Factorio Forums

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:32 pm**

Regarding nomenclature:

I just noticed that the description of locomotives (the one displayed when hovering over a locomotive or its icon) is not optimal. Currently, it reads "Runs automated schedules and pulls cargo wagons." Actually, it is used to move not only cargo, but also fluid and artillery wagons. Of course, one could argue that fluid and artillery are cargo just as coal ore iron ore, but as the normal wagons are explicitly named "Cargo wagon", one might wonder what kind of engine is supposed to pull the other wagons.

As I understand it (I'm relatively new to the game, so I have never played with any other version than 0.16.51), there was only one kind of wagons in the beginning, so that this description was actually correct at the time trains have been introduced. Then came fluid wagons, later artillery -- and I have already seen requests for other wagons, like accumulator wagons. So, chances are that even more types of rail wagons will be introduced in the future: either in vanilla, or by some mods. To account for this, keeping the description open seems the right way to go: why not use "rail cars" instead of "cargo wagons"? (Question to native speakers: Could one use something like "rail/railway wagon" or does that sound weird?)

Also, in the forum I have seen different train setups with a locomotive, some wagons, more locomotives (same direction as the one at the head), more wagons etc. The first locomotive is indeed pulling the wagons, but the others are pulling/shoving (if there are wagons on both sides of it) or just shoving (if the locomotive is at the end of the train). So, the description also tells only part of the truth in regard to the verb.

Moreover, locomotives will usually run automated schedules, but one also can run them manually -- so the description is incomplete in this regard as well.

Considering all of the above, I suggest changing the description to something like this: "Runs manually or on automated schedules and moves rail cars. …"

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:42 pm**

I think that the naming inconsistencies are so hard on this game that even the color standards. Belts vs Inserters is an old issues science packs having no proper naming and assembling machines with different colors as well.

For instances, burner Inserters and burner miners are black. Black assembling machine are not coal powered.

Assembling machines have their naming based on numbers, while the others don't.

Assembling machine colors have no relationship to other colors, like belts and Inserters.

Fast Inserters are Blue, even though they are not as fast as Stack Inserters, while belts are.

Red Inserters are not equivalent of red belt. Not saying they should be, but it's confusing. Red Inserters are so different from other Inserters they could be another color.

And I say this all remember that mods do exist, and they add higher tier of everything. If you can find a standard and actually stick to it would be great.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:34 pm**

Name the action a player performs when they add an entity to the world?
Name the action a player performs when they remove an entity from the world?
Name the action a player performs when they add a ghost entity to the world?
Name the action a robot performs when they add an entity to the world?
Name the action a robot performs when they remove an entity from the world?

A Player builds entitis...
A Player deconstruct entities...
A Player plans/places ghost entities...
A Robot assembles entities...
A robot disassembles entities...

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:16 pm**

Pi-C wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:32 pm
Regarding nomenclature:

I just noticed that the description of locomotives (the one displayed when hovering over a locomotive or its icon) is not optimal. Currently, it reads "Runs automated schedules and pulls cargo wagons." Actually, it is used to move not only cargo, but also fluid and artillery wagons. Of course, one could argue that fluid and artillery are cargo just as coal ore iron ore, but as the normal wagons are explicitly named "Cargo wagon", one might wonder what kind of engine is supposed to pull the other wagons.

As I understand it (I'm relatively new to the game, so I have never played with any other version than 0.16.51), there was only one kind of wagons in the beginning, so that this description was actually correct at the time trains have been introduced. Then came fluid wagons, later artillery -- and I have already seen requests for other wagons, like accumulator wagons. So, chances are that even more types of rail wagons will be introduced in the future: either in vanilla, or by some mods. To account for this, keeping the description open seems the right way to go: why not use "rail cars" instead of "cargo wagons"? (Question to native speakers: Could one use something like "rail/railway wagon" or does that sound weird?)

Also, in the forum I have seen different train setups with a locomotive, some wagons, more locomotives (same direction as the one at the head), more wagons etc. The first locomotive is indeed pulling the wagons, but the others are pulling/shoving (if there are wagons on both sides of it) or just shoving (if the locomotive is at the end of the train). So, the description also tells only part of the truth in regard to the verb.

Moreover, locomotives will usually run automated schedules, but one also can run them manually -- so the description is incomplete in this regard as well.

Considering all of the above, I suggest changing the description to something like this: "Runs manually or on automated schedules and moves rail cars. …"

The general term for railway vehicles is "rolling stock", which also refers to locomotives (and is in fact already used in-game for the "failure to couple" dialog if I'm not mistaken). Might be a bit too technical for first timers though.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:42 pm**

Drury wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:16 pm
The general term for railway vehicles is "rolling stock", which also refers to locomotives (and is in fact already used in-game for the "failure to couple" dialog if I'm not mistaken). Might be a bit too technical for first timers though.

Thanks for the pointer! I just noticed that the term "rolling stock" is also used and explained in the wiki, so even first timers have a chance to find out what it means. Anyway, I guess "… pulls rolling stock" would be an appropriate description then. After all, locomotives do pull locomotives -- at least in the case of double-headed trains where the locomotives face opposite directions.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:33 pm**

c0bRa wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:34 pm

Name the action a player performs when they add an entity to the world?
Name the action a player performs when they remove an entity from the world?
Name the action a player performs when they add a ghost entity to the world?
Name the action a robot performs when they add an entity to the world?
Name the action a robot performs when they remove an entity from the world?

In my head, (de)construct make perfect sense. The entity is already produced/crafted/assembled, but you have to construct it by putting it on the ground, connecting to pipes, etc. So I would say:

Players and bots both (de)construct entities, which should probably be called "constructions".
Players place and pick up vehicles (cars, tanks, rolling stock, etc)*
Players, bots and inserters insert stuff into containers, and take stuff out of containers.
Players place and remove ghosts/blueprints. Not too happy with "place", but "plan" sounds strange to my (non-native) ears.

*) which aren't constructions as they're not fixed* and generally behave pretty different from constructions (you can enter them, they move around, they can have guns and equipment grids but no modules, etc). Ideally I think a player shouldn't be able to place vehicles at all, they should be produced by a vehicle factory or train depot from their raw components, and when picked up / removed should revert to these components, but that's another matter.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:47 am**

Pi-C wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:42 pm

Drury wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:16 pm
The general term for railway vehicles is "rolling stock", which also refers to locomotives (and is in fact already used in-game for the "failure to couple" dialog if I'm not mistaken). Might be a bit too technical for first timers though.
Thanks for the pointer! I just noticed that the term "rolling stock" is also used and explained in the wiki, so even first timers have a chance to find out what it means. Anyway, I guess "… pulls rolling stock" would be an appropriate description then. After all, locomotives do pull locomotives -- at least in the case of double-headed trains where the locomotives face opposite directions.

Wikipedia describes locomoties as "A locomotive [...] provides the motive power for a train.", which removes the requirement to specify push/pull or a rolling stock/wagons. Ofc now you can start discussing if "motive power" isn't too difficult of a word. But honestly, we're talking about describing what a locomotive does. Is that even nessecary? Every child has seen a toy locomotive, if not a real one. If anyones first contact with locomotives is in factorio i'd be very worried. And even then they can just ask someone or look it up somewhere. Because "locomotive" is not a factorio specific word (unlike e.g. "inserter).

So imho the description should be shorted to explain only the game-immanent features of locos, which is "Trains can be automatic or manual.", because the automation isn't really a function of the locomotive, it's a function of a train. Or else a train with several locos would need several schedules, wouldn't it?.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:21 am**

eradicator wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:47 am

Pi-C wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:42 pm

Drury wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:16 pm
The general term for railway vehicles is "rolling stock", which also refers to locomotives (and is in fact already used in-game for the "failure to couple" dialog if I'm not mistaken). Might be a bit too technical for first timers though.
I guess "… pulls rolling stock" would be an appropriate description then.
Wikipedia describes locomoties as "A locomotive [...] provides the motive power for a train.", which removes the requirement to specify push/pull or a rolling stock/wagons. Ofc now you can start discussing if "motive power" isn't too difficult of a word. But honestly, we're talking about describing what a locomotive does. Is that even nessecary? Every child has seen a toy locomotive, if not a real one. If anyones first contact with locomotives is in factorio i'd be very worried. And even then they can just ask someone or look it up somewhere. Because "locomotive" is not a factorio specific word (unlike e.g. "inserter).

So imho the description should be shorted to explain only the game-immanent features of locos, which is "Trains can be automatic or manual.", because the automation isn't really a function of the locomotive, it's a function of a train. Or else a train with several locos would need several schedules, wouldn't it?.

You're right, shorter is better -- just leave out everything that is redundant.

Anyway, my main complaint was that the description currently mentions "cargo wagons" explicitly. This is bad because "cargo wagons" is used abstractly (it means wagons with cargo/freight, fluid, artillery and possibly other wagons here) while there also is an entity with exactly the same name. This could be misleading because people might expect that other types of locomotives (special locomotives that require additional research) must be used for the other wagon types. So if you'd really want to mention that locomotives move wagons, you'd be better off calling them by some more-including name, like "rolling stock". But as it is common knowledge that locomotives exist to move wagons, there is no need to explain what they are used for unless there are different types of locomotives for special purposes.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:36 pm**

c0bRa wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:34 pm
A Player builds entitis...
A Player deconstruct entities...
A Player plans/places ghost entities...
A Robot assembles entities...
A robot disassembles entities...

why go with assemble/disassemble but then build/deconstruct, shouldn't it be construct/deconstruct?

vanatteveldt wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:33 pm

Players and bots both (de)construct entities, which should probably be called "constructions".

Construct is the act of Constructing a Structure.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:46 pm**

bobingabout wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:36 pm
Construct is the act of Constructing a Structure.

Makes sense

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:07 am**

eradicator wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:03 pm

Oktokolo wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:40 pm

5thHorseman wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:38 am

Oktokolo wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:40 pm
Electronic Circuit, Advanced Circuit and Processing Unit should be called Logic Board 1/2/3.
And now you've (further) confused everybody about what a logistics network is.
Logic and logistics are different words naming different concepts. Same as with statics and statistics. Different words have different meanings.
I don't know, whether Wube assumes basic reading comprehension skills on their player base - but i definitely do.
Replacing memorable names with a generic term with incremental numbering destroys a tiny bit of lore at a time. On the contrary incremental numbering should be phased out in favour of distinct names. "Logic" btw is exactly what the actual combinator circuits do. If "circuit" is deemed confusing it could simply be replaced with "chip" - many people already call them that. Which would still be annoyingly confusing to modders, because the internal names are unlikely to change even if the localized ones did.

double plus good.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:18 pm**

quadrox wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:43 am

Korentoth wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:30 am
...
Placing/removing actual entities is not the same as planning to place/remove entities (that is, creating ghost entities and marking entities for removal), so they should have different verbs. (Don't say "place" ghost entities.)
...
The above is exactly spot on right (though I am not sure what is wrong with "placing" ghost entities).

What I was trying to say is that "Ghost entities" aren't "real." They don't exist in any physical sense. You can't do anything with them. They only represent a place where you will eventually place a real entity.

So, if I were deciding which verbs to use, I would try to avoid using the same verb to describe "placing" a ghost entity as I use to describe "placing" a real entity.

Now I digress: I don't know what the right verb is for marking a spot to place a particular entity there. I'm "planning" the entity? I'm "forecasting" the entity? I'm "placing a ghost entity" as opposed to just "placing an entity"? I'm not sure if I like the word "ghost" in this context... Blueprinting, designing, and planning are real-world concepts. "Ghosting" in this sense is used by Factorio -- it's unique and descriptive to Factorio's gameplay (c.f. We call our bases "factories", and that's a good thing, even though they are different from real-world factories), but I don't think I could tell anyone in the real world "I'm ghosting a building right there," and have them understand what I mean. At any rate, the word "ghost" is functional, so if no one has a better idea, let's keep it.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:35 pm**

Korentoth wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:18 pm
What I was trying to say is that "Ghost entities" aren't "real." They don't exist in any physical sense. You can't do anything with them. They only represent a place where you will eventually place a real entity.

Ghost entities are also formed when any entity is destroyed and you have construction robots researched. So in some situations ghosts represent entities that "died" there.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:55 am**

Please do something about power satisfaction and performance. If I could offer alternatives I would. I can't but the terms used now just aren't right.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:32 pm**

Korentoth wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:18 pm
Now I digress: I don't know what the right verb is for marking a spot to place a particular entity there. I'm "planning" the entity? I'm "forecasting" the entity? I'm "placing a ghost entity" as opposed to just "placing an entity"? I'm not sure if I like the word "ghost" in this context...

What about planning the installation of a structure. But i would also call direct placement of entities by player or bot installing a structure.
In Factorio, nothing is really build on the spot. All structures are made in assemblers and can then be quickly installed anywhere. The installation process is that fast and easy - you can do it in the field while under fire...

Now that i think of the insta turrets a bit more - might asd well call the placing deployment to have a more military term.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:58 am**

Thank you! I've seen so many "Ping: can't connect" resulting in "Could not establish connection with game server" on some servers, but not all, and couldn't figure out why.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:06 pm**

Never got it managed to host a factorio game over steam so anyone can join me, but it seems to hav nothing to do with my router or a firewall (at least if my firewall doesn't hate especially steam). It seems that there is a problem between steam and this game. Downloaded the standalone factorio version without steam directly from the main page and people can join me without any problems.
Don't know whats going on with the steam version or with steam itself. Maybe Steam hates me.

Posted: **Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:40 am**

Sorry to raise this from the dead, but I was talking to a couple of other players about the survey that took place.

FFF 265 and FFF 275 were the best info I found, but don't contain survey results. I could've sworn there was more, like that some people call science "potions", underground belts "underneathies", and that green,red,blue intermediate items would be called chips or circuits, for example.

Am I imagining that there was more to it than just FFF 275 and "we're renaming these"?
Are the survey results available somewhere I'm not seeing? It'd be fun to take a look at that again.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2022 6:56 am**

Jon8RFC wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:40 am
Am I imagining that there was more to it than just FFF 275 and "we're renaming these"?
Are the survey results available somewhere I'm not seeing? It'd be fun to take a look at that again.

That sounds like a reddit thing to me. Or possibly someone made polls here on the forum.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2022 7:42 am**

Jon8RFC wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:40 am
Sorry to raise this from the dead, but I was talking to a couple of other players about the survey that took place.

FFF 265 and FFF 275 were the best info I found, but don't contain survey results. I could've sworn there was more, like that some people call science "potions", underground belts "underneathies", and that green,red,blue intermediate items would be called chips or circuits, for example.

Am I imagining that there was more to it than just FFF 275 and "we're renaming these"?
Are the survey results available somewhere I'm not seeing? It'd be fun to take a look at that again.

Nah, there was not a survey, and I think it wasnt on the forums, since I have definitely not seen it.

Factorio Forums

Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking

Re: Friday Facts #265 - Nomenclature & Steam networking