Talk:Resources

Resources and Materials

I might be alone, but I'm a little confused by this page. Across the wiki many people (myself included) are referring to things like Compound and Laterite as resources, and yet the Resource page refers to them as materials. Even the Materials page starts out calling them materials and ends up calling them resources halfway through.

Are the elements we dig out of the ground resources, materials, or both? And in either case, do Artifacts, space wreckage, etc. really qualify as "resources" as opposed to objects or items? --Infinimbal (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to make this distinction still. Ultimately I think everything is a resource. And items mined/used are materials. Currently I think Resources is fine to include artifacts and discoveries so we have a central page. If you have another suggestion put it here. --Crychair (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the connection between Artifacts and Discoveries beyond "stuff you find while exploring." I agree that loosely speaking everything can be considered a "resource" for the player, but at that point the potential scope of this page encompasses more or less every other page in the wiki, doesn't it?

Here's how I would suggest categorizing things (a bit broader to give context to my logic):

• Resources/Materials - Raw materials collected from the environment and their refined counterparts. e.g. Compound, Laterite, Aluminum, Power Crystals
• Items - Things that can be interacted with and placed in the backpack. e.g. Tethers, Tanks, Wind Vanes, stacks of Material
• Objects - Things that can be interacted with but not placed in the backpack. e.g. Artifacts, Wind Turbines, Storage Racks, small spaceship debris
• Discoveries - Environmental occurrences that yield Materials, Items or Objects. e.g. Large spaceship debris, stone monoliths, supply pods

--Infinimbal (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think these changes would be good. Also Artifacts are now the unidentified research it seems. If you would like to make these changes go ahead. And if you would like help let me know. The other thing I noticed you working on is the Printer page. If we are going to mix the backpage printer with the large printer I think they should be separate pages. Which is why I originally left the backpack printer out and just had that info on the backpack page. I think having Small/Large items of the same name would benefit us as well. --Crychair (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to make the changes, and I sure appreciate your input Cry (and anyone else who wants to chime in). As for the printer page, I put them together to make that page a single location from which you could see every printable item, but I certainly see the benefit in the Printer module having its own page (as other modules would). --Infinimbal (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the backpack stuff needs to be moved to the items page or backpack pages. I'd rather not mix information like this. --Crychair (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I go away for a couple days and come back to not have a clue whats going on. I understand the confusion with resources vs materials, sicne bot hterms had been in use whe nI started. Based on the definition that: Resources is an umbrella term that includes, people, materials, time, equipment, salvage etc and that materials was literally 'the stuff you make things out of' I had Resources setup as a hub page for ALL the different groups of things and then Materials for 'the things we collect to make other stuff'. Now it seems the Resource page has been turned into the 'things we make stuff from' page and I have no idea if there is even a path to any info about resources that are not materials. Can someone PLEASE explain the logical heirarchy being used for everything now so I can at least find my way aroud nand see what I might help with? Rkaneus (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The definition list provided by Infinimbal seems like the right way of doing things by merging both Resource and Material into one word. "Raw materials collected from the environment and their refined counterparts" is a much better definition than "the things we collect to make other stuff" since the latter definition does not cover resources Oxygen and Power, which cannot be made into anything, or Astronium and Hematite, which are planned to be but are not yet usable. Also, if the word resource covers so many different things then, as mentioned earlier, it'll just be a page about the entire wiki. --Skell Skell (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You've summarized it really well Skell Skell (thanks!), so I don't have much to add. I will say that all of the features mentioned on the previous Resources page deserve to be linked on the front page of the wiki (I thought they were, but I see Discoveries is missing, for example), so that's a change I'll work at having made. --Infinimbal (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I suck at communication and im tired of trying to rewrite this response repeatedly to make my points understandable and far less verbose. I more or less assume at this point its all a forgone conclusion already but Ill throw this up for the two power units its worth, and go find something else to do for a time until things make sense here again and I can see somewhere I might contribute.

Within the container defined by a) I don't care what label is attached to what concept, only that the label make sense in terms of word definition and hierarchy b) I don't care if 'my' work or that of others in the wiki before me is edited - wikis are about value-adding to the process of refining data into useful information for the users, I find the following to be true: The changes being proposed (or more likely already implemented) add no value to the material, but add semantic communication barriers and throw away a lot of work already done by many and thus require it to be done again, consuming resources that could perhaps better be spent on expansion and experimentation.

To illustrate: According to the definition list above, "Objects" is the word you wish to use for the page that was 'Resources' (the umbrella category of other groups), then because that word is freed up "Materials" becomes 'Resources'. You also wish to rename "Equipment" into 'Items' and then fold a whole bunch of stuff into "Discoveries" but WHY? Why the need to rename things that already existed, with names that clearly delineate what they are, into more generic names that may cause confusion down the track? "Objects" is at -least- if not more generic than "Resources" and as has been pointed out could end up with EVERYTHING included in its scope. "Equipment" is stuff that you equip - that you put on or use as consumables etc, While 'Items" often is "Anything" and the existing Item page (if it still exists) was indeed attempting to be a list of everything in the game.

As for oxygen and power units, they are materials like latite and malachite - not used in a straightforward/tangible way like some other things but materials anyway. They (and perhaps water down the track) are harvestable and placeable in the backpack, Storage and other machines to be consumed like any other 'material type resource'.

You mention putting stuff like Discoveries on the front page, but you cant put Everything there or it would greatly bloat the page and incidentally cause another version of 'everything being together'. 'Everything' also needs to be findable by the links tying all information together, which means you need some form of hierarchy. (I was using the game itself - everything is in the game and then within that there are mechanics, resources, crafting etc - see halfway down Rkanesworkspace ifs its not deleted yet.)

The questions I sought answers may be written thus: What value does changing which labels are used for 4 different pages from what they are now to less specific words? What is the structure/connected-ness of information that will contain these proposed changes and provide 'a pigeon hole for all information' while not just cramming a lot of info into a single page, turning it into undigestable data rather than clear concise information? - an example is the Research page. Currently it might be fine, but when the wall of images of different artifacts is 2 pages long itself, and when people want to store information about where they can be found (Which will probably include many images) and the Artifacts can do other things or the whole research system becomes more complex, is the 'Research' page about the process of doing, about the widgets used in the process or about the machine that does said process? And if its fine to lump a lot of related data into a page, why are there so many atomic pages for the individual materials, vehicles, equipment, worlds etc? Inconsistent much? Consistency from the wording used to delineate the hierarchy of knowledge down to how extreme the atomic pages get is required for a good wiki and when I tried to begin fixing this my work was deleted, redirects were put in and nooone can tell me why or to what plan we are otherwise working. How is any of the 'cleaning up' people are claiming to be doing any different from what went before, and how is a newcomer to the community supposed to get stuck in and participate and help if noone has a plan, but any plan the newcomemrs come up wih are also rejected?

^^^ Rkaneus you forgot to sign your message here. ^^^

I'll try my best to respond to these questions. If I miss something or misunderstand a question, let me know. I am by no means an authority here, so don't take my word as law, just trying to give an answer.

What value does changing which labels are used for 4 different pages from what they are now to less specific words?

Because the words used were either incorrect or too specific given all the "things" (I cannot think of a word for all entities in the game) they were representing. Resources covering all "things" isn't quite accurate since resources imply some sort of consumption or usability, meaning that enemies, something we'll inevitably have to cover in this wiki, or crash sites will have to be put under resources when, as far as I'm concerned, they are definitely not resources but the former contains Artifacts and the latter can contain resources, but are not resources. Items replacing equipment would be primarily due to the fact that a player's inventory can have more than just a player's equipment. They can hold resource stacks and other items that do not fit under "equipment".

What is the structure/connected-ness of information that will contain these proposed changes and provide 'a pigeon hole for all information' while not just cramming a lot of info into a single page, turning it into undigestable data rather than clear concise information?

The following tree is how I see information being split up

• Resources/Materials
  • Malacite
  • Laterite
  • etc
• Items
  • Equipment
  • Resource Stacks
  • etc
• Objects
  • Base Objects (eg 2-slot Solar Panels)
  • Debris
  • Enemies (?)
  • etc
• Discoveries
  • Artifacts
    • Hostile Flora
    • Passive Flora
    • Space Debris

Hopefully this is enough to allow for a clear, well-sectioned info page. As for the Research page, which contains a large amount of Artifacts, it's important to note that all the different kinds of Artifacts are not actually very important in and of themselves and can be sectioned into 3 (?) types: Hostile Flora, Passive Flora, Space Debris. The only importance to unique ones is that the player must research an Artifact they have not researched before in order to receive new schematics. I agree that Artifacts deserves a separate article but currently it just redirects to Research.

Skell Skell (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I saved my work before heading to sleep last night and only realized just before oblivion hit that i hadn't signed the post. Ok so with your hierarchy, you said "Resources covering all "things" isn't quite accurate since resources imply some sort of consumption or usability" but wreckage and stuff people find, some are using for vanity purposes, to decorate their bases. And to 'use' something does not necessarily mean to 'consume' it. My personal thing I like to do is experiment with things to find alternative uses. Storage racks in Astroneer for eg exist to hold many smaller things into a bundle for storage/transport, I also use them as a storm barricade in some of my bases since mostly they don't get blown away and if I put them between the wind and me, I cant get hit by anything so I don't need to find a vehicle or dig a hole which are a pain to fill back in and smooth over. In this sense, my thought is 'If its interactable, its usable' (interaction including using a winch to haul it somewhere, or being able to repeatedly mine regenerative nodes. Then 'if its usable, its a resource'. I do see how this mentality could quickly lead down the path of all-in-one.

I think 'Resource stacks' are best dealt with on the resources atomic page with the other information about it - where its obtained, what its traded for, how much of it is used in what, what it looks like in its different forms etc. Aside from resources, the only other stuff that can be placed in a backpack is Equipment, so if its just on its own, why rebadge it? and why duplicate data about the resources?

I think the hostile plants might better put all into a page of 'Hazards', which actually was one of the next pages I wanted to create. I figured it belonged under 'dying' (not sure if this page title works but eh it already exists and no better name leaps to mind atm) which I was going to link under the 'Mechanics' main block. Sure artifacts can be found with them, but not always and the thing that distinguishes them is not that they have shinies, but that they can kill you if you get too close or don't run away.

As the top level categories that would be listed on the front page "Mechanics" is mostly intangible things like 'how you might die, or how you move around, use your tool(s) etc. "Objects" is then all the tangible things apparently. While Spaceflight is a mechanic, the thought occurs now that "Planets" are another major facet of the game so listing it on the front is probably also best. This gives: Astroneer [Meta/IRL Block such as requirements, keybindings, credits etc]

• Resources (things that are harvestable and go in backpack?)
• Crafting (uses resources, being a mechanic and being how many objects come to be mean its probably a high level entry)
  • Personal crafting (I guess Backpack page then into Equipment/Items pages?)
  • Parts aka Printer Module stuff
  • Vehicle crafting
  • Infrastructure
• Mechanics (processes (eg Research), things that can happen (eg dying), control interfaces (eg Tool and spaceflight)
  • Spaceflight
  • Dying
  • ..etc
• Objects (Tangible stuff)
  • Artifacts
  • Discoveries
  • ..etc
• Planets

This doesn't really stop the catchall category "Objects" from ending up containing everything unless some kind of limit of "Unless something is explicitly in another category" is added and categories that get large in future would be broken out to their own heading or w/e Im guessing? oh and..

Rkaneus (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to chime in and maybe help clarify. The underlying issue we are having is that all of the proposed words are vague (Objects, Materials, Resources, Items) so any meaning we are trying to give them is mostly personal biases. Maybe we can shoot for a different word that is more in line with the theme of the game like Element(s)? Possibly also using Component as a synonym for "Parts"? Also not sure if people have noticed but there is a color coding system to the "attachment points" Red for singles, Orange for Doubles, Then Blue for Quads and Green for Platform Modules. Maybe we could include these in our thoughts of separating pages?

DayStar EbK (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

To me which isn't a native english speaker, Resources really is synonym of Materials in the sens of "naturally occurring raw stuffs you gather from the environment, used as base element in crafting" (in the context of a resource gathering and crafting game).

Items and objects are literally the same word to me and too generic indeed. We should as much as possible refrain from using them except when paired with another descriptive term (like "research item").
Stuff that is printed can legitimately be called a printables, and most printables are equipments : something you equip by attaching it in the backpack or vehicle, or platforms. That includes the one who can't go in the backpack. I don't feel that making the distinction between the equipments who can and can't go in the backpack is necessary.
Vehicles and habitats are printables, but not equipments.
So the proposed "Crafting" section would include "equipments", "vehicles" and "infrastructure (habitats + platform I suppose)".

At first, Discoveries to me are all the crashed ships (the ones with resources in it) + big solar array + real-life ships you can find in caves (Kepler, Hubbles, sputnik).
Rib cages are not included in this definitions and should be put in the same category as the stones structures which have Research items on or below them.

Where it gets complicated is that discoveries as I defined them can legitimately be called artifacts, in the scientific and archaeological sens (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=artifacts&ia=definition).
I feel the devs have been wrong to use this word to define the "research items". In the last dev stream, Adam even called them "organic chests"...
So the most descriptive and accurate term to me would be "research chests".

That would free up the term Artifacts for everything that is a Point Of Interest which includes the Wreckages, the stuctures with research chests (stones pillars, rib cage), but also the zebra ball and the dead bodies in caves.
So the proposed "Objects (tangible stuffs)" section would not be needed if there is a "Exploration" mechanic.
Or it is just replaced by the "Exploration" section, which is after all a big part of the game and the point of it is precisely to find Resources or Artifacts (for the fun of it or to gather their associated resources).

FlorentPoujol (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A little late to the party (as ever), but I wanted to chime in here since I inadvertently kicked up this little duststorm. Granted, it's a great thing to talk about and figure out!

To clarify a bit more on my original suggestion, I simply intended Items and Objects as very generic categories for small and large interactive entities; they would in turn have inclusive subcategories like equipment to further define them. I didn't lay that all out here exhaustively because it was really just context for why I thought the term "resources" could be clarified, so I apologize if it was ultimately unclear. I hadn't fully fleshed out an entire categorization of the wiki around them or anything.

I see a lot of (absolutely warranted) contention over how generic the terms are, and I'm enjoying seeing that conversation play out. Florent exposed my own linguistic bias to me when he said that they're literally the same word to him—to me, "item" connotes something smaller than "object," but even writing that out now seems a bit silly. I'm sure we can come up with something better if we happen to agree that the broader "Things that can be interacted with and can/can't be placed in the backpack" definitions are even deserving of categories.

I haven't put much thought into exactly what other terms I might use, but I'll think on it. I do think it's important at this early stage that we flesh out a tree structure inside of which the more prolific contributors can be happy working and out of which the newer editors can make sense—even as the exact terms of some items inevitably change as the game evolves.

--Infinimbal (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)