Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Future of Space Engineers

Discussion in 'General' started by Matt123123000, Aug 18, 2017.

?

What do YOU want to see in the future of space engineers?

  1. A Survival Game that features the need for hunger, thirst, air etc.

    48.1%
  2. Creative sandbox

    37.0%
  3. Exploration, finding alien artifacts and religious holy lands.

    68.5%
  4. A Tech Tree that limits the player

    35.2%
  5. Weapon/Tool Degrading system.

    13.9%
  6. Enemies that come and attack you

    59.3%
  7. Friendly AI that you can hire to help you

    54.6%
  8. Different Factions that attack each other

    62.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Vrmithrax Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,017
    Pretty sure you missed my point. There are many of us who have been here since the start, and yes we may feel a bit of nostalgia for the early days. But, at the core of that nostalgia is a simple fact: we were drawn to Space Engineers because it was DIFFERENT from other games out at the time. Being different makes you stand out. If you want the game to HAVE a future, maybe sticking with what makes it unique and fleshing THAT part out is a better option than trying to derail the original intent of the game and change it into just another version of a game genre that has a ton of "meh" versions out there already (like survival games). If you water down a game with a bunch of "me too" features, you risk getting lost in the crowd. If that happens and sales dry up, you can bet development will grind to a halt, and the game will HAVE no future.

    That is the landmine field you have to tap-dance through, when figuring out what your game wants to be when it grows up ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    522
    It's not that I think that Space Engineers shouldn't have features for a survival game, or competitive multiplayer combat, or what have you. It's that I think that the core of Space Engineers is a sandbox, and that should not be obscured.

    There are two things that a sandbox has going for it:
    1. It's fun in its own right to construct things with a minimum of constraints;
    2. It works as a toolbox for creating games.

    It's pretty clear that there are a few distinct ideas about what kind of games people want to have, built on the SE framework; while I don't object to KSH adding gameplay modes as such, I think the best use of their resources is to concentrate on developing that core, expanding that toolbox, and support modmakers who want to implement gameplay modes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    I strongly disagree, simply based on the oh-so-common post saying there's nothing to do. There's plenty of people like me who do not like to rely on third-party stuff for our games, third party stuff that is by definition amateur made. It's pretty much impossible to see which mods are actually well made and which just appear to be, until it breaks down or slows the game down, and the modder refuses to fix it. Or the modder simply takes down their mod due to one of a million valid or invalid reasons. This is not a framework. The game needs to be able to stand on its own feet without a single third-party addition. Mods should add orchange, not complete.
     
    • Agree Agree x 8
  4. chrisb Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,460
    Unfortunately for me and in regards to my other post in this topic. I travelled to 400,000km from start point and the game is becoming very unstable 'again'. I love SE but can't get past this travelling in space thing. I know the game is more building (obviously), but I would love that huge expanse of space feeling. Well that's missing here in SE. :(
    They did say travel for ever (well sort of), but that doesn't work.
    Then you have the rotor, pistons issues, which to be fair, I have found low risk, but I know many players have big issues with them. I probably don't see this, because I rarely use them now in building, when I do, they seem o.k. in small applications.

    I would love to see Keen sort out the engine/distance issue, even putting in dummy jumps if need be (box-box). Not sure if that is possible in SE.

    That said, there is another game on the horizon that might just provide the needed solution to my problem here. I'll be playing that soon and hopefully may get the result I'm looking for (not sure).

    Space Engineers is one hell of a game, best money I've spent on a game really (£14.99 few years back). But that doesn't do anything to quash that, need for speed... sorry.. I mean distance.. ;)
     
  5. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    That's a bug - or a set of bugs, possibly. SE already have "sectors", at least I think that's what you're asking for. Either certain stuff does not use the sectors, or there's a bug in how sectors are used which causes the jittering... Or something completely different I have no idea about :p 400000km should be no problem at all for a 64-bit floating point.
     
  6. Chaosrex Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    188
    KSH should make a new roadmap for the game to see where they want to go with it.

    The last roadmap for SE din't go much further then the planets release...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    522
    That's the thing. I don't see Space Engineers as a game. I see it as a sandbox.

    I've seen simulations and games that developed excellent mod-making communities. And, frankly, from what I've seen of KSH's efforts at adding gameplay features, it's not their strong suit. The "campaign" included in SE is okay, but I don't see KSH transitioning to developing CRPGs any time soon.

    I'd love to see stuff to do added to Space Engineers, but I think KSH should focus on its strengths.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
  8. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    Perhaps you don't, but there's a lot of people who would disagree with you, me included :)

    Keen hasn't really even tried making gameplay yet. They've been too busy finishing the base features.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    522
    I'm aware of that; this is an argument I've been making. I think people have been making arguments that *because* SE is a game, it needs to be changed in certain ways, and those arguments make assumptions about what kind of game SE is supposed to be, which are at odds with each other.
    If it's fundamentally a game, then gameplay features *are* the base features.

    As it stands, some of the gameplay features SE does have, were mods that were integrated into Space Engineers. The "campaign" featured level design and vehicles mostly by Aragath, not by someone on KSH's core team. Level design is a pretty core skill for developing a game with FPS aspects. For that matter, a few years ago, KSH decided to add derelict ships for "exploration mode", and they got the designs for those ships from a community contest.

    The very fact that any of us took this poll at all seriously goes to show that it isn't, fundamentally, a game, because we're discussing what kind of game it could be, out of different genres. That's the *first* thing you'd make a decision about in designing a game, before you start writing pseudocode, much less before you publish something.
     
  10. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    @FoolishOwl "not by somone on KSH's core team"?!? Who do you think Aragath is anyway? Yes, he was on the core team. He was stationed in Prague for a long time.

    You need the features to make a game before you can make any gameplay.

    It is a fact that this game was supposed to be a lot smaller, there's no denying that. But the community has made it grow, the community has made it into what it is today and I imagine the community will continue to have that impact, for good or ill. So if the community wants this to be a game, and it seems this is quite true, then I have hope that's what it will be.

    You and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree. Most likely the reality will be something in between and none of us will be satisfied ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    522
    Okay, I was wrong there. That somewhat alters my sense of what KSH can do in-house.

    As I've kept saying, I don't object to KSH developing gameplay features. I'm saying that the core of Space Engineers is a sandbox, and they should focus on that. I'm not saying they should *stop* doing anything in particular. In fact, part of the reason I argue for that focus is that I see arguments for "completing the game" that, implicitly or explicitly, involve eliminating existing features, so that Space Engineers is focused on that particular type of game. Focusing on building a sandbox means maximizing the utility and flexibility of the core.
     
  12. zDeveloper10 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    742
    Robocraft got "finished" by eliminating features until the only things left were the finished stuff. and not just polishing off excess stuff either,more like making it lopsided. everybody hated that. they ended up "returning" a few things but the damage was done.
    not that I wouldn't like a strong focus on making the base game (of Space Engineers) cleaner and flexible. came a long way but still feels a bit bumbly.
     
  13. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    Last I checked, the physics engine is 32-bit.
     
    • Late Late x 1
  14. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    Correct, hence the sectoring. The game used to use 32-bit positionals. You couldn't go a fraction of the currently actually working distances.
     
  15. Frodo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    I think most of these are good ideas. I'm personally a survival boi who loves hardcore difficult gameplay so I would absolutely love the addition of hunger and thirst. I think it would be an amazing addition for myself but I know not everyone would be so keen. That means you could disable these systems if you don't want them.

    Additionnally, you could set a rate at which your hunger/thirst decays, just like refinery speed and stuff. So you would have servers with 100x less hunger, where you only need to worry about it occasionally, getting a snack when you're really low. Meanwhile other servers would need you to have a reserve of food ready, and you would need to find it, trade for it, or farm it or hunt it yourself. I think that would be a great addition to the game even if it's made pretty simple. Obviously making farming blocks and the objects related to that would take time, but it would add a shitload of realism to the game for those of us who enjoy difficult survival.

    Right now survival isn't a challenge. You get a ship and you're all set, there's no need to worry about having enough oxygen to breathe and enough power to stay alive unless you've completely forgotten about it. This would add another layer to the game that many players seek, while not fucking up people who enjoy the game right now.
     
  16. damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    I think herin lies some of the arguments being made in this thread; What type of "game" was/is SE.

    The manual mode, more widely known as "survival" mode was never billed as part of the original concept. While I don't hate that it was added, I do feel that it has divided this community's expectations of where the software is going.

    Personally, I believe if you want a space survival experience, there are several titles out there that are going to be more realistics and able to do THAT part of the simulation better than SE ever can (Hellion, Osiris, Adrift). These games are built with that in mind and there's simply no reason you need voxels in a survival title. That's not to say it detracts from the experience but it certainly isn't a priority when it comes to the other simulations you expect to happen in the gameplay.

    Conversely, SE was built around a voxel building/destruction foundation and prioritizes this over other things like the players movements and environmental challenges such as weather, AI and a tiered progression system.

    It's like building a car and then slapping a propeller on the back. It might float and technically operate in water but it's original design places it at a huge disadvantage when compared to a boat. Yet we've got many in the community saying "take the wheels off too" ...why when there's plenty of boats you can buy instead?

    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  17. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,408
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    I think damoran pit it well.
    Survival really doesnt seem to be main aspect of this game.
    Main aspect is building.
    Survival kinda gives (one) canvas to paint on since you can design survival builds for yourself.
     
  19. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    843
    I think that the features SE already has placed it in a unique spot regarding a game with survival features in it, specially now with Rdav`s fleet scrips.
    It just makes a unique experience posible.

    It has a lot of potential.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Sinbad Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,788
    SE lets us build almost anything we want. survival mode give us reasons to build things.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Frodo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    Except in this case this car is the most amazing and realistic space sci-fi game on the market, because you can design your own ships, the physics are awesome, and overall the game is amazing. What I'm saying is, there's already a propeller on the back of this car, and it operates better than most boats AND most cars. It's a car that can go both in water and on land, and it's really good at both. So why not add a few optional things that could make it better in water? This is all optional, so people who like using this model of car on land would still be able to enjoy one of the best rides on the market. But people who like cars that can become boats too would benefit from extra functionalities like a proper rudder that you can attach.

    To detach from the metaphor, my argument is that it would be easy to make the survival mode more realistic and enjoyable. Meanwhile, the sandbox mode would be unaffected. Yeah in the end it's all about the workload on the devs, but like, independant of the initial "Goal" of the game, they need to take into account what players will enjoy the most. It's undeniable that there's a huge part of the community that is like me, and it wouldn't be hard to make both sides of the argument happy.[/QUOTE]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    True, but as others have mentioned once you get your first ship put together survival is no longer a challenge at all. It becomes a game of gathering enough materials to keep the tanks full as you fly around aimlessly. The little bit of time I spent in manual mode was fun because of the logistics of building a ship but that didn't last long after the ship was completed.

    Successful survival games pit the player on an ever increasing incline of getting x before you can do y.

    What makes people want to keep playing is;
    • Drive to build bigger and better things. (<- this is the one keeping this game alive right now)
    • Necessity to defeat a challenge, be that environmental or player driven (practically nonexistent, wolves, pirates/PVP)
    • Barriers to exploring the gameworld further (nonexistent, once you build a ship)
    • Resources that give players advantages over challenges (rare resources, unique items etc. - we've got skin crates)
    In the off chance Keen is listening, my rather generic advice for the game would be:

    Provide purpose or provide tools for players to create purpose. There must be a struggle, a reason to go out and do things. Players will provide the creativity but the game must provide that challenge, be it environmental, resource driven or AI/NPC.
     
  23. Frodo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    Guess we agree on that. I'm not Keen, but I would advise any kind of thing that would cause a need, or a conflict. Be it territory, scarce food, access to rare ressources, or anything. That would give the Pvp servers some meaning beyond "Make your base in deep space then never meet another player unless you actively hunt for players near the spawn".
     
  24. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    522
    Please don't underestimate the significance of this. This isn't merely keeping Space Engineers afloat; it's the core of what SE is. It's why people play SE for hundreds or thousands of hours, when a typical AAA game is finished in 30-60 hours. Space Engineers would be improved by adding gameplay to it -- I'd love to see more goals towards which we design our varied solutions -- but the core of Space Engineers is something that's *better than a game*.
     
  25. Silvrav Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    88
    What you guys seems to forget (and no disrespect, but its due to lack of coding knowledge) core items to be included in the game to make it a true survival game basically means a near rewrite of the entire game core code. Its not "easy" to just add this and that.
     
  26. Frodo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    Sorry mate but I have years of coding knowledge and I can tell you it's not necessary to "rewrite the code of the game" just to add a new bar and a few items. The systems are already in place with oxygen, health and energy, and adding new items does not require any change to the code other than the item itself. New items is basically the easiest thing to add to any game, provided you have the graphics to go with it (Which means a single image and a small 3d model.)
     
  27. damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    Absolutely agree and I'm certainly not trying to downplay the importance of this. However, what I'm saying is to complete the other half of that equation we need something to do with our creations. A problem or puzzle to solve (i.e. the struggle).

    The very premise of engineering is to create in order to solve problems. We can create, yet we have no real problems to solve at the moment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Silvrav Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    88
    Its not simple a few line of code to add some texture and graphics. What people are asking for is entire new game mechanics to be added.

    Sorry mate, I have years of coding behind me as well....not as simple as you think it is
     
  29. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,845

    What you're missing from that list is Random elements. Surprise makes the game replayable. Having to address possible contingencies creates strategy. How you plan for contingencies should have an effect on the game. Example: you go balls-in with mining and refining and don't do anything to defend your base. A planetary Space Pirate appears and lays waste to your base (not currently possible in vanilla).

    A chief complaint is that there are no metrics to evaluate a player or grids to garner how much the player has advanced. So when something does spawn in opposition, it's either overpowering or just more of an annoyance since there are no stats that are kept that can influence what is going to come at you and why. Shit just randomly appears for no reason.
     
  30. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    843
    Make it so it works when a player is detected near a AI grid then a timer starts and a signal is sent to the player.

    "Jump drive signature detected (Could be large, small, and in plural) ETA "x" minutes"

    That way you have time to say "Oh shit" and prepare to either run for your life, OR fight for it.

    And you`d know exactly when you`ll get attacked, instead of having to keep an eye on that ship that is barely visible but suddenly is knocking on your backdoor.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.