Unofficial Stationeers Wiki Unofficial Stationeers Wiki

Hey guys, can you create a permanent discord link? The current one expired. PostRobcore (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (CST)

Ideas/ suggestions for a standardized Logic Setup.

Hello guys!

I have made a system for distribute Logic Setups. This way we can have a "Standard" system for each and every Logic Setup added to the Wiki. It is nothing fancy or sensational. It just takes every Logic Unit in to a format it is uniform.

I made this in Evernote, as I use this a lot for many things.

My way might not be what everyone want. But might be a way to get every new guide or tutorial in sync with what is needed for every level the players are at in their experience with the game.

Another thing, is there a forum we talk about this Wiki for Stationeers? Or is it just this talk thing we share ideas for the site?

Here is an example: (Tried to edit to Wiki setup, but I'm on phone. And new to using the Wiki. So this look much better in my notes than in here. At least for now.)

Material List

Logic Memory

• 3x Logic Memory Unit

Logic I/O

• 1x Logic Reader Unit

Logic Processor

• 2x Logic Math Unit

Logic Processor

• 1x Logic Min/Max Unit

Logic I/O

• Batch Writer Unit

Sensor

• 1x Solar Sensor

Power Control/Storage

• 1x Area Power Control (APC)

Solar Panels

• 3x Solar Panels

Miscellaneous

• "x" Amount of Standard Cable
• "x" Amount of Heavy Cable

Settings

Logic Memory 1 of 3 (Settings):

• Label Name: Memory 15
• Memory Set: 15

Logic Memory 2 of 3 (Settings):

• Label Name: Memory 1.5
• Memory Set: 1.5

Logic Memory 3 of 3 (Settings):

• Label Name: Memory 100
• Memory Set: 100

Logic Reader 1 of 1 (Settings):

• Label Name: Logic Reader 1
• In: Daylight Sensor
• Var: Solar Angle

Math Unit 1 of 2 (Settings):

• Label Name: Math Unit 1
• Input 1: Result > Logic Reader 1
• Input 2: Memory 15
• Out (Operation Selector): Subtract

Math Unit 2 of 2 (Settings):

• Label Name: Math Unit 2
• Input 1: Result > Math Unit 1
• Input 2: Memory 1.5
• Out (Operation Selector): Divide

Min/Max Unit 1 of 1 (Settings):

• Label Name: Min-Max 1
• Input 1: Result > Math Unit 2
• Input 2: Memory 100
• OPR (Less/Greater Selector): Less

Batch Writer 1 of 1 (Settings):

• Label Name: Batch Writer 1
• Input 1: Result > Min-Max 1
• Out Var: Vertical
• Out Type: Solar Panels

IC Scripts

(The following comment was removed from the Main_Page HTML and placed here for greater visibility)
Due to all the IC Scripts on the workshop have there own guides on how to use them, I will not link them here for now due to how many there is, could do a top 10 of them and place them here.

Kit Pages

For items that are produced as a kit, there are links both for the kit and the resulting item. In many cases, only one of these links points towards an existing page. I propose that we merge pages for items that are produced by the same kit, as is currently done in Kit (Lights), and use page redirects for the sub items, as in Kit (Lights) LED. Edit: I've done this for the manufacturing and atmospherics sections. If no one objects or reverts those, I'll continue to the other sections later.

Secondarily, on this main page, I think we should only mention "Kit" if there is more than one item related to that kit. E.g., "Kit () Fabricator" could be simplified to "Fabricator", but lights would keep their kit notation: "Kit (Lights) Diode Slide" and "Kit (Lights) LED".

Are there any objections to this?

--Ipottinger (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2019 (CDT) :: I was the one who separated them out, with kits that currently only produce one item denoted as "Kit() ItemName" and kits that already produce multiple items denoted as "Kit (KitName) ItemName". I think the kits and the resulting items they produce deserve separate pages. All kits share the same set of properties (stackable, stack-siZe, cost of fabrication) that are separate for the items they produce (construction steps, power requirements, data properties). The two states, kit vs. item, are distinct. I value consistency and hope to produce a template for kits that will provide a predictable format for their shared information. Similarly, I'm studying the collection of items to see if a template can be made to cover them as well. See: Kit (Door) vs. Composite Door and Blast Door. I've been a bit busy but I do intend to get that done. Can I ask for a bit of time, patience and maybe some help?

--Bloby (Edited): I see what you mean about the different properties, and agree that it needs to be clear that the kits and their constructs are different. That said, I'm not sure that the best way to achieve that is to have separate pages for them: this would result in more than 100 new pages often containing only a few sentences of information. Your point that we should be consistent across items is well taken, and so maybe the best way to deal with this is to give each item one page. The infobox for the kit (the actual item) could be put at the top of the page, with the constructs as subsections (and separate infoboxes) below. Otherwise you're putting the constructs (not an item) on even footing with the kit (an item). The Atmospherics page is a good example of this. The exact templating scheme could be adjusted to reflect this; for example, it might be worth having differently styled boxes for items vs constructs. Does this sound reasonable?

--Ipottinger (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2019 (CDT) The Atmospherics page is a good example of what I would like to avoid. It is a huge conglomeration of different sets of information. New users, the people most likely to come to the wikia, must weed through a long page to find the information specific to the item of their interested. It would be far more helpful (and less intimidating) if they were greeted with a shorter page concentrated with the information on one specific kit or item. I don't see a problem with kits and items being on the same level and having their own pages. Both are entities in the game. A kit can be manipulated in the game just as much as any item. Any distinction seems meaningless. Webpages are free and there is no shortage of them. Why must "conserving" pages be a goal? It is my opinion that the Atmospherics page would be better served as four separate pages: Kit (Atmospherics) | Air Conditioner | Electrolyzer | Filtration. While I will advocate my point of view, I realize I am in no position to make dictates. I am eager to hear your points and counterpoints. I will listen.

As an example of my vision, please examine what I've done with Guide (Airlock) and all its associated pages, including Guide (Airlock) Atmosphere to Atmosphere, Guide (Airlock) Atmosphere to Vacuum, Kit (Airlock), Kit (Airlock) Airlock, Circuitboard (Airlock) and Circuitboard (Advanced Airlock). I tried to breakdown a complicated system into discrete parts of different functions and link them all together with contextual links and a comprehensive "See Also" section. You can examine the histories of the pages to see how the work progressed.

I have some time on my hands. Give me the day to try my hand on that monolithic Atmospherics page. You can then judge if the resulting collection of pages is or is not a better experience, especially for newer players.