Add concrete to make the early game easier instead of oversimplifying everything

Keks shared this feedback 48 days ago
Not Enough Votes

Just a little idea to prevent the game from being oversimplified, while still making the early game easier.

The problem with the early game in SE is that a huge amount of materials is needed just to build a little starter base.

A good portion of the materials is iron, which is only used to build a basic structure with armor blocks. Iron has to be processed by machines to get the needed steel plates.

So, what Keen has done is:

  • Simplified how resources are obtained (materials from environmental voxels)
  • Simplified the production chain (no ingots and backpack building)


What if these exact issues could be countered by adding concrete blocks?

  • Concrete could be a cheap building block that can be obtained by mining stone and crafting it via backpack building.
  • This would massively reduce the amount of required iron.
  • The most remaining blocks aren't that expensive, so that the total amount of required resources is much lower.
  • Without that high demand for resources, it's not necessary to have materials from environmental voxels everywhere. It could be replaced with a more realistic and believable approach.
  • It's also not necessary to simplify the production chain that much because it loses a bit of its relevance in the early game (fewer items to produce). Add some slow, small but cheap machines for the early game but leave ingots in.
  • Backpack building should be limited to building concrete blocks and producing certain items from ingots (not smelting ores!), to keep it more or less believable and having a dedicated smelting/refining step in the game (this would be similar to Minecraft and Factorio, btw).

This wouldn't turn SE into a hyper realistic game, but it would be a fair compromise between believability and playability.

The idea of adding concrete is far from new and has countless votes on this site, but adding it now makes more sense than ever.


Nice side effects:

  • There would be a noticeable difference between building a base (concrete blocks) and a ship (armor blocks).
  • If concrete could not be crafted from asteroids, there would also be a difference in difficulty level between space and planetary gameplay.

Replies (2)

photo
1

Concrete blocks need a clear disadvantage compared to armor blocks to prevent fleets of concrete ships. I'm not sure if simply making them heavy and less robust is enough.

Maybe they should be restricted to static grids entirely?

photo
6

Restricting them to static grids and planets would be needlessly annoying, and having exceptionally high mass relative to other common structural blocks should be more than sufficient, even without low hp.


A solid 2.5m block of even the lightest EPS-concrete (not suitable for structural use) would weigh 40% more than the equivalent heavy armor block. If we eyeballed things with more reasonably (sturdier and more dense concretes in a hollow structure) we could still easily be looking at 4 times the EPS-weight (a bit over five and a half times the weight of heavy armor) for the lighter structural concretes.


If someone really wants to fly a "concrete-glider" so badly that they're willing to handle more than five times the mass of heavy armor for for the "light" stuff, then I see no reason to nerf them any harder than they're already going to be nerfing themselves.

photo
6

I'd also prefer more natural incentives rather than hard restrictions.

Like we used to build concrete ships in real life, they are much cheaper, but there is a reason we don't do that anymore. By adjusting properties of concrete blocks we might achieve the same effect in the game economy. And there still might be cases where using concrete on ships is justified. I am thinking about kinetic weapon systems and ramming ship designs. Concrete should be much easier to destroy and penetrate with weapons compared to proper armor. In other word, concrete is cheap but less effective than armor and can be used on non static grids only in certain situations and can be easily countered. The main usage would still be ofc as a cheap building material for static structures.

photo
1

Massive weight alone should be disadvantage enough for (not) using them in ships. Lets say concrete is somewhere between light armor and heavy armor n terms of strength but at least as heavy as heavy armor.

photo
photo
7

I can imagine backpack building as having a small 3D printer attached to your suit.

That is a technology I can believe in and relate to. I loved SE1 for this very reason. It was abstracted in many ways, but it still remained grounded in reality and generally complied with the laws of physics. I also liked how mining worked in the game. In many other games you just point a laser beam and magically extract materials, while here we had proper drills that actually excavated voxels.

In SE2 we still have drills, but somehow they are now capable of extracting pure elements straight from the ground, basically acting as refineries too. So you are effectively already using “ingots” inside your backpack 3D printer - they just call them ores for some reason. If they were actual ores, we would need to refine them first, and there would be mass and volume reduction during processing. Instead, all drills - handheld and block versions - are perfectly capable of purifying whatever materials they mine while automatically voiding all the remaining waste.

And honestly, this is a huge step back in how the technology is portrayed and it breaks immersion quite badly. So yeah, bring back a proper refining step and limit backpack building to use ingots produced by refineries or smelters.

Now, going back to the concrete idea - there are actually countless possibilities here, and one does not exclude another.

To begin with, we should be able to “build” with voxels in survival. The prerequisite for that is of course being able to collect materials as they are, and this ties nicely into having a proper refining step. Instead of one generic stone or the three generic “environmental voxels” (which are basically just the same “stone” from SE1 with the same issues), all voxel materials could be collected directly and contain traces of different elements, if any.

This would allow players to place them back into the world immediately using some kind of dedicated tool, or even existing tools like grinders for shaping and “cutting” terrain. That alone would massively improve base building. Things like leveling terrain, building walls, landing pads, ramps, roads, tunnels, and so on — all without requiring production blocks for a true accessibility.

We already have different voxel hardness values in the game, so stone, gravel, sand, and similar materials could naturally serve different purposes. Most importantly, you would finally be able to repair voxels damage properly while saving huge amounts of PCU for things that you would otherwise "spend" block on.

The engine already fully supports this, as we can clearly see in creative mode. It is honestly beyond my comprehension why this is not an actual gameplay feature already. It feels like having a car but still pulling it with horses :)

Beyond simply extracting and placing voxels, players could even create entirely new voxel materials that do not naturally generate. For example, proper concrete.

Concrete could be made by combining specific rock-like voxels (such as calcite) with water. For that you might need a production block, or you could even pour water directly onto calcite material to convert it into concrete while consuming water in the process. That would actually feel immersive :)

Of course this would not be early-game technology. It would be intended for building large, durable structures. On top of that, we could still have rigid stone and concrete blocks of various shapes. Something similar to the XL blocks recently added to SE1 would work really well here, allowing players to quickly construct large bases out of relatively few blocks and cheap materials instead of mining half a planet worth of iron.

So yeah, bring back a proper refining step so we can collect all kinds of raw materials. There is nothing complicated about putting raw material into a refinery block and getting usable ingots out of it for your backpack printer. And if do not like word “ingots”, replace it with “filaments” or something similar and use those as the input material for onboard 3D printers and production in general.

Make the technology believable and it will also be intuitive so the new players will understand it naturally, instead of oversimplifying that was never even that complex.

And allow us to use voxels as actual building materials to simplify base construction. Why should I need to mine several iron deposits just to build a floor for my starter base? Or mine through "environmental voxels" for half an hour?

If voxels cannot be perfectly straight in every orientation, fine - let me at least build a 15x15 meter slab out of stone-like material. It would be extremely heavy and still much more brittle than steel blocks, but it would drastically speed up boring construction work and actually make things SIMPLER overall.

And guess what? We would not even need to refine things like gravel anymore. We could simply collect it directly. Combine it with iron grids and suddenly you can create gabions - metal cages filled with gravel - something that already exists in real life as cheap and ecological construction material.

Combine calcite stone, sand, and water and create highly durable concrete that cannot be damaged by collisions with grids, yet is still vulnerable to weapons and explosions. Perfect for defensive bases and protection against kinetic impacts.

Bases were always inferior to movable grids in SE. Concrete could finally give them a real sense to exist. You should not need to spend enormous amounts of PCU and valuable metals just to build a decent-sized base.

I want to build many bases, especially on planets. I want to use rovers and have them function as a real alternative to “helicopters” and rockets. But for that, we need infrastructure. We need roads, ramps, bridges, tunnels, terrain leveling — and we need the tools to create all of that in survival mode.

Not just drills. Why is it still so difficult to shape voxels the way we want? We need more terrain manipulation tools in survival too.

There is so much unused potential here, yet we barely hear a single word from the developers about whether they are even looking into these systems.

photo
2

Been thinking about this one, agree some sort of foundation concrete block would be useful and game-friendly.

photo
3

This is actually the first suggestion that's made me take the time to create an account and vote.

As someone who primarily plays on planets because I enjoy designing large bases, this has always been one of my biggest gripes with Space Engineers. It has never really made sense that nearly every structure—from a small outpost to a massive bunker—is built almost entirely out of steel armor blocks.

I think concrete would not only improve the early game, but also give bases their own identity instead of feeling like grounded ships.

To keep it from simply replacing armor blocks everywhere, I think it should have some meaningful tradeoffs. I'd make concrete:

  • About as heavy as heavy armor.
  • Better at handling impacts from collisions
  • Significantly weaker against combat/weapon damage.
  • Not airtight.

That would naturally give it a unique role. It would be ideal for planetary construction, foundations, retaining walls, landing pads, defensive barriers, and non-pressurized sections of space stations or hangars, while steel armor would remain the obvious choice for ships and pressurized or combat-critical areas.

Beyond the gameplay benefits, I think it would also dramatically improve the visual variety of the game. Concrete is one of the most essential construction materials in the real world, and its absence has always made bases feel far less believable. Adding it would create a clear distinction between buildings and spacecraft while opening up a whole new architectural style for both planetary bases and space stations.

photo
4

As for the properties of concrete:

Concrete should be very heavy—around 3–4 metric tons per cubic meter—so a 2.5-meter block should weigh 45–62 metric tons.This is not important for static structures.

Its damage resistance should be that of heavy armor—partly due to its great weight and partly because concrete blocks are solid, unlike standard light and heavy armor blocks, which, given their specific gravity, cannot be made of solid metal.

Other advantages and disadvantages:

- A damaged concrete block cannot be repaired normally; it must be removed and replaced

- The raw materials for concrete blocks should be inexpensive and easy to produce in large quantities

- Building concrete blocks “from a bacpack” is very impractical due to high material consumption. Machinery is required.


The airtightness of concrete structures is a consideration. In reality, concrete is sufficiently waterproof and gas-tight. Concrete blocks should be sized to allow for easy “construction” of an airtight structure inside concrete structure.


Ideally, there could be three types of concrete blocks:

- plain concrete—resistance equivalent to heavy armor

- reinforced concrete = a lightweight armor block filled with concrete—strength twice that of heavy armor

- high-strength concrete (concrete for fortifications) = a heavy armor block filled with concrete—five times the resistance of heavy armor

Reinforced and high-strength concrete could be airtight, just like light and heavy armored blocks.


There should be an option to use concrete as a material for the voxel hand—as a substitute for stone

------------------------------------------------------

In several threads, I have suggested the possibility of blocks made of smelted stone.

photo
1

@ 4Peace: I think drills also being refineries is worse than refining in the backpack. Because I think refining should be relatively slow in the mini-refinery, and if you use the backpack for refining, you can store the ore inside and refine it on the way to your next activity. Keen's choice, I would personally prefer a return to the SE1 concept with refining in the survival kit or refineries. Either way materials should show up as ingots after refining.

@Semtex:

A quick web search shows that real life concrete has a density around 2.3 metric tons per cubic meter, that would put the 2.5m block at 36 tons. Still massive and more realistic.

photo
Leave a Comment
 
Attach a file
Access denied