[SUGGESTION] Small conveyors only

irreality.net ●

For designing creations the creative mode was always a solution where conveyors were not needed for any build.

For survival mode in game with aspiration to engineering such thing like moving objects though tubes smaller than them removes any remaining connections with physics,

Why bother with any conveyor networks at all then?

Unrealistic backpack with 3.2 tons of "capacity"(?) and no volume constrain is not a good justification because it is broken concept already.

Reply URL

1

Dwarf-Lord Pangolin ●

So the basic flaw in your argument is that it assumes that Space Engineers 2 is a realistic game. It's not. Neither was SE1; from alpha to release, decisions were constantly, and correctly, made that emphasized fun over realism. Heck, I remember similar arguments on the forums back in October 2013, right at the beginning of SE1's alpha. The people making this argument eventually gave up back then, and given that SE2 thankfully looks to be heading in a somewhat more arcadey direction, they'll get the memo here too. But let me go through your points one by one.

1. Creative mode is not what I'm talking about; given that conveyors aren't necessary there, I'm talking about survival.

2. "Aspiration to engineering" is a little bit of a pretentious phrase. Nobody playing Space Engineers should deceive themselves into believing that this is a hard science game, or that there is any semblance of real engineering here. For example, thrust is applied uniformly, regardless of where the thrusters are located. In SE1, we have FTL that violates the laws of relativity. I could go on and on and on about the number of ways the Space Engineers series always has and always will ignore physics for the sake of gameplay. Simply put, this is not a valid argument, because the "remaining connections with physics" in this series were obliterated over a decade ago.

3. Why bother with conveyors? Because the only real "aspiration to engineering" that this game provides is forcing the player to use the predefined systems to make their own creations. And that's fine, that's all it needs to be a good, fun, "engineering" game. The conveyor networks impose a requirement on the designer that they must find a way to accommodate while still achieving their intended goal. But those predefined systems and requirements should not have arbitrary and unnecessary complexity that interferes with the game's purpose, which is amusement. Which is why we should have only small conveyors.

4. Of course the backpack and similar systems are good justifications: they're part of the game, because they're consistent with the game's design philosophy, which is fun > physics. That's the only justification it needs.

So the basic flaw in your argument is that it assumes that Space Engineers 2 is a realistic game. It's not. Neither was SE1; from alpha to release, decisions were constantly, and correctly, made that emphasized fun over realism. Heck, I remember similar arguments on the forums back in October 2013, right at the beginning of SE1's alpha. The people making this argument eventually gave up back then, and given that SE2 thankfully looks to be heading in a somewhat more arcadey direction, they'll get the memo here too. But let me go through your points one by one.

1. Creative mode is not what I'm talking about; given that conveyors aren't necessary there, I'm talking about survival.

2. "Aspiration to engineering" is a little bit of a pretentious phrase. Nobody playing Space Engineers should deceive themselves into believing that this is a hard science game, or that there is any semblance of real engineering here. For example, thrust is applied uniformly, regardless of where the thrusters are located. In SE1, we have FTL that violates the laws of relativity. I could go on and on and on about the number of ways the Space Engineers series always has and always will ignore physics for the sake of gameplay. Simply put, this is not a valid argument, because the "remaining connections with physics" in this series were obliterated over a decade ago.

3. Why bother with conveyors? Because the only real "aspiration to engineering" that this game provides is forcing the player to use the predefined systems to make their own creations. And that's fine, that's all it needs to be a good, fun, "engineering" game. The conveyor networks impose a requirement on the designer that they must find a way to accommodate while still achieving their intended goal. But those predefined systems and requirements should not have arbitrary and unnecessary complexity that interferes with the game's purpose, which is amusement. Which is why we should have only small conveyors.

4. Of course the backpack and similar systems are good justifications: they're part of the game, because they're consistent with the game's design philosophy, which is fun > physics. That's the only justification it needs.

URL

1

irreality.net ●

I'm not saying it is hard science game but SE1 physics and grid mechanics is good, unique and "feels" realistic compared to other games. With "realistic" world settings and x1 inventory multipliers, working displays, visuals etc. makes it immersive world. Because of consistency which is a key here.

Some aspects of physics are ignored in SE and not simulated at all (like impact on G-force on human body, thermodynamics) but whatever is simulated makes consistent system which make rules of in-game world - mass, volume, inertia, energy consumption, conversion rates, thrust forces etc.

This is enough to believe in this world, this is enough to switch to first person view and go inside vehicle, station and feel immersion, and in same time enough to act as educational aspect of the game.

Regarding your examples of ignoring the physics in SE1, I would disagree:

1. Uniform application of thrust and inertia dampeners can be achieved even today by computer control. This is how drones fly, this is how ESP systems control individual wheels in vehicles. There is no magic in it.

2. Jump drives are not faster than light. Light speed is ~300.000 km/s and jump drive moving 2000 km within a second is not something which is even close to this speed. In 2026 we don't know if it is possible to build them in reality, but in sci-fi game they are part of its physics of in-game world, they have rules and are consistent. It is not magic "fast travel" teleport button out of nowhere. Jump drive must be built and follow rules related with mass, energy consumption, recharge times, material requirements etc.

Should we say it that all effort is not fun and just add "Teleport" button to every cockpit for sake of simplicity? Or better with Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V to move grids quickly without boring travel? In creative mode, why not - switch to spectator view, use clipboard etc. But not in survival, please.

The key difference for our discussion is that in 100 years maybe it will be possible to build something like jump drive (or maybe not), but in 100 years from now it will be not possible to build conveyor tube which will fit objects larger than its external dimensions unless we make world inconsistent = fake and non-immersive.

3. So if conveyor network imposes a requirement on design so is same with small/large conveyor variants of other blocks. Same constrains and trade-offs with large/small batteries, large/small solar panels or large/small wheels. Small pipe - less space taken but limits what can go through. Large pipe - takes more space but bigger objects can go through. Simple, logic, and consistent.

4. Regarding backpack and magic welding of ores directly to components.... Fun is not opposition with physics. Physics of the simulated world does not have to be 1:1 full simulation of reality but must be consistent within the world and its internal rules. Otherwise the world feels fake and not immersive.

Engineering games are about solving problems. Removing problems for sake of "gameplay" forces to ask what is left for a gameplay in survival mode of Space Engineers? What should I build and why?

If I can go from survivor of crashed landing pod to orbit without need to use single block using only backpack and hand tools then something is wrong with world consistency. It feels fake, unrealistic and not fun.

There are tons of mods for SE1 which make "life easier" up to the point that survival is no different than creative mode. Magic inventories, mining without drilling, infinite resources etc. If someone needs them and like them, ok, let's make them optional. Like settings for inventory multipliers, assembler speeds etc. but please keep depth of game for those who like it instead of making game simplified for wide audience but shallow or arcade.

If someone says that my backpack can carry 3.2 tons of rock without limit on volume, fit portable refinery, assembler, jetpack with infinite fuel and powerful thrust, life support with all powered by small power cell - it feels fake to the point that I ask question why to bother with building a space ship if I have such powerful suit with backpack which is way more powerful than ships I encounter? Why I need any station or machinery when I can handle everything without them? The world is not consistent, it feels fake, dumb and not immersive. The story, the colonization, everything feels shallow and fake because there is no feeling that I'm fighting for survival or resolving any engineering problems.

Maybe better would be not mention about any units at all, do not pretend there is any relation to real physics, kilograms, meters or kilowatts. Just do "inventory slots" like in Minecraft or "horse pocket" in other games... whatever. Make it similar to building and crafting in Subnautica where I don't know if I collect 1 kg or 1 ton of Tritanium but just 1 unit. I charge battery to 100% without asking how many kWh is it.

And to build battery I need 1 unit of tritanium and a mushroom, and to build underwater base I need 4 units of tritanium - fine why not. Subnautica has a story which has begining and the end. It is not open world, it is not a sandbox and it is not suitable for multiplayer. And I would never spend 12K hours in Subnautica or any other similar game.