Add "Medium" size armor blocks (1.25m) to reduce PCU count and long-term hotbar bloat
---
Context:
The way armor blocks are implemented in SE2 will have an enormous effect on the design philosophies that players can adopt. It needs to be intuitive for new players, elegant and powerful for advanced designers and high performance for PvP and PvE players.
- In SE2, >25cm blocks don't need to exclusively occupy the whole cubic volume they sit in. This new system isn't yet being exploited to its full potential for both new shape creation and old shape re-creation.
- A lot of flexibility should be possible, allowing for 100s of shapes - including at the ergonomic levels of 2.5m and 0.5m that Keen have championed
- Creative use of armor blocks should be "cheap" with respect to PCU. It's no good having interesting shapes if they take up 100's of PCU per square metre to build.
- Creative use of armor shapes should be quick. It shouldn't take 10-15 minutes to make rudimentary 2.5m shapes just because the only compatible component blocks are a combination of 0.5-0.25m.
- There shouldn't be too many blocks in the hotbar menu. Decisions baked in now will affect how "bloated" the hotbar menu may be in the future. Too many / poorly organised blocks will make it difficult to organise things efficiently, find desired blocks and experiment with different combinations.
Proposal:
- It will be possible to quickly and cheaply (PCU wise) create all 33x blocks from SE1 by using only 25 blocks, organised across 4 groups (see attached image). 6x SE1 blocks can be made by combining two "half" blocks; 2x further SE blocks can be made by using blocks from the next scale down
- There should be 4 scales of block: Large (2.5m), Medium (1.25m), Small (0.5m) and Tiny (0.25m).
- The player should be able to quickly switch between these four sizes
- The player should be able to quickly switch between the four groups of block and the 6-7 block shapes within each group
- The smallest size of armor block (tiny, 0.25m) should replace what are currently called "decor" blocks, so that it can be included in the size switching mechanic
Why Medium Blocks?
Medium blocks allow a compromise between having too many "large" blocks to fill every creative niche ("hotbar bloat") and players being required to spend 100's of PCU and building time to create shapes not included (low performance PvP/PvE). By standardising the shapes and sizes, a huge variety of designs can be made whilst still reusing the same handful of "elemental" assets.
Example: See attached image. Even when using a large half-block for each, it takes 201 and 256 PCU respectively to make these two familiar 2.5m blocks from SE1 in SE2 (and they look quite messy). It takes a similar amount of PCU to make new and novel shapes at this scale. With medium (1.25m) armor blocks - these examples (and more importantly - hundreds of *new* shapes) could be made with only 2-8 PCU per 2.5m cube volume. This should hopefully help eliminate common player questions like "what block goes in this space?"
I like this feedback
Shameless plug to my ticket, but I feel this could work together with your idea very well. Its relatively basic but I'm a bit out of it currently to make anything more plainly described. Feel free to work my idea into yours.
https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/45845-idea-convexangled-curvedrounded-automatic-hull-smoothing-tools
Shameless plug to my ticket, but I feel this could work together with your idea very well. Its relatively basic but I'm a bit out of it currently to make anything more plainly described. Feel free to work my idea into yours.
https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/45845-idea-convexangled-curvedrounded-automatic-hull-smoothing-tools
Another potential optimization is consolidating complex shapes into single objects. For example, if you need to build a large cylindrical section of a ship, instead of using multiple blocks and consuming a high PCU count, it could be a single, optimized piece.
The idea is based on the premise that not every ship requires intricate shapes. This would make shipbuilding easier for newcomers or players who prioritize combat over aesthetics, while also reducing PCU usage. Additionally, for balancing purposes, the pieces could be slightly weaker if the same shape is built block by block, rather than as a single object.
However, this raises a question for combat-oriented players: why use blocks that are weaker when building, instead of constructing them block by block? Well, this approach would encourage better ship designs based on PCU efficiency. For instance, if you want to make a ship full of guns, you'll need to sacrifice PCU for stronger blocks. Similarly, if you aim to create a heavily armored ship, you might not have enough PCU left for weapons.
Furthermore, the weaker sections of the ship could be more easily exploited by smaller fighters, which could bypass the main weapons and get close to the ship. This would give players more options and PCU to focus on armor in critical areas.
Personally, I’m the type of player who doesn’t like super strong shields on spaceships, or any shields, really. I think it's far more rewarding to create a well-designed ship that can take a beating and still come out on top, even if it loses 2/3 of its parts in the process.
Another potential optimization is consolidating complex shapes into single objects. For example, if you need to build a large cylindrical section of a ship, instead of using multiple blocks and consuming a high PCU count, it could be a single, optimized piece.
The idea is based on the premise that not every ship requires intricate shapes. This would make shipbuilding easier for newcomers or players who prioritize combat over aesthetics, while also reducing PCU usage. Additionally, for balancing purposes, the pieces could be slightly weaker if the same shape is built block by block, rather than as a single object.
However, this raises a question for combat-oriented players: why use blocks that are weaker when building, instead of constructing them block by block? Well, this approach would encourage better ship designs based on PCU efficiency. For instance, if you want to make a ship full of guns, you'll need to sacrifice PCU for stronger blocks. Similarly, if you aim to create a heavily armored ship, you might not have enough PCU left for weapons.
Furthermore, the weaker sections of the ship could be more easily exploited by smaller fighters, which could bypass the main weapons and get close to the ship. This would give players more options and PCU to focus on armor in critical areas.
Personally, I’m the type of player who doesn’t like super strong shields on spaceships, or any shields, really. I think it's far more rewarding to create a well-designed ship that can take a beating and still come out on top, even if it loses 2/3 of its parts in the process.
Updating graphic as one block was incorrectly classified as "Not possible" (sloped corner base - small + large grid).
It is of course possible to make in SE2 using "half light armor" (ref 2.1) and "half sloped corner base" (ref 4.1)
Updating graphic as one block was incorrectly classified as "Not possible" (sloped corner base - small + large grid).
It is of course possible to make in SE2 using "half light armor" (ref 2.1) and "half sloped corner base" (ref 4.1)
Some block profiles would also work well in a 1x1x5 format where the single block is repeated 5x in a row.
In SE1 I find that using the truss pillar small grid to create construction frames is a fast way to build small grid large ships in survival. With 1x1x5 profiles, I could build some of the skin details quickly as well.
Some block profiles would also work well in a 1x1x5 format where the single block is repeated 5x in a row.
In SE1 I find that using the truss pillar small grid to create construction frames is a fast way to build small grid large ships in survival. With 1x1x5 profiles, I could build some of the skin details quickly as well.
This might also be worth taking into account: https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/45986-3m-block-variant-for-armors
This might also be worth taking into account: https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/45986-3m-block-variant-for-armors
Where is Keen on this we have over 70 upvotes here.
Where is Keen on this we have over 70 upvotes here.
I like that idea, I noticed quickly that when you use a half 2,5m block, that you can't fill 1,25m with smaller 50cm blocks (obviously), you need 2x 50cm and use a detail block of 25cm or better 50cm half blocks for the rest if it is a large area you need to fill. A 1,25m block would close this gap. Also right now I exchanged a 2,5m slop block to have a slop on both sides inside that 2,5m³ area, for that I need a lot of 50cm blocks, where 1,25m would safe a lot of time and block counts.
So a clear "yes" for me to that idea.
I like that idea, I noticed quickly that when you use a half 2,5m block, that you can't fill 1,25m with smaller 50cm blocks (obviously), you need 2x 50cm and use a detail block of 25cm or better 50cm half blocks for the rest if it is a large area you need to fill. A 1,25m block would close this gap. Also right now I exchanged a 2,5m slop block to have a slop on both sides inside that 2,5m³ area, for that I need a lot of 50cm blocks, where 1,25m would safe a lot of time and block counts.
So a clear "yes" for me to that idea.
I'm all for more Armor Block variants, because the new possibilities can really be dampened by the PCU requirements, if you want to build a large ship that utilizes all of the detailing opportunities. Something simple like 250x250x50 and 250x250x25 Armor Blocks could go a long way. But more unique shapes would also be really useful.
I'm all for more Armor Block variants, because the new possibilities can really be dampened by the PCU requirements, if you want to build a large ship that utilizes all of the detailing opportunities. Something simple like 250x250x50 and 250x250x25 Armor Blocks could go a long way. But more unique shapes would also be really useful.
I would go and not just say add med sized blocks, but also go for the lowhanging fruits of adding all the armor block shapes that are still missing to match the ones SE1 has, and which are not already possible by the simplified parts of them, like the 2*1*1 ramps.
My most prominent example would be the missing quarter diagonal shape. so that the half block slaps can construct a proper arch. The 50cm grid can not be used to complete it as the block is off by 25cm and decor blocks are just not armor.
Armor blocks should be the easiest production task, as they do not require much functionality other than grouping and procedural UV mapping.
I would go and not just say add med sized blocks, but also go for the lowhanging fruits of adding all the armor block shapes that are still missing to match the ones SE1 has, and which are not already possible by the simplified parts of them, like the 2*1*1 ramps.
My most prominent example would be the missing quarter diagonal shape. so that the half block slaps can construct a proper arch. The 50cm grid can not be used to complete it as the block is off by 25cm and decor blocks are just not armor.
Armor blocks should be the easiest production task, as they do not require much functionality other than grouping and procedural UV mapping.
I do not know if I heard this right, but was there a mention in one of the Keen streams of in game customisable blocks.
Would this be fully mod created blocks and/or, for want of the correct terminology, a re-bake of smaller block assemblies into a single larger block with the PCU re-evaluted?
I do not know if I heard this right, but was there a mention in one of the Keen streams of in game customisable blocks.
Would this be fully mod created blocks and/or, for want of the correct terminology, a re-bake of smaller block assemblies into a single larger block with the PCU re-evaluted?
this is a no brainer maybe not the ideas of a combined block system but consideration for the need for all the essential building shapes and specifically a full roster for 2 long slopes. This may not be specifically what's needed but an attention to the ease of use and the gaps in blocks supplemented by armor ramp mods that were essential to download unless you were ok working with the base 2 long slopes back in SE1. Not asking for 3 long or 4 long slopes outside of maybe road slopes but there were a few shapes missing that some mods added in, like some slope transitions or the half block slopes, which shouldnt be a problem.
Did some exploring to give a second opinion on simply the missing blocks.
That it with the visuals but this is defiantly not something worth overlooking. I don't want to see Keen making the same mistake that a lot of developers do where they make a passion project for themselves and forget they are also making a game for player base despite their strenuant efforts to not forget. Keen is not doing this so far but for something so be overlooked this early in regards to their own ticketing system, it at least warrants acknowledgement of public desire.
that's enough from me. Trying to hold back my hype to keep some critical nature about me its required for, well calling out issue. keep up the good work Keen.
this is a no brainer maybe not the ideas of a combined block system but consideration for the need for all the essential building shapes and specifically a full roster for 2 long slopes. This may not be specifically what's needed but an attention to the ease of use and the gaps in blocks supplemented by armor ramp mods that were essential to download unless you were ok working with the base 2 long slopes back in SE1. Not asking for 3 long or 4 long slopes outside of maybe road slopes but there were a few shapes missing that some mods added in, like some slope transitions or the half block slopes, which shouldnt be a problem.
Did some exploring to give a second opinion on simply the missing blocks.
That it with the visuals but this is defiantly not something worth overlooking. I don't want to see Keen making the same mistake that a lot of developers do where they make a passion project for themselves and forget they are also making a game for player base despite their strenuant efforts to not forget. Keen is not doing this so far but for something so be overlooked this early in regards to their own ticketing system, it at least warrants acknowledgement of public desire.
that's enough from me. Trying to hold back my hype to keep some critical nature about me its required for, well calling out issue. keep up the good work Keen.
And to bring something other up: We already have blocks in the game that adds 1,25m (see pic). So we should have at least the basic shapes that comes with the 0,25m detail blocks for 1,25m block and with the top right one is already there. Because making one 1,25x1,25x1,25m block needs 33 blocks in total (8x 0,5m + 12x half 0,5m and 13x 0,25m).
With adding this 3 detail block as 1,25m blocks a huge gap would already be closed.
And to bring something other up: We already have blocks in the game that adds 1,25m (see pic). So we should have at least the basic shapes that comes with the 0,25m detail blocks for 1,25m block and with the top right one is already there. Because making one 1,25x1,25x1,25m block needs 33 blocks in total (8x 0,5m + 12x half 0,5m and 13x 0,25m).
With adding this 3 detail block as 1,25m blocks a huge gap would already be closed.
In proposal group 3 I would cut the lower half (it is a full half block) of the first and the two last block to open more possibilities. Because I struggled exactly on that (first block) in my actual build, if you want to only build at half height.
In proposal group 3 I would cut the lower half (it is a full half block) of the first and the two last block to open more possibilities. Because I struggled exactly on that (first block) in my actual build, if you want to only build at half height.
The thing I don't like about this idea is that the thick block of the 2x1 slope would now cost 2 PCU, but I appreciate that it would keep the block count to a minimum. What if half blocks cost 0.5 PCU? (lol) What I like the most about this idea is the elimination of the concept of block sizes as different blocks and being able to just change block size after selecting a shape.
The thing I don't like about this idea is that the thick block of the 2x1 slope would now cost 2 PCU, but I appreciate that it would keep the block count to a minimum. What if half blocks cost 0.5 PCU? (lol) What I like the most about this idea is the elimination of the concept of block sizes as different blocks and being able to just change block size after selecting a shape.
Of its up to me, the 2,50 blocks dont have a place in space engineers at all
Of its up to me, the 2,50 blocks dont have a place in space engineers at all
How can this not have enough votes???? The document is super detailed and explains it grteatly.
How can this not have enough votes???? The document is super detailed and explains it grteatly.
Near about exactly what I came to the boards to suggest today. Burning north of 300 pcu on a single 2.5m block's worth of space to get something a touch more detailed than a standard 2.5m block that we'll then be repeating a hundred times can't be an efficient use of game resources, and I'd hate to see the load required to check air/water-tightness when that gets implemented if I accidentally poke a hole from a crew-space in to a decorative hollow shell made from only .5m and .25m blocks...
On a related note, I might suggest one more set of blocks in the form of SE1's armor-panels, the ability to use a panel to effectively paint just once face of a block (or just part of one face) was extremely helpful in detailing both large and small grids.
Near about exactly what I came to the boards to suggest today. Burning north of 300 pcu on a single 2.5m block's worth of space to get something a touch more detailed than a standard 2.5m block that we'll then be repeating a hundred times can't be an efficient use of game resources, and I'd hate to see the load required to check air/water-tightness when that gets implemented if I accidentally poke a hole from a crew-space in to a decorative hollow shell made from only .5m and .25m blocks...
On a related note, I might suggest one more set of blocks in the form of SE1's armor-panels, the ability to use a panel to effectively paint just once face of a block (or just part of one face) was extremely helpful in detailing both large and small grids.
Replies have been locked on this page!