, and to help balance the combat side of the game..."

Okay how exactly? By what standard are we considering something balanced/unbalanced? What constitutes a balanced build vs unbalanced? Are we using your definition of balanced, mine, a completely different one, or which? How do I know if I've "improved" or not? What benefits does this supposed improvement give me compared to before?

"What form will it take?

-Heat production and dissipation."

As a content developer (not a keen dev) and as a player, this tells me nothing. It doesn't tell me what that production and dissipation will look like. It doesn't give me any kind of ballpark figures to get even a remote idea of what levels of heat and dissipation we're talking about. Are we talking 100+ heat related blocks, or something more simplistic with say 5 blocks total? Is the heat going to move passively through the grid or is it going to require a bunch of extra pipes going everywhere? And if its going to require pipes, how do we handle blocks that don't have conveyor access? Are the heat blocks all required to be external or can some be internal? How many would be required for a ship like the classic red ship as an example?

"What negatives does this give me?

-Requires some extra thought and attention to detail when builds start getting really crazy."

This again tells me nothing. What kind of "extra thought and attention to detail" are we talking about? Are we talking that the average joe can pick it up and figure it out in an hour or less, especially with a video? Or are they going to need full on spreadsheets the size of Texas like you need for a game such as EVE Online? What constitutes as crazy build vs a non-crazy build? Because what I consider crazy and some other random from the community may be 2 completely different things. What kind of changes would I have to make to existing builds? We talking swapping say 10 blocks around total, or are we talking about a complete rebuild?

"What positives does this give me?

-Challenge to produce self improvement, fun engineering a system, and to help balance the combat side of the game..."

This simply repeats the first answer and tells me nothing. It doesn't tell me what this "self improvement" looks like. Nor does it tell me what this "fun engineering system" would look like, or what's meant by "balance the combat". It doesn't give me anything to work with but vague ambiguous promises of it. See also previous statements about there also being ways to balance combat better now with stuff we already have. Similar to question 4, I don't know if I'm staring down a swap of 10 blocks to get the full new effect, or if I'm looking at a complete rebuild. It doesn't give me anything even remotely concrete to work with.

"- 42 (if you get it, get yourself a cup of something almost but not quite entirely unlike tea). Some folks think things through, some don't, but if you are expecting sensical answers giving deep insights to the question of life, the universe, and everything from the singular question of why people would want something they think would make a game more fun, then odds are you are unlikely to find the answers you get to be satisfactory."

I'll agree that there's alot of folks who don't think things through. That in mind I don't expect people to have every last one and zero of the heat system planned out in their heads. However if they're going to insist all this value exists in the system and it would bring all these benefits to it, then they should have no issues pointing to this value and some of these benefits. Even if their answer differs from the guy next to them, they should be able to give me some ballparks on a few things. If they're going to insist it's needed for combat balance purposes, then they should be able to define an example of what constitutes balanced combat vs unbalanced. If they're going to insist something like a "gun brick" is a problem, then they should be able to explain what a gun brick is and what makes it a problem. Otherwise if they're going to insist something like gun bricks are a problem, but can't or won't even begin to describe what a gun brick is, they have no grounds to say it's a problem since they can't even define what it is. I fail to see a problem with expecting folks to be able to define their terms they're using and why something is/isn't a problem.

"-The precise definition is entirely subjective, and yet everyone still knows what they are. Some folks think they need to be balanced, some don't, and others still just wish the engineers of said bricks were more creative in their design. Personally the last gun brick I faced irritated me by being a low-effort "throw resources at it until its big enough to win" design meant to prove size always trumps skill, so when we fought I cored it with some blast-doors from a gravity cannon mounted to a ship a fifth its size.

You want to put all your eggs in the turret basket and fly a gun brick? Go for it, heat-considerations will just make the design more interesting."

If it's purely subjective then it's not a valid standard of measurement on its own and the whole "combat balance to limit things like gun bricks" is an invalid argument. If someone is going to insist that something is a gun brick, then logically they should be able to define where the line between gun brick vs non-gun brick is. Otherwise it's little more than a weapon of a small hardcore bunch that can be infinitely recycled and used against whatever flavor of builds they don't like that week, especially those that counter their own. All in an attempt to gatekeep the community and try to decide who is/isn't making "valid" builds, even though none elected them judge and jury. Not only this by even making the argument of "we need to stop gun bricks" they clearly have some kind of standard in their head as to what constitutes a gun brick and what doesn't. They also clearly think everyone else should adopt that standard or they wouldn't be using the "let's stop gun bricks" argument as part of their selling points. So why not just adult up and say what that standard is and quit beating around the bush? If they're going to insist everyone else be beholden to said standard by default via the proposed heat system, then I sure as heck have a right to know what they believe constitutes a "gun brick" and what doesn't if it's going to effect me.

Another problem, who gets to define what is "low effort" and what isn't? What is the difference between a "low effort" build and one that's proper? What constitutes a "creative" design and what doesn't? And why should the rest of us care or be beholden to those standards? Simply because I don't like a particular mechanic doesn't make said mechanic invalid on its own. See the previous example I used before about mill decks in MTG. I don't have to like mill and I despise it, but mill is a valid part of the game. Likewise gun bricks are a valid part of the game even if folks don't like it. If folks don't want to play against gun bricks, their solutions are to use server settings if they're a server owner, come up with builds that counter said gun brick, make agreements with others to build a certain way, and/or kick the problem players from their private servers, or just not play on a public server where that person is.

If someone is constantly losing to said gun bricks, that tells me as I've said plenty before, either their ship/piloting isn't as good as they thought, their ship/piloting is better, the tactics they used sucked, or perhaps all of it. In your case you actually did the right thing by going back and engineering your way around said gun brick proving that no, size doesn't always win. So why do you need a heat mechanic when you can already beat said gun bricks by changing your engineering to counter theirs? The answer is you don't. As for the last bit underlined, you have you words I have mine. I see nothing wrong with my builds or the build freedom we have now.

"It generally looks good to me, save that I'd probably both not alter gas-flow-efficiency from tanks (I assume you're not trying to reduce someone's hydrogen-thruster output by starving the thruster of its fuel supply, and having a tank pull 5.3% more fuel out of nowhere to feed things on top of already having 5% more fuel stored just sounds silly), and that I'd probably cap buffs/debufs to specific blocks to no more than +/- 10% to avoid unexpected feedback loops making exciting events like fights bog down until its like watching two guys trying to box while submerged in molasses."

Okay now we're getting somewhere. Now you're actually thinking along the lines of how to get people engaged with the system and why they would want to use it. Along with planning for limits and safeguards so you don't have infinite cheese on the positive side, or infinite negatives either.

"So, odds are you still don't want heat, and as Alliguierg said I suspect you can't be convinced, but I do hope in reading this you managed a slightly better better view of why other people want heat, and I do thank you for the list."

As I told dude (depending on when you see my post) in it's current form, if it remains as nothing but negatives then no you will never convince me because it adds difficulty for the sake of difficulty and I don't find that fun. It would require too much sacrifice in the realm of build freedom and similar for nothing in return. So if it's just what little people have mentioned about maybe 1 or 2 sensors which we're likely to get anyways, then no I'm not going to be convinced. Because why would I be when I can just wait and get the 1 or 2 sensors without the downsides of tying them to a heat system? Like the example I gave of a business investment. If someone is asking me for $500 worth of investment, I'm going to expect $500 or greater in return for said investment. If they're only going to give me $200 in return, why would I agree to eat a $300 loss? Especially if I can hold out and get an even greater return elsewhere. It would be bad business. Likewise if I'm going to be asked to surrender some build freedom for a feature like this, then I expect an equal or greater value back in return on benefits. And those benefits right now simply aren't there. If folks actually sit down and hammer out some actual benefits, then this may very well be a different conversation. Even if it's not something I personally would use in my worlds, I could at least get to the point of being like 'yeah go ahead and give it to them. I can turn it off or just mod in some heatsinks to nullify it in my worlds."

Right now they're asking me to invest my money (build freedom) but not adequately explaining what the return on my investment would look like. They say there's a ton of value there, but aren't actually showing the value. So why would I agree to invest my money without knowing what they're going to do with it, and how I will be receiving said equal or greater return value?

@captainbladej52

First thanks for the detailed answer.

You habe some main takes here:

You dont want your existing Builds threatend or downgrated

You dont want to be dictaded how to Build from others

You dont want difficulty which is just the sake of difficulty

Quote (Regarding to Damage Layers):

We already need to keep up with repairs now so this isn't adding anything new. Also damage is damage, it doesn't need to be overly complicated.

My Take:

Damage is not just damage, aswell if the air supply is broken is diffrent if ther is a material supply is broken, so it would be a diffrent type of that, I know you asking why the hell I want that? I wanted because it makes a diffrence When you want to repair something to repair cooling has his own reasons why its important in some situations and sometimes its not so. Influences descision making or push things more thrilling and diffrent. This is not just difficulty for it own sake because it influences how you might approch a problem.

-

Lets be real even in SE2 Mission will suck, all the Missions are kind of selfmade somehow and will be brought to life, because something went bad. A problem came up, and overheating is not like superfar fetched. I can see you point if we all now had to build a lightning rod for the stations to safe us from the weather this would be just a thing we need to build and would have no depth.

Quote (Regarding to the cooling blocks:

Nah dude, that's difficulty for the sake of difficulty. It's stealing build freedom from me, complicating it to get it back, and pretending you've done me a favor.

My Take:

Because the cooling system would be a minimal tubing system, I would love to know if you would like to have the hydrogen system without any conveying systems? or Miners where the Ignots directly teleport the material to the cargo, just for the sake of building freedom in Theory you want that would give you even more freedom right?

And it would be less difficult too? please elborate why thats diffrent. If you think convening systems makes sense and heating not, we have a diffrent opinon about that.

Quote (regarding to value):

Right now they're asking me to invest my money (build freedom) but not adequately explaining what the return on my investment would look like.

My Take:

There would be water cooling, peparing for the hotter planets etc.

So you would have diffrent adaptions to diffrent bioms, you rather like not to prepare for a planet so you can have more buildfreedom? It makes mission more intresting if you cant reach certain stations because there are to close to a hot planet if you dont prepare for that.

I feel like you protecting the status quo and you dont want anything new unlease someone convines you with an actually gameplay even i make all that points. If you would decided Survival wouldnt exist that would be super sad, because this give rooms in space finally a reason to exist. Also Would you say Noman sky should get rid of his heat reduction modules for the sake of simplicty? no you have more dangers and you prepare for that. Its like playing Monster Hunter with one Weapon you dont need to prepare for anything makes less things meaning full.

I know you want your ship to work and this would be still the case, but SE2 is an update so there should be more to do more to think of, more challenges more to build.

@Steve Schreiner: You make some of the same massive assumptions as the other guy and resort to some of the same tactics that border on outright gaslighting. But I'm trying not to attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance, so I'm going to break this down and make it crystal clear.

"Damage is not just damage, aswell if the air supply is broken is diffrent if ther is a material supply is broken, so it would be a diffrent type of that, I know you asking why the hell I want that? I wanted because it makes a diffrence When you want to repair something to repair cooling has his own reasons why its important in some situations and sometimes its not so. Influences descision making or push things more thrilling and diffrent. This is not just difficulty for it own sake because it influences how you might approch a problem."

So this is where we have a breakdown in understanding. Sure I'm going to prioritize certain systems above others in a fight. I'm going to try to prioritize keeping as much of my ship online and alive as possible. This is nothing new. If there is damage to the life support system of the ship and damage to the power system, I'm likely to prioritize the power system over the life support because I can survive with my suit for a time. But if the ship loses power completely I'm up the creek. When you say different type of damage I think things like kinetic vs energy vs corrosion etc. Your definition of damage types and mine seem to be 2 different things here. As for your second part regarding missions, I have no idea what you're trying to say there so I'm not going to touch that part of your response.

"Because the cooling system would be a minimal tubing system, I would love to know if you would like to have the hydrogen system without any conveying systems? or Miners where the Ignots directly teleport the material to the cargo, just for the sake of building freedom in Theory you want that would give you even more freedom right?

And it would be less difficult too? please elborate why thats diffrent. If you think convening systems makes sense and heating not, we have a diffrent opinon about that."

And here's where we get into some of the borderline if not outright gaslighting. There's a huge difference in moving a physical material from one place to another via tubes and something like power or heat. Can they remove conveyors and all that and let hydrogen move passively through the grid, sure they could mechanically. Simply because something is mechanically possible doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

Also it's clear to me that some of you are not even reading the words being said but are just skimming. I'm not opposed to the heat system because of difficulty alone or anything like that. I'm saying to you that I'm opposed to it because it offers little to no positives in exchange for the tradeoffs it demands. In other words, too much time/effort for too little reward in its current form. Like demanding someone work overtime hours but not wanting to give them overtime pay. Why would I ever want that?

Also you do not comprehend how resource intensive it would be to try and simulate physical heat full time and to the degree of programming that would be required. If you think lag can get bad now, wait until you try to run something like that full time, then talk to me about lag. With heat as you're proposing it you're basically demanding a second conveyor network on a ship which means piping the ship up twice for no extra benefits and to me that's just asinine. It also doesn't address what happens with blocks that don't have access to conveyors or similar to accept such a pipe.

"So you would have diffrent adaptions to diffrent bioms, you rather like not to prepare for a planet so you can have more buildfreedom? It makes mission more intresting if you cant reach certain stations because there are to close to a hot planet if you dont prepare for that."

And again, what is my payoff for being willing to accept this higher difficulty change potentially? What is my payoff for having to alter how I build now and accepting restrictions to my builds that weren't there before? What is my payoff for having to do more for the same effect than I had to do previously? In other words to use the analogy again, you're asking me to work overtime hours by accepting these restrictions and alterations to how I would have to build. So what are you going to offer me in terms of pay? How are you going to make it worth my extra time/effort?

"I feel like you protecting the status quo and you dont want anything new unlease someone convines you with an actually gameplay even i make all that points. If you would decided Survival wouldnt exist that would be super sad, because this give rooms in space finally a reason to exist. Also Would you say Noman sky should get rid of his heat reduction modules for the sake of simplicty? no you have more dangers and you prepare for that. Its like playing Monster Hunter with one Weapon you dont need to prepare for anything makes less things meaning full."

And here's where we get into some outright gaslighting. First up, this isn't Monster Hunter or No Man's Sky, so your comments regarding them are irrelevant. The lines in bold are why I can't take some of you heat advocates seriously is because you're not listening to what's being told to you. Instead you're seeing any kind of pushback as folks not wanting anything new, or that folks like me want to take away survival, even though I've never said that at all.

What I'm telling you is this. If you're going to want me to give up my ability to create some of the types of builds I like to create and accept new restrictions on my ability to create, then you need to give me an equal or greater value in return to what I'm giving up. If for example I'm being asked to invest $500 in a business venture, then I'm going to expect $500 or greater in return value for said investment. Yet right now as things sit currently, the heat advocates are essentially demanding $500 worth of investment and offering may $50 worth of return, then when I point out how I'm eating a $450 loss, suddenly I'm some kind of heretic that doesn't want anything new because I'm telling them they need more positive benefits in exchange for the tradeoff of dealing with heat.

In addition to this, virtually every single one of the state goals of the heat advocates can be accomplished with systems we already have now, such as them wanting to limit gun bricks or similar, yet they're not using those tools given to them. They're demanding something new be thrust on everyone by default while giving them nothing extra in exchange for accepting the increased difficulty.

You're saying you want to see increased challenge and new systems. I'm saying 2 things to you.

1: This system is going to negatively impact me and my gameplay in quite a few ways.

2: If you want me to accept this new system and join you in advocating for it, you need to give me something of equal or greater value than the negatives I'm being asked to accept.

In other words if you want overtime work from me, give me overtime pay and we can talk. Right now the heat system is basically demanding overtime work for no pay. And that's an automatic no go in my book. It's all downsides and no benefits and I'm being blasted for not wanting to accept an inferior quality of gameplay just to appease some hardcore types.

@Captainbladej52

"...that's a punishment and not voluntary under the system."

-You seem to have forgotten to explain how a feature you'd have to choose to enable in your world is involuntary,

"...not purely about the engineering or the self improvement you mention, but the heat advocates trying force people to play like them and play gatekeeper as to what is and isn't a valid build.."

-Do you like mazes? I know they aren't for everyone but a lot of people enjoy them and do weird things like engineer robots to run them, because engineering your way around a barrier is fun for some people. What about competition? Robot maze competitions have rules because the goal is to see who can engineer a robot that can run the maze the fastest instead of seeing who can get the highest projectile velocity on something they just called a robot before firing it out of a cannon though the maze's walls.

I know it conflicts with your build freedom ideas, but there are plenty of folks here that like the idea of having heat limit their build freedom just a bit to give them a reason to build specialist ships instead of just having one ship that is the best at everything. We want heat, you and everyone else here are invited to play with it if you want to, or you can play SE2 without it. There are exactly 0 people here requiring you or anyone else to play SE2 with the game mechanic.

"If it's purely subjective then it's not a valid standard of measurement..."

-Is someone trying to measure things in gunbricks? Or are you perhaps just entirely missing the point? You can fly what you want.

"...what is a gatling wall?"

-A relatively subjective name vaguely defining a structure the same way "welder wall" defines what a welder wall is. Difference is that one gets the admin to ask you to shut it off for a bit or redesign it if it lags, and the other gets you rightfully immediately banned from the server for building a "lag engine" before the host then restarts the server with block limits or other rules prohibiting such devices.

"...who gets to define what is "low effort" and what isn't?"

-Typically the builder.

"Right now they're asking me to invest..."

-No, we aren't. This feature will not significantly affect you either way because you wont play with it, because you wont turn it on, because you don't want to, and you aren't required to. We've covered that already. You get your build freedom regardless, and if they add heat we get our engineering challenge/balance and the opportunity to make use of whatever additional features heat opens the door to.

The thread's marked as "under consideration", the point of this thread now continuing is to discuss what the people that want it also want it to do and why, and to show how many people want it so that Keen can consider all of this and act as they deem appropriate. This discussion with you continues because keeping it going keeps the thread on the front page where people can see it and subsequently vote on it if they want it and discuss what they want and why.

I want heat for balance, for the interesting little challenge of engineering around it, and the stealth/detection mechanics people have come up with around it also sound cool.

This implies that the things we're building now aren't function even though they are. If you want to build functional stations and ships, congrats this already exists.

So what is the benefit to this system compared to the amount of build freedom it would remove? Like how the food system introduced positive benefits such as the survival buffs to coincide with now having to manage a food bar etc. What would this heat management give us? Because what you're describing is difficulty for difficulty sake and that's not fun.

@captainbladej52 Difficulty for difficulty's sake isn't fun for you. Many people do find that fun, such as me and probably a lot of the people, if not most of them that are suggesting ideas like this. Why else would hardcore modes in games exist, for example? Losing all progress when you die doesn't have any "benefits", as you use the word, but does make it more fun for some people because they like the risk and challenge. Same with the lower assembler speed, refinery speed, welding speed, etc. options in SE1. They have absolutely zero benefit to use, but people use them anyways because they feel it makes the game more fun for them.

I think you just play games fundamentally differently from other people. I can't begin to understand why you dislike the idea of "increased difficulty/challenge without any 'benefits'", personally. That's why I was thinking you might be a "speed runner" or something similar in a previous post. It sounds like you only want a game to get easier or stay the same difficulty, never get harder, which I don't understand as then if the game's too easy to be a fun challenge, like imo SE2 is threatening to be... then there's no way to "improve" that that you'd be okay with as every new challenging mechanic needs "upsides" as well to make it easier, so the net difficulty can never increase.

I'll respect your opinion, but I think there's just no way that you and I, or many of the others here would ever agree on things like this, as we fundamentally find different things fun.

@captainbladej52

At the moment there is nothing which threatens production, except poweroutages which are kind of a low threat. There is not a moment where you think ohh is this gonna work...... o shit stop the machines the blow up because we missed this or that, or we overclooked the machines too much. If there is a danger ther is a thrill. If there is none of that you get bored. We know all SE1 for years its time to have more to care about and its FUN to build systems!

Tell people who played satisfactory or factorior about Buildfreedome and take there systems away and simplefy things people would get mad.

@Star_Kindler: You're not fully grasping what I'm saying and are reading things into what I've said that simply aren't there. Are there people who find the ultra hardcore difficulty for difficulty type stuff to be fun, sure there are. However by and large they are the minority in modern games today. They're not wrong for liking what they like, but they're the exception and not the rule. Most players today in games are going to take the path of least resistance that also gives them the most rewards. To put this into perspective let's say there are 3 paths to beating a game. Path A that's the lowest difficulty but lowest payout, Path B that's the middle difficulty and mid tier rewards, and Path C that's the highest difficulty but gives the same exact mid tier rewards as Path B with nothing extra. Most people by and large are going to stick to Path B as it gives the highest rewards for the lowest effort. In many games today by the time they could complete Path C a single time, they could have completed Path B multiple times over and gotten multiple times the payout. Irl if I have the choice of working 40 hours a week for $35 an hour, why would I ever take a job that wants me to work 50+ hours per week at $20 an hour? If I'm not going to work extra hours for no extra pay irl, why would it be different in games? People are always going to try to get the most reward for their effort.

"Same with the lower assembler speed, refinery speed, welding speed, etc. options in SE1. They have absolutely zero benefit to use, but people use them anyways because they feel it makes the game more fun for them."

Another thing you're missing is that the hardcore type modes you speak of in games are almost never the default option. It doesn't just throw you straight into the deep end by default. You have to seek out the higher difficulty and opt into it. Just like the settings you mentioned above to lower assembler and refining speeds, and especially perma-death in SE1. Those lower options and perma-death are not on by default. You have to seek them out. In almost all modern games these hardcore type options exist in a vacuum and have no ability to effect anyone else willy nilly. The folks who seek this out are allowed to like what they like, but Keen and any game publisher can't just cater purely to the minority of hardcore players. They have to think about how it's going to effect everyone.

"I think you just play games fundamentally differently from other people. I can't begin to understand why you dislike the idea of "increased difficulty/challenge without any 'benefits'", personally. That's why I was thinking you might be a "speed runner" or something similar in a previous post."

I already explained part of this above. There is nothing to gain from it and for games like SE I don't find it fun. See previous example of path of least resistance with highest payout and irl job example. Why would I give up a job that lets me work less hours for more pay vs taking a job that requires more hours for less pay? One of the games I play is Tom Clancy's Division 2. The higher the tier of difficulty the more payout you get in terms of drop quality and so on. I could stay at the generic hard mode if I want and I'll get respectable rewards. However by dialing up the difficulty I have a higher chance at things like named exotic items that have the some of the best effects in game along with stats. The higher up the ladder I go the better the payout for success. For many, if it wasn't for that higher payout they would never touch the higher difficulties because it would demand too much work/investment for too little reward. If I'm going to be asked to take on a higher level of challenge or invest more time/effort, then I'm going to expect a higher level of reward in exchange for the tradeoff of the higher difficulty. Same thing as with this heat proposal. You want me to accept a potential higher level of difficulty, give me higher levels of benefits to go with it that are an equal or greater value than what I'm being asked to give up. Otherwise you're asking me to accept an inferior game.

"It sounds like you only want a game to get easier or stay the same difficulty, never get harder, which I don't understand as then if the game's too easy to be a fun challenge, like imo SE2 is threatening to be... then there's no way to "improve" that that you'd be okay with as every new challenging mechanic needs "upsides" as well to make it easier, so the net difficulty can never increase."

The bolded section is a prime example of reading things into my statements that I never said. Where on Clang's green earth did I ever make a claim I only wanted things to stay the same? By all means please quote the exact line(s).

Something you need to understand about game development that's true whether it's AAA studio productions or small time modding content, is you can't make people play in a way they don't want to play. If you try to pull the "do it or else" card or just trying to constantly shame them or goad them into it, one of a few things is going to happen. They're going to find ways to bypass your content and laugh when they find a way to do it, or they're going to just not play your content while simultaneously potentially telling you to do anatomically impossible things if you catch my drift. If you want players to do something in a game, you have to give them reasons to WANT to do things. And if you can get them to think it was their idea as the player instead of yours as the dev, then even better because it means you're doing your job. Several of my maps for Timesplitters Future Perfect way back when were EA recommended downloads for weeks at the time when they hit it big. Some of my biggest flops were maps where I tried to force people to fight in certain areas, or specific ways. My biggest successes were when I gave people reasons to want to fight in those certain areas or ways. To draw people to those areas, I would sprinkle extra ammo, a stronger weapon or two, some extra armor etc into those areas. In other words, higher risk higher reward, and it worked.

I'm not opposed to changes or higher difficulty within reason. I opposed the food system in SE1 originally because too often food systems are carbon copy/paste "eat/drink or die" and there is no benefits to interacting with the system, only negatives if you don't. SE1 got it right by giving us survival buffs in addition to the food system. Thus there was sufficient reward/payoff for the tradeoff of having to now manage a hunger stat and I don't mind the food system. If folks want to turn the buffs off they can, otherwise they remain on by default.

To keep going with the analogy, my issue is that right now the heat advocates are essentially demanding the default difficulty of everyone go up and everyone be automatically opted into hardcore type mode while offering little to nothing in return to people for having their default difficulty changed into a harder variant. In other words, like wanting to someone to work overtime but not wanting to give them overtime pay. You might be cool with something like that, but I'm not. If the heat system is going to demand I alter the way I build making it harder to achieve the same results by default, then I'm going to expect an equal or greater benefit in return for the tradeoff of the higher difficulty. Right now as the heat advocates are proposing it currently, the system would demand overtime levels of work without providing overtime levels of pay, and I'm not doing that. Right now it's little more than a weapon for heat advocates to punish "wrong build" and try to gatekeep what is/isn't a proper build in their eyes. All while hiding behind "but game balance" and stopping things like gun bricks and similar.

Virtually everything the heat advocates are wanting and talking about, especially the stopping gun bricks thing, they can do right now with already existing systems, such as altering their server settings. Yet instead of doing that they're demanding a mechanic be added to everyone else by default instead of using what's available to them. If they really care about stopping gun bricks, why are they not utilizing the server settings to limit the amount of turrets a grid can have? Why are they not booting problem people from their servers, making agreements to only build certain ways etc.? So when they say they want X and have the tools already to make X happen, but refuse to use them, that tells me it's not really about X but something else with X being the excuse they're hiding behind. Also if I dare say I'm not sold on the whole system because it requires too much effort for too little reward, i'm blasted as some kind of heretic for not wanting an inferior game and daring to want my time and effort respected.

@captainbladej52: "Are there people who find the ultra hardcore difficulty for difficulty type stuff to be fun, sure there are. However by and large they are the minority in modern games today. They're not wrong for liking what they like, but they're the exception and not the rule."

While this might be true for "ultra hardcore difficulty", I do not believe it to be true for a difficulty level that would result from the addition of systems like this one, especially for a game about Space Engineering. Unless there's been surveys or statistics though I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"Most players today in games are going to take the path of least resistance that also gives them the most rewards. To put this into perspective let's say there are 3 paths to beating a game. Path A that's the lowest difficulty but lowest payout, Path B that's the middle difficulty and mid tier rewards, and Path C that's the highest difficulty but gives the same exact mid tier rewards as Path B with nothing extra. Most people by and large are going to stick to Path B as it gives the highest rewards for the lowest effort. In many games today by the time they could complete Path C a single time, they could have completed Path B multiple times over and gotten multiple times the payout. Irl if I have the choice of working 40 hours a week for $35 an hour, why would I ever take a job that wants me to work 50+ hours per week at $20 an hour? If I'm not going to work extra hours for no extra pay irl, why would it be different in games? People are always going to try to get the most reward for their effort."

I just do not see how this is applicable to Space Engineers. Space Engineers is not a job - it's a game - and there is no persistent progress across the entire game like in other games, aside from the blueprints that you make. Also, if it did apply, then nobody would ever play in survival mode because creative allows you to build way more things, for free, and accomplish and progress way quicker than in survival. There's simply no reason to ever play survival and force yourself into restrictions aside from finding those restrictions and added difficulty fun. And yet, survival is by far the most popular mode of Space Engineers.

"Another thing you're missing is that the hardcore type modes you speak of in games are almost never the default option."

So? Just make it a toggle then. I don't give a darn what the default is as long as I have the option of things like heat mechanics and aerodynamic physics for myself. Any added blocks required only by them could just lose functionality, become way cheaper and just essentially act as decorative/armour blocks or some similar solution in worlds where those are turned off, so that you don't need to rebuild stuff in a world with it turned off.

"Same thing as with this heat proposal. You want me to accept a potential higher level of difficulty, give me higher levels of benefits to go with it that are an equal or greater value than what I'm being asked to give up. Otherwise you're asking me to accept an inferior game"

It is just not an inferior game simply because you don't like the idea of this heat proposal. Maybe to you, specifically, but you can't just say it would become "an inferior game" in general. That's just not true.

"The bolded section is a prime example of reading things into my statements that I never said. Where on Clang's green earth did I ever make a claim I only wanted things to stay the same? By all means please quote the exact line(s)."

I said "get easier or stay the same difficulty." But assuming you meant that, here is one example from a previous discussion with you about adding atmospheric drag:

"As is in the current form there is no benefit to it. It's the cube eating a straight unavoidable nerf no matter what. Where as with the forces of lift in play or similar I could at least turn the edge of the cube to face forward somewhat like an arrow head"

I interpret that as you wanting some "benefit" to make the game easier along with a difficulty increase, so that it never actually gets "net harder". If you're saying that's not what you meant, then okay, but I certainly don't think that interpretation is bizarre, as you made it out to be.

"you can't make people play in a way they don't want to play... If you want players to do something in a game, you have to give them reasons to WANT to do things."

Yes, I am aware of this lol. That's why I'm perfectly fine with features like this being a toggle. But for me, and many others who play Space Engineers, the added challenge, complexity and difficulty in engineering creations is the primary reason that we want those mechanics. If anything, I think that is what you're not fully grasping about what I'm saying.

"my issue is that right now the heat advocates are essentially demanding the default difficulty of everyone go up and everyone be automatically opted into hardcore type mode while offering little to nothing in return to people for having their default difficulty changed into a harder variant."

I was not aware that anyone was demanding this. I didn't see anything about that in the comment that we're replying to, or in the original post. I, personally at least, do not care what the default is, as I can easily simply change it to whatever I want. Although I would think that the default being simpler would be better for new players...

" Right now it's little more than a weapon for heat advocates to punish "wrong build" and try to gatekeep what is/isn't a proper build in their eyes. All while hiding behind "but game balance" and stopping things like gun bricks and similar."

It's less trying to punish "wrong builds", and more to do with adding more design considerations and complexity to encourage creativity, problem solving skills and the like to get the best performance given the additional systems. I and many others find that enjoyable.

"Virtually everything the heat advocates are wanting and talking about, especially the stopping gun bricks thing, they can do right now with already existing systems, such as altering their server settings. Yet instead of doing that they're demanding a mechanic be added to everyone else by default instead of using what's available to them. If they really care about stopping gun bricks, why are they not utilizing the server settings to limit the amount of turrets a grid can have? Why are they not booting problem people from their servers, making agreements to only build certain ways etc.? So when they say they want X and have the tools already to make X happen, but refuse to use them, that tells me it's not really about X but something else with X being the excuse they're hiding behind. Also if I dare say I'm not sold on the whole system because it requires too much effort for too little reward, i'm blasted as some kind of heretic for not wanting an inferior game and daring to want my time and effort respected."

Adding a hard turret limit or making server rules/agreements with players would never be as effective or as fun as an in-game system that dynamically changes "restrictions" based on how you engineer a specific ship. Sure, you can defeat gun bricks and similar "problem designs" both ways, but one is a heck of a lot more fun and interesting than the other. You have to see that.

All of that said... to be clear, again, personally, I do not see any reason why it shouldn't be a toggle, and I do not mind it not being the default. But my point is that I strongly believe that people who want things like this for "difficulty for difficulty's sake" are vastly more common than you think. Otherwise, survival mode wouldn't have any significant popularity - everyone would just play creative. But that's not the case. People get bored of creative, and want to feel like they're accomplishing something and progressing in survival. Systems like heat management give more of that sense of accomplishment when you design something, than you have right now. As it is, you basically just need a thruster in each direction, a reactor, a gyroscope, and a cockpit for something to work. Many people, like myself, want it to be more complicated and fun than that.

@Star_Kindler: You revealed alot more than you think with this latest response of yours. So we're going to break it down.

"While this might be true for "ultra hardcore difficulty", I do not believe it to be true for a difficulty level that would result from the addition of systems like this one, especially for a game about Space Engineering. Unless there's been surveys or statistics though I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one."

Yes there have been surveys over the years and stats that we can look at as a whole along with comments sections and similar of various games of people saying they don't want difficulty for difficulty sake or similar. If they're going to deal with increased difficulty they want it to have meaning instead of it just dialing it up to dial it up.

"I just do not see how this is applicable to Space Engineers. Space Engineers is not a job - it's a game - and there is no persistent progress across the entire game like in other games, aside from the blueprints that you make. Also, if it did apply, then nobody would ever play in survival mode because creative allows you to build way more things, for free, and accomplish and progress way quicker than in survival. There's simply no reason to ever play survival and force yourself into restrictions aside from finding those restrictions and added difficulty fun. And yet, survival is by far the most popular mode of Space Engineers."

And this is where I have to ask a question that's going to make me seem like a jerk over pure text comms, but is English your first language? Like legitimately asking here. If it's not and you need me to elaborate more or better then I will. But that said you're grossly misunderstanding what was said and why that analogy was used. So let's try this again. First, I'm fully aware SE is a game and not a job, nor have I ever said it was. You missed the point of the analogy so completely. I'm also going to call shenanigans on part of your statement, but we'll get to that in a moment.

I've said several times to you now I do not like difficulty for difficulty sake as that is not fun to me nor is it fun to alot of people. If I'm going to go up on the difficulty ladder then there needs to be reason and motive for me to do so. In other words the choice to increase difficulty needs to be meaningful. See Tom Clancy's Division 2 as a prime example. In that game I can stay on the "hard" mode and get some decent armor and weapon drops. Or I can dial it up to "Challenging" or even "Heroic" or higher for even greater rewards than what the "hard" mode gives, such as named exotic weapons which are some of the strongest in the game. Thus there is meaning and payoff to the difficulty increase. My positive benefit greater rewards for the tradeoff of the content itself being harder. Thus the scales are balanced. If all difficulties past Hard didn't give any new rewards and payed out the exact same as Hard did, I wouldn't bother with the higher difficulties because there would be no point to them. By the time I could complete 1 or 2 on say Challenging, I could've completed potentially 3 or 4 on Hard and gotten more reward for it.

To reiterate, I'm fully aware that SE is not a job but a game. However that wasn't the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy was showing that there was no positive benefit or meaning to the increased difficulty being asked of me by the heat advocates. Hence like a job asking me to do overtime hours but not wanting to give me overtime pay. The overtime hours are the increased difficulty being asked of me, and the overtime pay is the positive benefit for the tradeoff of doing the overtime hours, thus the scales are balanced. The negative is giving up more of my time but that negative is balanced out by being given a higher payrate for those extra hours, thus there is a proper tradeoff. If the positive of the extra pay was not there, it's just pure negative and there is no tradeoff because there is nothing positive to balance it out. Now apply that same logic to SE with the food system as the perfect example of this. I opposed the food system initially because too often they're carbon copy/paste systems that are "eat/drink or die" that try to force you to interact with them and punish you if you don't. Too often they never helped you at all but could only harm you. However when Keen finally pushed the system out, they included survival buffs that can be earned along with it, thus balancing out the food system. The tradeoff for having to deal with the food system is the buffs. Right now the heat system as proposed is like trying to propose the food system but without the buffs. Why would I want that?

Now we get to where I'm going to call shenanigans on part of what you said. You claim in part that if what I'm saying is true about people not liking difficulty for difficulty sake, there would be no reason to play survival. Yet earlier you said that you don't believe what I said is true about people not liking difficulty for difficulty sake. So which one is it? If you believe I'm wrong and there are more people who enjoy difficulty for difficulty sake, then your statement regarding there being no reason to play survival is incorrect. Because by your logic that would add difficulty for difficulty sake. And if I'm right about most folks not liking difficulty purely for difficulty sake and survival is the most popular mode for SE, then that tells me they see survival as not being purely difficulty for difficulty sake and your second statement is incorrect. So either way you're missing it.

Regardless of which way you go there is reason to play survival. If you believe people want difficulty just because they like difficulty, then there's your reason to play survival. If you believe like I do that people don't like difficulty for difficulty sake alone, then that tells me survival offers them positive benefits in favor for the ways it restricts you and balances the scales. So what's the issue here? The tradeoff for dealing with all the extra stuff of survival is all the positive benefits you get from survival. Such as potential achievements, skins you can unlock, buffs you can earn and so on. It's not purely negatives which is the entire point. Right now the heat system is almost exclusively if not outright exclusively negatives. There is no balance to it. Trying to force the heat system which is pure negatives is going to be seen by many as trying to force people to play how the small hardcore crowd wants them to play and Keen trying to say "do it this way or else".

"So? Just make it a toggle then. I don't give a darn what the default is as long as I have the option of things like heat mechanics and aerodynamic physics for myself. Any added blocks required only by them could just lose functionality, become way cheaper and just essentially act as decorative/armour blocks or some similar solution in worlds where those are turned off, so that you don't need to rebuild stuff in a world with it turned off."

This is probably the most reasonable thing you've said so far. Leave it off by default and make people opt in for it. In which case I can agree with that. Just like I despise exploits such as supergridding, grave drives, clang drives and similar. They should all be off by default by folks can opt in if they choose. Aside from this I still stand by what I said before as well.

"It is just not an inferior game simply because you don't like the idea of this heat proposal. Maybe to you, specifically, but you can't just say it would become "an inferior game" in general. That's just not true."

It's not an inferior game purely because I don't like the idea nor have I ever said otherwise, nor am I saying it would be an inferior game just to say it. Just as you say my disliking it doesn't automatically make it a bad idea, your liking of it doesn't automatically make it a good idea either. Secondly, yes I can absolutely say it would be an inferior game in general because it would be. If you're going to say I can't say it would become inferior in general because "that's just not true" then likewise, you can't say it would become better in general because that's just not true either. Just as you say my not liking it doesn't automatically make it bad, likewise you liking it doesn't automatically make it good either. I've explained to you why it's bad and would make it an inferior game several times.

It would add difficulty for difficulty sake with nothing positive about it. There is no meaning to the extra difficulty and it exists purely to exist. There is no positive benefits to go along with it and thus no balance or tradeoff. It's basically me being asked to eat a higher difficulty to appease some hardcore types that are trying to act as gatekeepers of what is a "proper" build and what isn't even though no one elected them to such position. There's a small handful of heat advocates that are genuine in their goals, but so far I'm not seeing very many based on the things they're saying.

"I said "get easier or stay the same difficulty." But assuming you meant that, here is one example from a previous discussion with you about adding atmospheric drag:

"As is in the current form there is no benefit to it. It's the cube eating a straight unavoidable nerf no matter what. Where as with the forces of lift in play or similar I could at least turn the edge of the cube to face forward somewhat like an arrow head"

I interpret that as you wanting some "benefit" to make the game easier along with a difficulty increase, so that it never actually gets "net harder". If you're saying that's not what you meant, then okay, but I certainly don't think that interpretation is bizarre, as you made it out to be."

There is nothing bizarre about it if you've been reading everything I said completely. I have not changed my position at all there needing to be positives to balance out potential negatives to create proper tradeoffs. In that example I gave with the Borg Cube vs Aerodynamics it's the same concept. As it sits right now I can take my Borg Cube and fly it anywhere I want with no ill effects just like another guy could with an Enterprise E build. Trying to force Aerodynamics with no positive benefits at all stank of the Ent E guy wanting an advantage where none existed before in game. In other words it came off as "I don't like that his build is as good as mine, it needs to be nerfed cause realism." Okay who the heck is he to make that determination for the entirety of the game? It's the same thing here with this heat stuff. I fail to see why I should be asked to eat what amounts to a pure nerf with no positive benefits purely because a small handful of hardcore types have decided "yeah your build is a gun brick and wrong" or something similar.

If we're going to do features they need to be done right. If I'm going to be asked to eat a negative for balance sake, then there needs to be something of equal or greater value in return to balance the scales. Just like I wouldn't give away money for free with no reason behind it irl, why would I give away my build freedom willy nilly for no reason in game?

"Yes, I am aware of this lol. That's why I'm perfectly fine with features like this being a toggle. But for me, and many others who play Space Engineers, the added challenge, complexity and difficulty in engineering creations is the primary reason that we want those mechanics. If anything, I think that is what you're not fully grasping about what I'm saying."

You say you're aware you can't force people to do what you want them to do or play how you want them to play. yet are pushing for something that would have exactly that effect of trying to force people to play in a specific way they're telling you they don't want to play. When they tell you they need more than just "challenge, complexity and difficulty" for the sake of those things, you act like it's near blasphemy as do many other heat advocates even if you may not mean it to come off that way. You at least have had the stones to say leave it off by default and make it a toggle so you get credit for that. However the others who push that do not. You're allowed to like what you like and want what you want, just as I'm free to also criticize it's addition and say it's a bad idea in its current form. Keen can't add every single idea just because it's suggested as much as they might wish they could. In its current form, this idea of a heat system is not thought out well enough to be worth the resources. Once the heat advocates think it out more and come up with some positive benefits to balance out the negatives, then it could be worth another look. Right now however is not that time.

"I was not aware that anyone was demanding this. I didn't see anything about that in the comment that we're replying to, or in the original post. I, personally at least, do not care what the default is, as I can easily simply change it to whatever I want. Although I would think that the default being simpler would be better for new players..."

Now you know. I wish it wasn't the case but scroll up and read some of the other comments. It's all about "stopping gun bricks" and basically shutting down stuff they don't like. There's no thought about the engineering, there's no talk of positives or anything beyond just trying to force a more "hardcore" type style by virtue of their actions. Once more you at least get credit for saying make it a toggle and leave it off by default if necessary.

"It's less trying to punish "wrong builds", and more to do with adding more design considerations and complexity to encourage creativity, problem solving skills and the like to get the best performance given the additional systems. I and many others find that enjoyable."

When the main selling point people are using is "combat balance" to "stop gun bricks and internal welders" and things of that nature, and there is little to no comments about anything else. Then it's 100% about weaponizing the feature against builds they don't like and punishing people for building "incorrectly". Like those annoying youtubers from CoD and similar games that are like "if you're not using this build then you're just bad at the game" and similar crap. Like who the heck died and made Mr Youtuber the arbiter of what is good/bad with the game. An example of someone who I disagree with but believe to be sincere in his intentions for the system is Diggrok. He's at least tried/trying to balance the scales. Some others in here not so much.

There's nothing wrong with wanting new stuff as there's things I want to see added as well. However when said feature is nothing but downsides with no positives at all, or especially if it's people wanting to weaponize it against others they don't like, then I'm going to oppose it every time.

"Adding a hard turret limit or making server rules/agreements with players would never be as effective or as fun as an in-game system that dynamically changes "restrictions" based on how you engineer a specific ship. Sure, you can defeat gun bricks and similar "problem designs" both ways, but one is a heck of a lot more fun and interesting than the other. You have to see that."

Let's take a step back here and acknowledge something. There is never going to be a perfect solution to everything short of a higher level being like Q from Star Trek, or someone using the Infinity Gauntlet to poof up said solution, or someone wishing on the Dragon Balls to make it happen.

I'm looking at this from a developer perspective and also as a player as I've been on both sides of the development coin. No I'm not a Keen dev, but I've got over 20 years experience creating stuff for other games under my belt.

Is setting a hard limit in the server settings of "a grid can only have 10 gatlings" or similar going to be as engaging or flashy as a heat system, no it won't. However this is where the true motivations of the heat advocates start to show. If it's purely about stopping problematic stuff for their servers, then they already have solutions available to them in the now given to them by Keen. They may not like those solutions and they're free to say they wish there was more, but it doesn't change the fact they have solutions. If they choose not to use those said solutions, that's a them problem and doesn't constitute an emergency on my part. If it's about stopping problematic stuff then they have solutions now and the heat system isn't needed for that.

Now far as a dynamic solution you're mentioning, here's why something like that isn't going to work the way you're thinking. First, in order to have the type of dynamic changing solutions some of the heat advocates want, you need to be able to account for near infinite if not outright infinite possibilities. Setting aside hardware and technical limitations for the moment, in SE you can in theory have an infinitely sized build and infinite combinations of said infinitely sized builds. The only way you can balance it is single block vs single block performance and ship it off to the players. Because you can never guarantee how many of each block type will be present at an engagement. You can safely assume at least one of the major types, such as 1 weapon, 1 armor block, 1 beacon or similar. Beyond this it's up to players to determine how many of each type they bring. When doing a heat system the way you're describing you would need it to basically be able to judge second by second based on build type and that's not going to work well. It's going to add a ton of extra calculations that just don't need to be there and would be a resource nightmare with simulating physical heat full time, let alone dynamically changing it.

Point being, how a person frames something and their subsequent actions tells me alot about their motivations. Diggrok and I have had a good dialogue since regarding heat. Some others, not so much. If a person only harps on stopping something they consider problematic and never talks about anything positive and/or isn't even willing to consider some positives to make it a true tradeoff, that tells me they just want it to weaponize it and try to act like gatekeepers. Like sorry no, not happening. Simply because they don't like a "gun brick" or similar doesn't make those builds invalid. Nor do they get to dictate to me or others we should be punished for building that way just because they don't like it. They're just not important enough to dictate that. I am not responsible for what they consider fun anymore than they're responsible for me.

"All of that said... to be clear, again, personally, I do not see any reason why it shouldn't be a toggle, and I do not mind it not being the default. But my point is that I strongly believe that people who want things like this for "difficulty for difficulty's sake" are vastly more common than you think. Otherwise, survival mode wouldn't have any significant popularity - everyone would just play creative. But that's not the case. People get bored of creative, and want to feel like they're accomplishing something and progressing in survival. Systems like heat management give more of that sense of accomplishment when you design something, than you have right now. As it is, you basically just need a thruster in each direction, a reactor, a gyroscope, and a cockpit for something to work. Many people, like myself, want it to be more complicated and fun than that."

We've already been through some of this. Once more you get credit for saying it should be a toggle and acknowledging it could be left off by default. I'm the same way when it comes to energy shields. Leave it off by default if people wish, but give me the feature. That's another can of worms though.

As for the section in black once again, there are surveys and stats that are out there. As mentioned before, if you believe I'm wrong and there are more people who enjoy difficulty for difficulty sake, then your statement regarding there being no reason to play survival is incorrect. Because by your logic that would add difficulty for difficulty sake. And if I'm right about most folks not liking difficulty purely for difficulty sake and survival is the most popular mode for SE, then that tells me they see survival as not being purely difficulty for difficulty sake and your second statement is incorrect about survival not having popularity. Both of those statements can't be true at the same time.

I do not see adding a heat system as accomplishing something in its current form. I see it as a direct nerf since there are no positives involved at all. There is no proper tradeoff because there is no positives to balance out the pure negatives. That is not a good thing in my book and never will be. You may find a heat system like that an accomplishment but I don't. In its current form, I find it an insult to my time and my effort that's basically coming along and spitting in my face telling me that how I build is wrong and I need to do it this new way or else. So for me if it goes live and especially as is now, I'm going to leave it turned off and/or mod in super OP radiators to nullify the mechanic.

Lastly, there's far more to grids and SE than just slapping a thruster in each direction, reactor, gyro and cockpit. If you choose to keep that simple that's a you problem. Can something like that function, sure. Is it practical, likely not. There's a HUGE difference in something being functional and something working. Functional being that it runs and doesn't just vaporize itself on startup. Working means it's accomplishing the goal you need it to accomplish. If you want to try to extract every last one and zero from something, you do you. If you want to have more complicated stuff, then you do you. Likewise in my case since I mentioned shields, I've always assumed it to be a toggle. If folks want it left off by default, I have no issues with that either and in fact think it would be better left off by default. I'm not going to force people to use such a feature. However it seems some heat advocates think others should be beholden to their style of play, and that's a no go for me.

To your comment about "Re-entry effects", I've always thought of 300 m/s, or whatever the max speed is, as "simulating" a much higher velocity, just like the 120 km diameter planets are "simulating" real-scale planets. Just as the planets in lore are real-scale, the speeds in lore would be much higher as well - and if at the same ~1:100 scale factor as the planets (120km vs 12,700 km using Earth as a reference), then 300 m/s would be ~30 km/s - more than high enough for re-entry effects. That is why I don't think that such a low speed means that we shouldn't have re-entry effects in SE2.

Also, just because we'd never encounter them in an ideal situation where we slow down pre-emptively doesn't mean they shouldn't be possible. If you're being chased into the atmosphere by an enemy, you might risk going fast enough to trigger re-entry effects to avoid reducing the distance between you and your enemy, or perhaps because you think your ship will resist the effects better than your enemy's. Also, if you lose enough thrust for whatever reason to slow down in time, or time your slowing down too late - then they'd still trigger. Also, of course, some people (like me) just love to burn up ships in the atmosphere in creative for fun lol.

So, personally, I don't think either of the reasons that you suggested prohibit re-entry effects being added in a manner that can still be considered "realistic" in the context of the game's "simulation" of reality.

As an aside, here is the equation, you are going to need to get used to with heat management:

E = (emissivity of the surface) * (Stefan-Boltzmann Constant) * Kelvin^4

Where E is the 'Radiant Exitance'...whatever that is.

The point being, in space, heat management is gonna be backwards to how people think it is...

On planets with atmo, current thought will work as normal. Not for asteroids, unfortunately enough.

And re-entry effects go away when you slow down only, that causes problems with a fixed speed.

*edit* So as you go lower, and are not slowing down, things should get worse, not better ;)

"...the larger its volume, the faster it can dissipate heat..."

-I have concerns with the idea of a ship dissipating heat based on its volume, as such pared with mass increasing heat capacity would just incentivize constructs getting ever larger until heat ceased to be a mechanic worth paying attention to, not to mention it will annoy all the realism-players who will want heat to dissipate based on some form of external surface area. Of course given the absurdity people get up to calculating external surface area propperly would probably result in a lot of hulls covered in detail-block checkerboards, so personally I'd instead suggest heat dissipated by external radiators or thermal-vents of some kind, perhaps with a small base dissipation rate just to ensure someone accidentally losing their radiators in space can at least eventually bring their ship to a stop for recovery later.

"Heat vents ejecting exhaust."

-Think of them like ion thrusters and hydrogen thrusters, or solar panels and hydrogen engines, radiators work just by being connected to the grid and are efficient, vents are powerful but use up a coolant (water?) by transferring the heat in to it and then venting the resulting steam.

"More functional blocks generating heat or shutting down when overheated."

-Because even the non-combat players should get to enjoy heat, and because sooner or later someone's going to invent a gravity drive, klang drive, or ship with 5000 welders woven through the superstructure to make it entirely self-repairing, and if we're balancing thrusters with heat then such shenanigans should be subject to heat-balance too.

"Overheated blocks taking damage."

-Several things in real-life are meant to run come hell or high-water even if it means said thing self-destructs in the process (most commonly fire-pumps which will lack any device that shuts it off to protect the pump itself, because if something is on fire now most people really don't care that extinguishing it means running a potentially damaged pump until it explodes, they can replace it later). To that end, it would kame sense that something like this is a toggle in the particular block, as there are some situations where you want things to shutdown to prevent damage, and there are others where you need it to work right flipping now because the world is ending and you're about to lose a lot more than the components you'll need to repair the block afterward.

"Generating energy from heat."

-Thermal difference engines, aka "Sterling Engines", are a real thing used to generate power in some submarines, but given their function, power-source, and potential for exploit if not handled carefully, I'd suspect their use would be limited to acting as an upgrade module for an engine or reactor the same way you can use upgrade modules for the SE1 refinery.