Rename Modules

[Deadly-Bagel]

I never liked the term "modules" to refer to speed/efficiency/productivity modules. It's only sort of half accurate and it causes confusion with modular armour components.

The definition of module does change somewhat depending on context but generally a module on its own performs a function, and can be connected to another module, set of modules, or working entity to collaborate. Consider, a shield module is an item that generates a shield. It can be plugged into armour so that the armour is protected by the shield. Technically, the shield can function independently of the armour (if it had a power source) because all the components for the shield are contained in the module.

A "module" (speed/efficiency/productivity) on its on has no function and cannot operate or affect anything. A speed module cannot go faster. Additionally as they can be inserted in to various types of machines performing completely different functions (eg a productivity module could I guess catch waste material and recycle it, but how would it work on both crude oil and iron plates?), it's easier to explain these as "chips" (which is in line with their graphics) as rather than perform a task themselves they improve the operation of the machine they are inserted into to improve efficiency, either in speed, energy consumption, or output per input.

However we run into a similar sort of situation between circuits and, er, circuits, and "chip" is a better term to describe "Electronic Chip" and "Advanced Chip" (could even rename Processors to "Processing Chip" to be in line?). So would it be preferential to reserve Chip for that use instead?

Synonyms for Modules:

• Chip* (or should green/red[/blue?] circuits be renamed to this?)
• Component* (good point, this is an item classification in the game)
• Augment (my preference I think)
• Modifier
• Accessory*
• Upgrade*
• Cartridge
• Unit*
• Booster [Chip]

User Suggested:

• Firmware
• Card
• Hack
• Amplifier

Renaming Types of "module" (assume variations of):

• Speed ->
  • Overclock (seems unanimous)
• Productivity ->
  • Recycle
  • Optimise*

*Either somewhat vague or applies to multiple items or concepts.

Thoughts?

[Ranakastrasz]

I agree. Equipment should be called Modules, and Modules should be renamed to something else.

When I sat down to think about it, I think of the current modules working like this.

Speed -> Overclocking -> Upgrade the electrical and mechanical systems to let it use more power safely, and run faster.

Productivity. -> Miniaturization -> Make Smaller/less dense stuff. Takes longer. Honeycombed Plates/Gears. Miniature Circuits. Etc.

Effectivity. -> Optimization -> Overhaul the systems to reduce energy waste. Not sure how to get pollution reduction however.



Anyhow, Renaming is in order.

Chip (or should green/red[/blue?] circuits be renamed to this?) -> Possibly for either way.
Component -> No. Components currently refers to any item that cannot be used directly, but is used for a recipe, so it is already takken.
Augment (my preference I think) -> Good idea.
Modifier -> Good idea.
Accessory -> Almost always used for asthetics, so no.
Upgrade -> Generally used to refer to replacing an entity with a higher tier, so no.
Cartridge -> Generally refers to an expendable object, like a container of ammo or somthing, so no.
Unit -> Way too ambiguous.
Booster [Chip] -> That one sounds good.

[Deadly-Bagel]

Yeah I don't particularly like half of them either, but good point about Component, crossed it out. I left them there because sometimes it's useful to have a bunch of similar words to then work out from. Augment for example is not a synonym of module, but I found that by branching off synonyms of synonyms.

I do like the terms you've used (especially overclocking, that's exactly what it does) but they aren't nouns (well, they're kind of abstract nouns I suppose?), would need to be something like "Overclocker"...

[aubergine18]

I think they should be called "Upgrades" or "Tuners" or "Mods" or "Hacks".

And as for the names of the upgrades:

Speed -> Overclocker: Process recipes faster, at expense of increased energy use. Use when you have excess resources.

Productivity. -> Optimiser: Recipes produce more output, at expense of increased energy use, pollution and slower operation. Use if you're low on resources.

Effectivity. -> Efficiency: Tunes machine operation to reduce energy consumption without impairing production. Use when you need to conserve energy.

Can't really call the second one (formerly Productivity) an "Efficiency" upgrade, because it's not efficient in terms of power consumption, pollution control, etc. The second and third upgrades are basically "Resource efficiency" and "Energy efficiency".

[Optera]

Upgrade would make most sense if you want to make it accurate and not used in other context.
Mod is ambiguous with mods.
While Speed Hack sounds really good, Efficiency Hack sounds weird.

[Ranakastrasz]

Upgrade is already taken however. Good point on Mod tho.

I still think that Productivity makes sense as miniaturization. If you refine the process enough, you can make a circuit smaller, using less resources. However, that is bound to be more complex and time consuming. You still get a circuit with the same functionality, but its smaller. Similarly for plates, or gears, but instead of smaller, they are less dense, but in such a way that they don't lose any strength.

[aubergine18]

Upgrade is already taken however.

But only in relation to technologies? So some upgrades happen simply by research, others need extra effort of building an "upgrade device" that can be inserted in to machine.

I still think that Productivity makes sense as miniaturization. If you refine the process enough, you can make a circuit smaller, using less resources. However, that is bound to be more complex and time consuming. You still get a circuit with the same functionality, but its smaller. Similarly for plates, or gears, but instead of smaller, they are less dense, but in such a way that they don't lose any strength.

But... the produced things aren't any smaller, they're identical to what was built without the upgrade. That's why I feel 'Miniaturization' doesn't quite fit - there's no visual feedback that the resulting items are any different to before. Also, smaller products consume less energy to produce and are often quicker to produce; the opposite of the side effects of the upgrade.

It's more like what's happening is "internal recycling" - where little bits of waste are gathered and eventually there's enough to make an extra unit when that additional purple bar fills. The problem with this is that you would expect less pollution because the machine is recycling its waste (the extra energy and slower rate of prodution make good sense in this context though).

[Ranakastrasz]

Internal recycling also makes sense. Either way, the extra pollution is inconvient from a lore perspective.

Upgrades from tech, but also refers to going from t1 assembler to t2 , or any other tier increase. If you build a t2 on top of the t1, it's considered upgrading.

[aubergine18]

What about `cards` or `add-ons` or `firmware updates`?

One other aspect to think about is that they can be staked, so whatever term is chosen should make sense in that respect. So 'firmware updates' wouldn't make sense as you'd only ever need one.

[Deadly-Bagel]

Actually I like just "firmware":

* Overclock Firmware
* Efficiency Firmware
* Recycle Firmware

I'll add it to the list. I initially didn't really like cards as I could only think of keycards at the time, but it's more valid than others I've got so I'll add that too.

Upgrade is a process rather than an item, so it shouldn't cause any real confusion. However there are, IMO, better options anyway.

Is it hacking if you're the designer of the machine and the hack? =P

I don't like the "miniaturisation" term because it doesn't apply to things like oils and gasses. You can't create a perforated OR miniature liquid / gas so the term isn't relevant. Best you can do is bulk it out but that's what Advanced Oil Processing is. My other problem with using these terms is there isn't an official blanket term that covers all nine items, but combining them with "Firmware" gives us a comfortable and specific term.

[British_Petroleum]

hmmmm your argument hasn't convinced me that we should change the name. A module is just a thing that can fit together with other things, which is exactly what the modules do in the game. I think modules is a better name than any of the suggested alternatives. Also microchips are a component used to make circuits, so it makes no sense to rename circuits to chips; they are different things.

[Deadly-Bagel]

A module is just a thing that can fit together with other things, which is exactly what the modules do in the game.

Would you call a power cable a module? It fits into other things. How about a microchip? A module is typically something that performs a function internally. Yes it sort of is accurate for some definitions but I'm getting sick of saying "modular components" when referring to shields and the like. "I want to insert modules into vehicles" - what am I talking about here exactly? There are better terms we can use.

I think modules is a better name than any of the suggested alternatives. Also microchips are a component used to make circuits, so it makes no sense to rename circuits to chips; they are different things.

I'm... not sure I follow. There aren't any microchips in the game so I can only assume you mean in reality, which only reinforces the point as we aren't making microchips to put on "circuits", they're literally just copper and iron.

How about:

* Electronic Circuit -> Microchip
* Advanced Circuit -> Mainboard
* Processing Unit - as is

No overlap, no vagueness, makes sense for all three to be present in anything that processes, accurate.

[ssilk]

Why not renaming everything?
Belt -> Conveyor
Inserter -> Robohand
Railway -> Dual Iron Stripes
Train -> Stripedriver
Furnace -> Hot Pot
...

I will keep this as suggestion here, because I think the idea is not really bad, but to be honest: I don't think this will ever happen.

Why? Think to all the stuff, that needs to be changed then. Code is the most easy one, but renaming pictures, describtions, translations, documentation and hundreds (really more like thousands!) other things.

It's just not worth the hassle and in the end it is just a name for a game-concept. And not the worst.

[Deadly-Bagel]

If it were just modules then I wouldn't mind, my main problem is that every time I talk about modules where it's not already part of the discussion, I feel I need to specify what type I am talking about.

[ssilk]

Don't be more silly as you are.

The ones are modules. Modular enhancements, that can be produced in the game to be plugged into devices to improve something.
The others are mods (Game Modifications). You download them from internet and install them to improve the game somehow.

Looks ambiguous, but in truth there is a big difference between both and mixing is a danger, but you make that mistake only once.

[Ranakastrasz]

You forgot Equipment, which plugs into modular armor. Which people call modules as well. So there are three.

[Deadly-Bagel]

Hmm, I hadn't considered turning this around to rename modular components, however modules are the perfect description for them because that's exactly what they are. They aren't necessarily equipment because they can't be used standalone, and "equipment" is better suited to refer to guns and armour.

[ssilk]

Hm.
Well, I didn't say it couldn't be made better. That is the reason why I think I keep this as a suggestion and don't put it to won't implement.
But the point is: It is as it is. And it works! And I think changing it will cost a full week of Factorio devs with the result, that now is everything a bit better named. Fine. But I would like much more to have an integrated Rail-Layer, or improved laying of belts/pipes...

And the issues could also be fixed with a more clear description/documentation of the usages. Or simpler changes. The unclear difference between slot, stack, module and equipment could be made more clear to the player in many ways.

[Deadly-Bagel]

Well you could certainly explain the function of modules because initially it's not obvious from the terminology, and you can pretty quickly learn Modules have no bearing to Modular Components (though they're used in the recipe of the armour).

Putting aside the semantics themselves, my biggest nag for them is if you have a topic such as "Efficiently Produce All Modules" - what is this referring to exactly? And with all this talk of "inserting modules into vehicles" there's bound to be confusion.

Then you get someone with broken English (I mean no offence, English is a retarded language) trying to explain something and with these overlapping terms it can be hard to follow.

The devs themselves request (is it on the bug report forums?) that you be specific with your terms, such as the difference between a train stop and a train station. It makes things much easier to understand.

[Shaymes]

to chance the name is not a big issue, if you guys this about all name changes and if you are done i will make a new langurage pack that contains the renames
include
Belt -> Conveyor
Inserter -> Robohand
Railway -> Dual Iron Stripes
Train -> Stripedriver
Furnace -> Hot Pot
just kidding