About the Hub

Public pages focus on actionable outcomes: reaching a location, choosing equipment, estimating power requirements, recovering from a failed route, or deciding between alternatives. A guide is not published merely because it is long or contains keywords. It must make a distinct editorial contribution beyond restating its source pages.

• Article-level citations for factual claims
• A visible route, comparison, or decision rule
• Failure recovery and practical constraints
• No unsupported patch or play-testing claims

1. 1. Collect exact references

   The research queue records the individual official, reference, or other relevant pages used for a topic. A source homepage alone is not enough.

2. 2. Build source notes

   Candidate facts are organized into private source notes before writing. Those notes separate confirmed mechanics, uncertain claims, patch-sensitive details, and player-facing decisions.

3. 3. Check claims and usefulness

   Important facts are checked against the cited pages. Unsupported entities, version labels, quotations, and experience claims are removed. The page must also add a route choice, comparison, calculation, or recovery procedure.

4. 4. Pass the publication gate

   Only a guide explicitly marked as reviewed can enter public routes, category pages, related-guide lists, or the sitemap. Approval requires source checks, usefulness checks, and policy checks before publication.

A reference can tell a player that an item exists, but it usually does not answer when to chase it, what to bring, what to skip, or how to recover when the route goes wrong. The hub's editorial work is to turn those facts into decisions a player can use during a run. That means building ordered routes, comparing tradeoffs, calling out bottlenecks, and explaining when a safer fallback is better than the fastest theoretical path.

When a page depends on a patch-sensitive mechanic, it names the source and avoids pretending that the route is permanent. When a claim cannot be traced to a current source or a clearly documented observation, it is rewritten, marked as uncertain, or removed from the public guide.

This started as a side project by Nporter — a software engineer who kept losing runs to bad info scattered across five different wikis and Reddit threads. The goal was simple: put the answers in one place, check them against actual sources, and stop wasting time. A few hundred hours of Abiotic Factor later, the archive grew into what you see now.

Daily editorial work (checking sources, testing routes after patches, writing new guides) is split across contributors — each guide shows who wrote it. If you want to report an error, suggest a topic, or ask about the site, hit the contact page.

“Reviewed” means the page passed this archive's source and usefulness checks. It does not imply developer confirmation or first-hand play-testing unless the page says so and documents that evidence. Game updates can still invalidate a route or item value.

Publication dates and version labels are not changed simply to make old material appear fresh. When evidence is uncertain, the guide is withdrawn from the public index until it can be corrected.