VS2.3 Feedback: Mining Should Reward Better Engineering, Not Better "Wiggle Drilling"

For the TL;DR folks: The Thesis

Space Engineers already provides some of the most satisfying engineering challenges in gaming. One of my favorite parts of the game is designing specialized machines: balancing thrust, conveyors, cargo capacity, power, and layout to create something purpose-built.

Mining should be one of the best examples of that philosophy.

However, I have noticed that the current mining experience sometimes encourages players to solve the problem through piloting technique rather than engineering design. This is not necessarily a request to simply make drills bigger or prescribe a specific solution.

The question I think is more interesting is:

"What behavior should mining encourage?"

Right now, mining often rewards becoming better at working around the drill rather than building a better mining machine.

The Engineering Fantasy

One of the things I love about Space Engineers is that the game allows players to create machines with a purpose. A mining ship should feel like a piece of industrial equipment.

The fun should come from questions like:

• How much cargo capacity do I need?
• How much thrust is enough?
• Should I prioritize efficiency or speed?
• Do I need defensive systems?
• How do I make this machine better?

The engineering challenge should be designing the machine.

The Current Incentive

As ores can exist deep underground, sometimes 80m+ below the surface, underground mining becomes necessary.

The problem I find myself solving is no longer: "How do I build a better mining ship?"

Instead, it becomes: "How do I make a tunnel just large enough that my ship fits behind the drill?"

This leads to what I would call Wiggle Drilling.

The player begins pivoting the ship around its center of mass and "porpoising" around to clear enough voxel space for the ship to enter the tunnel. Instead of using a drill like a boring machine, the pilot learns to "paint" voxels away with careful ship movement.

That made me stop and ask: What behavior is mining actually rewarding?

How This Affects Ship Design

This incentive starts influencing almost every mining ship I build.

Instead of asking: "What mining ship do I want to build?"

I start asking: "How narrow can I make this ship so it fits behind the drill?"

This creates some strange design pressures:

• Extremely narrow mining ships become more practical.
• Long drill-centered designs become preferable.
• More interesting layouts become harder to justify.
• Defensive systems, additional cargo, or utility equipment become more difficult because every additional block increases the excavation problem.

Eventually, I find myself abandoning more interesting mining ship concepts and simply building a wall of drills because it minimizes the Excavator problems.

Drill walls also introduce its own problems:

• Higher PCU usage.
• Increased grid complexity.
• More strain on simulation performance.
• Less satisfying engineering decisions.

Ideally, I would rather use fewer, more thoughtfully designed mining tools than simply stacking more drills to overcome the limitation.

The Engineering Trade-Off I Would Love To See

The goal is not simply making drills stronger or mining faster.

The engineering challenge I would love to see is being able to make meaningful trade-offs in mining ship design.

Right now, a large part of the design problem becomes: "How do I create a hole large enough for my ship to follow the drill?" Because drills only excavate a limited area around their contact point, ship designs are often pushed towards:

1) very narrow profiles,

2) large drill walls, or

3) specialized movement techniques to clear enough space.

Ideally, I would like mining ships to have more room for engineering decisions:

• Do I prioritize cargo capacity?
• Do I add defensive systems?
• Do I build a smaller, agile miner?
• Do I build a larger industrial platform?
• Do I sacrifice efficiency for survivability?

Those are the kinds of choices that make Space Engineers exciting.

The important part is not whether the final solution is larger drills, upgraded technology, attachments, or something else entirely. The important part is creating a system where the player's primary challenge is designing a better machine — not designing around the limitations of making the machine physically fit through the tunnel it creates.

My favorite engineering problems in Space Engineers are the ones where I improve the machine. I would love mining to create more of those moments.

The Cascading Effects (for good or ill)

This one interaction creates several downstream design compromises:

• Multiple drills become almost mandatory.
• Drill walls become an attractive solution.
• PCU usage increases.
• Ships become narrower than they otherwise need to be.
• Gyros fight against terrain while trying to enlarge tunnels through pivoting and Porpoising.
• Mining starts feeling like carefully scraping voxel edges instead of operating heavy industrial equipment.

The individual mechanics are not necessarily the problem. The question is what player behavior emerges from those mechanics.

What Kind Of Mining Behavior Should The Game Encourage?

I don't think the important question is: "How should drills be changed?"

There are many possible solutions, and the right one is ultimately up to Keen.

Maybe it is:

• Different drill progression.
• Improved excavation technology.
• New attachments.
• Specialized mining equipment.
• Something else entirely.

The implementation is less important than the outcome.

The core feedback is:

Mining currently rewards awkward ship movement more than thoughtful engineering.

The Goal

My favorite moments in Space Engineers are when I improve the machine instead of improving my workaround.

I want to spend my time designing a better miner, not becoming better at wiggle drilling.

The engineering should solve the mining problem — not the pilot.