Core Engineering Features That Would Improve SE2 More Than Water (Plus Feedback on Direct Ore Buildi
Overview:
Space Engineers has always been about engineering, logistics, and problem-solving. While new features like water are exciting, I believe there are several core engineering systems that would have a much greater impact on gameplay and long-term engagement.
At the same time, I want to raise a serious concern about the current direction of allowing blocks to be built directly from raw ore.
⚠ Concern: Building Directly from OreIn my opinion, allowing players to build blocks directly using raw ore is a major step in the wrong direction.
It removes:
- the need for refineries
- the need for assemblers
- the entire production chain
These systems were not just mechanics — they were the foundation of engineering gameplay.
Without them:
- logistics becomes irrelevant
- planning is reduced
- the game becomes simpler, but also shallower
This change feels like a disaster for players who enjoy the engineering depth that defined Space Engineers.
🚀 Core Features That Would Transform the GameI strongly believe the following features would have a deeper and more meaningful impact than water itself:
1. Hermetic Docking Ports (Docking Airlocks)
- Allow two separate grids to connect with a pressurized passage
- Enable seamless movement of players/NPCs between ships and stations
- Eliminate the need for constant depressurization cycles
👉 This would massively improve usability, immersion, and multiplayer gameplay.
2. Landing Platforms / Elevators
- Ships land on a platform that can open or lower
- Direct access from ship to base without jetpack
- Ideal for NPCs and structured base design
👉 This would finally allow proper hangar systems instead of workarounds.
3. Rail Systems
- Physical rails for vehicles or cargo transport
- Stable, predictable movement
- Enables automation and industrial logistics
👉 This would replace many unstable mechanical contraptions and improve large-scale builds.
4. Tracked Vehicle Systems (Tank Tracks)
- Proper tracked movement for planetary vehicles
- Better traction and realism
- More viable ground exploration
👉 This would significantly improve rover gameplay.
5. Hermetic Sealing of Natural Caves (Voxel Sealing)
- Ability to seal asteroid caves by closing the entrance
- No need to build a full grid shell inside the cave
👉 This is a true game-changer:
- enables natural bases
- improves immersion
- reduces unnecessary construction
💡 Why These Matter More Than WaterWater is visually impressive and adds new scenarios.
However, the features above:
- solve long-standing problems from SE1
- improve core gameplay systems
- expand engineering possibilities
- reduce frustration
In terms of gameplay impact, these systems could be even more important than water itself.
🧠 Final ThoughtsSpace Engineers 2 has incredible potential, but it should focus on strengthening what made the original game unique:
- engineering depth
- meaningful systems
- problem-solving
Simplifying core mechanics while adding new features risks losing the identity of the game.
I truly believe that focusing on these engineering improvements would elevate SE2 far beyond being just an improved version of SE1.
Thank you for your work and for listening to the community.
I like this feedback
I WROTE THIS POST WITH THE HELP OF AI. I PRESENTED MY IDEAS AND THEN ASKED THE AI TO WRITE A POST INCORPORATING THOSE IDEAS.
I WROTE THIS POST WITH THE HELP OF AI. I PRESENTED MY IDEAS AND THEN ASKED THE AI TO WRITE A POST INCORPORATING THOSE IDEAS.
I can agree on many points here, but you better split them into separate feedback topics. It is impossible to vote if you agree on 5/6 things but strongly disagree on the remaining one. Lastly, there are most likely already similar topics focusing on each of these ideas. Some of them might already be highly upvoted, so I would first read and comment on them instead of creating one mega topic uniting many different things together.
Other than that, great ideas.
Oh, and water will be in game no matter what :)
I can agree on many points here, but you better split them into separate feedback topics. It is impossible to vote if you agree on 5/6 things but strongly disagree on the remaining one. Lastly, there are most likely already similar topics focusing on each of these ideas. Some of them might already be highly upvoted, so I would first read and comment on them instead of creating one mega topic uniting many different things together.
Other than that, great ideas.
Oh, and water will be in game no matter what :)
I can agree with 1, 4 and 5.
I don't think i fully understand the 2nd point, i believe that will be achievable with the blocks in the future.
For 3 I'm really not sure if you could even implement that, maybe some kind of block more resistant to bumps would do, but the separate rail system in the game seems far from reality.
I can agree with 1, 4 and 5.
I don't think i fully understand the 2nd point, i believe that will be achievable with the blocks in the future.
For 3 I'm really not sure if you could even implement that, maybe some kind of block more resistant to bumps would do, but the separate rail system in the game seems far from reality.
I'll go through your points one by one.
First, the concern about building directly from ore. I agree that there is a risk of making the game shallower, but if there are major advantages to building the next better production block (the smelter), there would still be an incentive to build up a better production loop. Things that have been suggested in other topics, including by me, include
-Nerf the backpack so building from ore is slower, uses more suit energy and can only create certain basic components. The details are up to discussion, but building a smelter should be a big step up in refining ores and manufacturing,
-The smelter should be the equivalent of SE1 basic refinery and SE1 basic assembler in one. Including an option to store the raw metal as some sort of ingots (another hotly discussed topic)
1. Hermetic docking ports
I count that as a "strong nice to have". Not on the urgency level of what is already in the roadmap, but it would certainly enrich the game.
2. Landing Platforms / Elevators
Should mostly be built by the player. Some rail system for moving up/down elevator shafts might be a nice block to have (which leads to point 3), but other than that I expect players to come up with their own solutions. Such as a platform on pistons.
3. Rail Systems
Might be achievable with wheels running in trenches, let's wait for VS 2.3 and see if the wheels in that do the trick. A major missing element in SE1 are curved rails, which does not match the concept of a rectangular grid well. So rail systems outside of straight lines might be difficult to achieve for Keen.
4. Tracked vehicles
Nice to have, but I would not see it as a high priority. Is SE1, I find rovers with more than four wheels are already quite capable.
5. Voxel sealing
Another strong "nice to have". Again, I would finish what is already in the roadmap first, but it has its appeal.
I'll go through your points one by one.
First, the concern about building directly from ore. I agree that there is a risk of making the game shallower, but if there are major advantages to building the next better production block (the smelter), there would still be an incentive to build up a better production loop. Things that have been suggested in other topics, including by me, include
-Nerf the backpack so building from ore is slower, uses more suit energy and can only create certain basic components. The details are up to discussion, but building a smelter should be a big step up in refining ores and manufacturing,
-The smelter should be the equivalent of SE1 basic refinery and SE1 basic assembler in one. Including an option to store the raw metal as some sort of ingots (another hotly discussed topic)
1. Hermetic docking ports
I count that as a "strong nice to have". Not on the urgency level of what is already in the roadmap, but it would certainly enrich the game.
2. Landing Platforms / Elevators
Should mostly be built by the player. Some rail system for moving up/down elevator shafts might be a nice block to have (which leads to point 3), but other than that I expect players to come up with their own solutions. Such as a platform on pistons.
3. Rail Systems
Might be achievable with wheels running in trenches, let's wait for VS 2.3 and see if the wheels in that do the trick. A major missing element in SE1 are curved rails, which does not match the concept of a rectangular grid well. So rail systems outside of straight lines might be difficult to achieve for Keen.
4. Tracked vehicles
Nice to have, but I would not see it as a high priority. Is SE1, I find rovers with more than four wheels are already quite capable.
5. Voxel sealing
Another strong "nice to have". Again, I would finish what is already in the roadmap first, but it has its appeal.
Thanks for the detailed write-up this is very much in the “core engineering systems and progression philosophy” space we’re actively seeing a lot of discussion around.
We understand the concern that removing or flattening production steps (such as refineries, assemblers, or intermediate processing stages) can risk reducing the depth of logistics gameplay that defined SE1 for many players. Likewise, we’re seeing consistent feedback that engineering challenges, resource chains, and infrastructure planning are a key part of what gives builds long-term meaning.
At the same time, SE2 is currently exploring how to balance that depth with a smoother early experience and reduced onboarding friction, particularly around survival progression and first-time player flow. This is an ongoing area of iteration rather than a finalised direction.
On the feature side, suggestions like hermetic docking, infrastructure systems (rails, elevators, sealing), and improved vehicle handling are all within the broader category of “engineering support systems” that the team is actively evaluating as the game evolves. Not all of these are confirmed or planned, but they are very much aligned with the type of systemic depth SE2 is expected to expand into over time.
Appreciate the structured breakdown and the distinction you’ve made between environmental features and systemic engineering features that kind of framing is useful for ongoing design discussions.
Arron, Community Manager
Thanks for the detailed write-up this is very much in the “core engineering systems and progression philosophy” space we’re actively seeing a lot of discussion around.
We understand the concern that removing or flattening production steps (such as refineries, assemblers, or intermediate processing stages) can risk reducing the depth of logistics gameplay that defined SE1 for many players. Likewise, we’re seeing consistent feedback that engineering challenges, resource chains, and infrastructure planning are a key part of what gives builds long-term meaning.
At the same time, SE2 is currently exploring how to balance that depth with a smoother early experience and reduced onboarding friction, particularly around survival progression and first-time player flow. This is an ongoing area of iteration rather than a finalised direction.
On the feature side, suggestions like hermetic docking, infrastructure systems (rails, elevators, sealing), and improved vehicle handling are all within the broader category of “engineering support systems” that the team is actively evaluating as the game evolves. Not all of these are confirmed or planned, but they are very much aligned with the type of systemic depth SE2 is expected to expand into over time.
Appreciate the structured breakdown and the distinction you’ve made between environmental features and systemic engineering features that kind of framing is useful for ongoing design discussions.
Arron, Community Manager
Replies have been locked on this page!