I can imagine building a gate that leads to a planetary gate that its exit point faces down. Perhaps painting the entry gate with crayon, stateting "SAFE FOR USE". That would be hilariously sinister.
"When you’ll buy a good on a market 1.000km away from where you stand, it will show up in a local inventory physically attached to that particular market container. So, you have to factor in the cost (in time) to get there and collect your good."
Im actually only parroting myself and just agreeing with the other guy.
SE has some equipment engineering possibilities, yes, but for the most part it simply /is/ "slap on more of it".
SE has no variation of FTD's motors/generators which you can taylor for your specific needs within the bounds of the game, practicality and player skill.
In space engineers its always 950kwh/kg uranium regardless of how you build your ship or reactor (as far as i can tell).
No choice to build a less efficient setup or more efficient setup to statisfy your power needs, no thinking beyond "slap on more of them"
In FTD you can have a large efficient, small powerful, large powerful, or anything inbetween in terms of generators.
And the extrema of either need some skills on the side of the builder to be pulled off.
There simply is less thinking involved in space engineers to do anything.
Yes there are cases wheres a lot of thinking involved, like with some of the missle scripts, im not denying that.
But for it to be any good for the community at large and general gameplay it has to be simple to do at least something somewhat useful out of a bit of effort.
Programming in general is nothing simple or low effort for most of the populace.
Placing blocks and designing machines in doing so is easy and available to everyone.
core mechanics only being interesting for people who invest a ton of time is a bad idea for a game that wants to have a large player base