(Re)Naming

[ssilk]

Moved from general cause discussion finished and mainly dependend to the wiki

This should be placed into the suggestions-board, but I make here an exception cause I think it would be an important change and I want to hear opinions to see, if this is the right direction.

First I want to go back to this thread: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =50&t=2429
In short: I thought there about some renamings. I think the result of that thoughts is this article.

I came also to the conclusion, that if we change the names of some things, this also must be done in the game, not only in the wiki. This is important, because otherwise it will split the game from the wiki. It will influence about how we name things. And how we think about them. And that has (small) consequences in the game (just the naming) and especially in the translation. I hope and think, that it has no consequences to the Lua-interface, or only small.

What is the purpose of this thread? See, how others are thinking about it, improving it, making some kind of consens. If we are in line, I can go to the next stage, which is asking the devs to rename the stuff.



Renaming of "Robotic Network" to "Robot Working Area"
Renaming of "Logistic Network" to "Logistic Zone"
Introducing "Construction Area"
This was the hardest.
The idea is: There are the roboports. They have different functions:
- Charging the robots
- Storing robots and repair packs
- "Spanning out" the area for constructions and logistics.
- Connecting to all other Roboports.
The logic of this is not connected to the roboports alone. It is easy to make a mod, which introduces a roboport, which has no storage (see mods) and it's also easy to make roboports without logistic network or without charging.
So the basic of this idea is, to split the functions of roboports into their basic parts and the most important are the different "areas", which the roboports spread: That's the "Robotic Working Areas". We have currently only two types of that areas: "Logistics" and "Construction" (maybe more will come?). The logistics is special, cause the construction area cannot work without logistics and it is also the border from where the roboport connects to other roboports (I think it is from factorio program logic possible to connect to roboports, which doesn't touch the borders of the logistics area, but it doesn't make so much sense). That's the reason, why I call the the logistics "Logistic zone" and the construction "Construction area". I think I don't need to explain it much more, but I'm not sure if that makes really sense.
The other aspect of the logistic network (well, the logistics ) is explained below.

Get rid of Transport network
I think this whole definition and the current trying to bring everything which needs to be transported under "Transport network", is a mess. The things are much easier.
- Belt transport system (Belts, splitter, ug-belt)
- Inserters
- Chests
- Transportation (which tries to bring all a bit together again)
- Logistics (where the sub-parts are railway and logistic system)

Renaming other "networks"
In the above mentioned thread I proposed some more renamings. Meanwhile my thinking is like so:
- Liquid network: "Liquid systems", one liquid system is a "Liquid network".
- Electric network: "Electric systems" and one system is an "Electrical network".
- Logistic network: See down.
- Crafting network: "Crafting". Simple as it is.
- Railway network: "Railway".

Using "Smart" instead of "Circuit" ("Circuit Network" to "Smart Circuits/Network")
I think this is the biggest change, and I'm quite unsure with this: Either it's genius or a complete fail.
The idea is: Everything you can currently connect Circuit network has "Smart" in his name. "Smart chest", "Smart inserter". So logically it is a "Smart Circuit" or "Smart Network".
Logic follow up changes
The red and green wires are then both "smart wires".
The part of the logistic network, which can currently be used in the smart inserter is then the "Smart logistics".
Eventually both (wires and logistics) will mix up to "Smart network"? Not sure.
The inside of the smart circuits and smart logistics works through the "Smart bus", which I tried to explain a bit better in the wiki. https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... it_network



Opinions, suggestions?

[zlosynus]

Concerning forums, swapping "Updates" and "News". It is very confusing.

[SHiRKiT]

I totally support this, since Railway network and Transport network is impossible for me to conceive what was the intention behind when the "network"suffix were added. Also, Crafting is easier to understand than any other combination of words out there.

Fianlly, I also think roboport's should have their functionality splitted up. I have create a mod for my personal use just for that. I have charging stations that can't hold robots, I have roboports that doesn't charge and has no logistic size, I have roboports that increase the radius but can't store any robots but can't charge.

[NicoH]

Fianlly, I also think roboport's should have their functionality splitted up. I have create a mod for my personal use just for that. I have charging stations that can't hold robots, I have roboports that doesn't charge and has no logistic size, I have roboports that increase the radius but can't store any robots but can't charge.

I have quiet a difficult time to understand the reason for this splitting. I totally agree to have smaller Roboparts which only recharge the robots and maybe extend the radius a tiny bit. But I fail to understand the other splittings. In my opinion they make it only unreasonable complex.

[SHiRKiT]

Fianlly, I also think roboport's should have their functionality splitted up. I have create a mod for my personal use just for that. I have charging stations that can't hold robots, I have roboports that doesn't charge and has no logistic size, I have roboports that increase the radius but can't store any robots but can't charge.

I have quiet a difficult time to understand the reason for this splitting. I totally agree to have smaller Roboparts which only recharge the robots and maybe extend the radius a tiny bit. But I fail to understand the other splittings. In my opinion they make it only unreasonable complex.

- Charging only ports: placed in higly traffic areas. I can lay them down in the middle of the robots flight paths to increase their performance.
- Increase size only ports: increasing size without storing any robots prevents robots from sleeping in unwanted far away places.
- Slot only ports: place them in places that I want to robots to sleep near. I always want robots to sleep near my high traffic areas (I use robots for unloading trains for example).

[CreeperDaReeper]

- Charging only ports: placed in higly traffic areas. I can lay them down in the middle of the robots flight paths to increase their performance.
- Increase size only ports: increasing size without storing any robots prevents robots from sleeping in unwanted far away places.
- Slot only ports: place them in places that I want to robots to sleep near. I always want robots to sleep near my high traffic areas (I use robots for unloading trains for example).

Would you mind releasing this on the forums? Sounds like it would be useful.

[ssilk]

I totally support this, since Railway network and Transport network is impossible for me to conceive what was the intention behind when the "network"suffix were added. Also, Crafting is easier to understand than any other combination of words out there.

The reason can be found in the wiki history. https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... on=history
The new points seemed to match to this nice "network" schema and was then consequently introduced last October. https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... did=105527
Everybody liked this "networks" and took this idea over, because at that time of the game it looked like a good idea.



But I would like to bring the discussion back to my theme: Are there some kind of disagree, better ideas, concerns?

[therapist]

Renaming of "Robotic Network" to "Robot Working Area"

I think this is unnecessary. A storage chest or, for example, either exists within the robotics network or not. Calling it "Robot working area" would be kind of like calling the inserters "Robot Arm Object Movers" Yes it is literally correct and very descriptive, but it may be too descriptive to the point of ridiculousness. Maybe Robot Coverage, Robotic Coverage Area, Robotic Coverage Network would be a nice middle ground, but to call it "Robotic Working Area" feels like you're talking to me like I'm 5 years old.

Renaming of "Logistic Network" to "Logistic Zone"

The words "Logistic Network" makes no sense to me in the way you are using it. Maybe Logistic Storage Network, Robotic Storage Network, or just Storage Network would describe what you are trying to desribe better.

Belts are a component of logistics. Trains are a component of logistics. Almost everything that collects stores or moves resources is an aspect of logistics.

Get rid of Transport network

TOTALLY AGREE, why we would consider belts arms and crates their own network is ust silly, these components are present in almost every network. Maybe call them the Basic Network if you really really have to.

Renaming other "networks"

Liquid network: "Liquid systems", one liquid system is a "Liquid network".

I like the word Network for this, it describes what we are trying to describe well, and I would argue the opposite of what you are saying, I believe that one "liquid network" is a "liquid system" and the total sum of all liquid systems would be described as the liquid network.

Electric network: "Electric systems" and one system is an "Electrical network".

See Above, I think you have it backwards.

Crafting network: "Crafting". Simple as it is.

IMO This must be called the Assembly Network unless kovarex decides to change the name of Assembly Machines to Crafting Machines. I think the wiki page could be called crafting, but it does make sense to describe the series of assembly machines as a network, especially before a person gets to the robotics part of the game.

Railway network: "Railway".

I use a large railway network which is an intersecting network or railways. Calling the wiki page "Railways" instead of "Railway Networks" does make sense, although it could be confusing because some people refer to the actual track as railways and the signals stations etc as parts of the "railway network"

[ssilk]

Maybe Robot Coverage, Robotic Coverage Area, Robotic Coverage Network would be a nice middle ground, but to call it "Robotic Working Area" feels like you're talking to me like I'm 5 years old.

Sounds quite good.

Renaming of "Logistic Network" to "Logistic Zone"
The words "Logistic Network" makes no sense to me in the way you are using it. Maybe Logistic Storage Network, Robotic Storage Network, or just Storage Network would describe what you are trying to describe better.

Hm. I think the word "Logistic" is quite important. There are the Logistic robots, which I don't want to rename, cause I think they hit - in some way - quite well, what they are. And I like the word coverage. So what we have currently (current -> possible future):

- Logistic robots isn't changed
- Logistic network will be "logistic coverage" (the area, which is covered by logistics)
- The part of the connected roboports, which brings all together is the Logistics network (so the network here is the "network", the stiggered lines, that all the roboports spans out).

Belts are a component of logistics. Trains are a component of logistics. Almost everything that collects stores or moves resources is an aspect of logistics.

All you say is correct. It is a little bit mixed up.
But when I keep an eye to the audience, I think it should not be put into a big box, I would prefer to keep the hierarchy really flat and explain the connections between belts, inserters etc. in an own chapter.

[Mangledpork]

I'd like "diesel locomotive" to be renamed to "steam locomotive" or similar. Currently the name makes no sense (though that may change at some point) and occasionally there has been confusion leading to players resorting to the gameplay help forum. Any name change that can reduce confusion is a good one.

[ssilk]

Well, that's a completely different theme.
Not that it isn't important to name the things right, but it's some kind of unimportant to me, cause it is actually a change in the config.lua to change the name of the diesel locomotive.

For me the problem is, to name the concepts correctly. We need to speak about it a lot and it is so important to name the concepts right, cause that will influence, how easy we will understand them. See also
http://www.quora.com/Why-is-naming-thin ... ade-easier
http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/ ... -thesaurus
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html

[sbroadbent]

Renaming of "Robotic Network" to "Robot Working Area"
Renaming of "Logistic Network" to "Logistic Zone"
Introducing "Construction Area"

According to the wiki, the 'Robotic Network' page simply refers to and introduces the concepts of the Roboports, Logistics Bots and Construction Bots. Because I like simplicity, "Robotics" works the best.

Construction Area works to represent the area that Construction Bots can operate within and can either construct or deconstruct objects. While storage may be tied to a nearby logistics network, the construction area in of itself isn't a network, simply an expanding coverage area.

I would keep Logistic Network as is.

Definition of Network: "a group or system of interconnected people or things".

A Logistics Network consists of Roboports (and all variations that have the functions you mentioned), Requester chests, Provider Chests, Storage Chests and Smart Inserters. Each of these are individual nodes within the interconnected network represented by the range of the Logistics Network that are able to communicate with or receive instructions from other parts of the network. You can have separate networks where Roboports aren't connected to each other.

Here are my other thoughts. If I skipped anything I didn't have much of a preference, better suggestions.

Get rid of Transport network
I'd call anything that transports, moves or stores 'hard' items (to distinguish from liquid resources) "Logistics".

Renaming other "networks"
Electric Network: An Electric Network is a combination of producers, and/or storage and distribution of Electricity.

You can have multiple Networks if one is not connected to the other by wire. Accumulators can bridge two networks by being in two separate electrical networks

Definition of System: "a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular."

An Electrical System using this definition could be a Offshore pump, pipes, boilers and Steam Engines. It's a system designed to produce Electricity. Regardless, there is a lot of overlap between Network and System, so either could apply, depending on how you approached the issue. As an example, a smelting system would be an input via chest or belt, and inserters, furnace and then output via inserters, and a chest or belt.

Regarding "Diesel Locomotive" mentioned in the thread, I think simply "Locomotive" works.

[MF-]

While I don't mind "Liquid systems",
the "Electric systems" feels really wrong. Is the inserter not an electric system?
What about calling it "Power Grid" ?


I dislike the minecraft mis-interpretation of "crafting". Craftmen can craft, machines cannot.
What else is in that category anyway?
Perhaps "Industry" would work?


Also not a fan of calling everyting "smart". It leads to funny names like the mentioned "smart wire".
"Circuit network" is easy to search for (and way harder to confuse with anything)
Also "Smart Network" is a phrase used by our local telco company,
leading to a lot of negative connotations on my side.

[ssilk]

Ok, I read all of the above some times and now I created a new example page:

https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... n_page_new

Please ignore the red links, that is new content, which needs to be generated first!
You can see the differences: https://forums.factorio.com/wiki/inde ... did=111349

I won't explain the details of all changes, in some parts I made a complete shift of the current concepts (according to this article); the main-changes are in the "Playing the game"-block. Let me know what you think...

[ssilk]

...bump...