Submit Feedback

Space Engineers 2 Support Topic Feedback

Replace Ores with Ingots so you can melt components back into their elements.

Waterlimon shared this feedback ago

Not Enough Votes

Drill -> "backpack smelter" -> Ingots -> Backpack building

Remove ores entirely. Only have ingots.

Why?

So you can melt components back into Ingots.

Melting components back into Ores makes no sense.

This is a completely visual and naming change. No mechanics change.

I like this feedback

Best Answer

Usernamenotshown ●

I don't like this idea because having ores is important too.

Replies (3)

Waterlimon ●

(the melting part can be implemented later, this is just groundwork to prepare for it, so things feel logical once it arrives)

Reply URL

4Peace ●

@Waterlimon

Indeed, recycling components into ore makes no sense. But also, breaking them into ingots makes little sense. We need the scrap actually, as I have summarized here

Reply URL

Waterlimon ●

So something like components -> scrap -> ingots?

Though wouldnt you need multiple types of scrap to ensure you dont end up with more ingots than you started with? If you straight up get the same ingots you put in, at least theres no potential for exploits, and you dont feel bad for getting less out than you put in... hard to say.

URL

4Peace ●

"components -> scrap -> ingots"

yes,

For large scale recycling, for example, if you grind down an entire grid, you will get a lot of different scrap based on what those blocks were made from. Then you most likely would want to smelt them into ingots, ready to be used anywhere.

Or you can use scrap right away for backpack building purposes, so it would be:

(grind block) components -> scrap -> component (weld new block)

URL

Grafzahl ●

I also believe that ores should remain an essential part of the game. Ores significantly enhance the mining and refining gameplay loop by introducing variety, planning, and logistical considerations.

URL

Usernamenotshown ● ●

I don't like this idea because having ores is important too.

Reply URL

Waterlimon ●

This suggestion is conditional on there not being both ore and ingots.

Many would argue having both ores AND ingots is the way to go.

URL

Steve ●

I want ores and ingots. I think the only fix is to have them both. So overall I don't like this idea because it solves one problem with a new problem of equal undesirability.

URL