This week we spent time discussing what combat should look and feel like in Space Engineers 2. Nothing is final yet. We’re exploring ideas, identifying the pain points from SE1, and trying to define what kind of combat experience we actually want to build.
What are we aiming for?
We started by outlining a few core principles that we think should guide combat design in SE2:
- Longer, more tactical engagements
Fights should take time – measured in minutes, not seconds. We want to avoid sudden one-shot kills and give players time to react.
- Preparation should matter
Players who scout, build defenses, or prepare ambushes should be able to generate unfair local advantages.
- Rock-Paper-Scissors balance
No single weapon or strategy should dominate. A system where different combat types counter each other could make battles more dynamic.
- Player feedback and clarity
You should know when you’ve hit something, what damage you’re doing, and what’s happening around you – without guesswork.
- Support both attack and defense playstyles
Offensive and defensive roles should both be viable, with tools and mechanics that support each side.
With those principles in mind, we discussed possible features and mechanics that could support this kind of gameplay.
Combat Duration & Survivability
In SE1, a single cockpit hit could end the fight instantly. We’re thinking about ways to prevent this – possibly through shields or other durability layers that give players more time to react. The idea isn’t to make combat slower for the sake of it, but to make it more interesting and fair.
Weapon Dynamics: Rock–Paper–Scissors
We explored a triangle-based balance model:
- Aimed/manual weapons beat automated turrets
- Automated turrets beat rockets/missiles
- Rockets/missiles beat aimed weapons
This would encourage diverse ship builds and make strategic choices more meaningful, especially in PvP.
Detection, Infiltration & Defense
We’d like players to have ways to detect enemies – not just through visual spotting but via tools like scanners or sensors. This also opens up infiltration gameplay, where a player could sneak into an enemy base or ship and gain an advantage. But for that to work, defenders need countermeasures – like surveillance systems, detection blocks, or hacking protection.
We’re also toying with the idea of hacking encounters as a mini-game or high-stakes mechanic during infiltration.
Safe Zones & Risk Management
Safe zones came up a lot. We’re considering making them:
- Limited in size and availability
- Costly to maintain over time
- Slow to set up
The idea is to preserve tension and avoid scenarios where players are untouchable. One suggestion was to have safe zone chips decay over time, even when stored, to prevent stockpiling. There could also be progression systems that allow players to expand their safe zones later in the game.
Character vs Grid Combat
Another angle we’re still thinking about: how important should character combat be compared to grid combat? Should it play more like a shooter, or more like an engineering-driven encounter?
Some ideas we’re toying with:
- Characters boarding grids and taking them over
- Combat-focused suit upgrades
- Dedicated tools for sabotage or infiltration
There’s also potential to make enemy characters more visible or tagged on your HUD if they’re hostile – not allied – making encounters easier to track and respond to.
Conclusion
As always, these are early design discussions. Some of these systems may evolve, combine, or be cut entirely. But this is the direction we’re thinking about as we continue shaping SE2 into the game we’ve always wanted to play.
Let me know what you think combat in SE2 should feel like!
Full blog post: https://blog.marekrosa.org/
🛠️ Feedback & Support – https://support.keenswh.com/
🗺️ Roadmap: https://2.spaceengineersgame.com/roadmap-2/#current
🛰️ Discord: https://discord.gg/keenswh
📫 Newsletter: https://www.keenswh.com/newsletter
➡️ Connect and find us on your platform of choice: https://www.keenswh.com/connect/