Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Gaia Project» Forums » General

Subject: Tile naming convention standard rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
K O
msg tools
Is there, maybe from playtesting, an already established naming convention standard for all the tiles (full and short names), like in TM eg FAVX?
I'm thinking about writting a short python script to automatically randomize the setup.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Attila Kisvári
Hungary
Bokros
Csongrád
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
What's the point in a script instead of randomizing by hand? I don't want to search for the tiles you randomized :)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Kearns
Australia
Newcastle
NSW
flag msg tools
Can they please be descriptive this time.
I have no idea what fav7 is. Stop calling them by numbers.
Something more like BTechPow, ATechFedPts3
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K O
msg tools
I propose following naming convention standard for tiles for forum discussions and software implementation:

3 LETTER UPPERCASE TYPE CODE + 3 letter lowercase description code + 1 CHARACTER UPPERCASE AMBIGUITY BREAKER

3 LETTER UPPERCASE TYPE CODE:
TEC = Standard Tech Tile
ADV = Advanced Tech Tile
BOO = Round Booster
RND = Round Scoring Tile
FIN = Final Scoring Tile
FED = Federation Token

3 letter lowercase description code:

ore = Ore
cre = Credits
knw = Knowledge
qic = Q.I.C.
pow = Power
pwt = Power Token

min = Mine
trs = Trading Stations
lab = Research Laboratories
pia = Planetary Institutes and Academies
bld = Buildings

fed = Federations / Federation Tokens
gai = Gaia Planets / On Gaia Planets
sec = Sectors
typ = Planet Types
stp = Tech Track Step
sat = Satellites

nav = Navigation
ter = Terraforming
vps = Victory Point Scoring

1 CHARACTER UPPERCASE AMBIGUITY BREAKER:
B = When building
P = When passing
V = Victory Points scoring
O = Ore bonus
(Numbers) = Scoring points

Detailed List:

TECore = 1 ore + 1 power income
TECcre = 4 credits income
TECknw = 1 knowledge + 1 credit income
TECpow = 4 power bonus action
TECqic = 1 Q.I.C. + 1 ore bonus
TECpia = Power level 4 for PIs and Academies
TECgai = 3 VPs for building mines on gaia planets
TECtyp = Knowledge bonus for planet types
TECvps = 7 VP scoring

ADVore = 3 ore bonus action
ADVknw = 3 knowledge bonus action
ADVqic = 1 Q.I.C. + 5 credits bonus action
ADVlab = 3 VPs per research laboratory when passing
ADVgai = 2 VPs per gaia planet scoring
ADVtyp = 1 VP per planet type when passing
ADVstp = 2 VP when tech track step gained
ADVminV = 2 VPs per mine scoring
ADVminB = 3 VPs when building a mine
ADVtrsV = 4 VPs per trade station scoring
ADVtrsB = 3 VPs when building a trade station
ADVsecV = 2 VPs per sector scoring
ADVsecO = 1 ore per sector bonus
ADVfedV = 5 VPs per federation scoring
ADVfedP = 3 VPs per federation when passing


BOOnav = +3 navigation boost + 2 power income
BOOter = 1 terraforming step + 2 credits income
BOOknw = 1 knowledge + 1 ore income
BOOqic = 1 Q.I.C. + 2 credits income
BOOpwt = 2 power tokens + 1 ore income
BOOmin = 1 VP per mine when passing + 1 ore income
BOOtrs = 2 VPs per trade station when passing + 1 ore income
BOOlab = 3 VPs per research laboratory when passing + 1 knowledge income
BOOpia = 4 VPs per presidential institute and academies when passing + 4 power incomes
BOOgai = 1 VP per gaia planet when passing + 4 credits income

RNDter = 2 VPs per gained terraforming step
RNDstp = 2 VPs per gained tech track step
RNDfed = 5 Vps per gained federation token
RNDmin = 2 VPs when building mine
RNDgai3 = 3 VPs when building a mine on gaia planet
RNDgai4 = 4 VPs when building a mine on gaia planet
RNDtrs3 = 3 VPs when building a trade station
RNDtrs4 = 4 VPs when building a trade station
RNDpia = 5 VPs when building a planetary institute or academy

FINbld = Most buildings final scoring
FINfed = Most buildings in federations final scoring
FINgai = Most gaia planets final scoring
FINsec = Most sectors final scoring
FINtyp = Most planet types final scoring
FINsat = Most satellites final scoring

FEDknw = 6 VPs + 2 knowledge
FEDore = 7 VPs + 2 ore
FEDcre = 7 VPs + 6 credits
FEDpwt = 8 VPs + 2 power tokens
FEDqic = 8 VPs + 1 Q.I.C.
FEDvps = 12 VPs


Note: Ambiguity breaker characters can be left out to refer to tiles commonly (eg RNDtrs) or added for emphasis (eg ADVlabP).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Wolfpacker
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
That's a lot messier than it could be.

Also the rulebook already has a list for the Boosters and labels them 1 to 10. It's fairly easy to memorize. The first 3 econ only ones come first, then the 2 with actions, then the 5 with vp.

Just call them BOO1 to BOO10.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K O
msg tools
Joshauk wrote:
Can they please be descriptive this time.
I have no idea what fav7 is. Stop calling them by numbers.
Something more like BTechPow, ATechFedPts3

JamesWolfpacker wrote:
That's a lot messier than it could be.

Also the rulebook already has a list for the Boosters and labels them 1 to 10. It's fairly easy to memorize. The first 3 econ only ones come first, then the 2 with actions, then the 5 with vp.

Just call them BOO1 to BOO10.


I also hated the number labeling in TM. In GP we have now 55 different tiles to memorize, calling them by numbers is in my opinion not feasible and will hamper readability of forum posts massively. Also numbering the tiles by the order of printing makes no sense (eg ADV) or not possible (RND), they aren't even enumerated with printed numbers! I don't want to take out the rule book every second time someone refers to a tile and I forgot the number. So lets not start with this at all.

Example: when I write FEDqic its instantly clear that I am referring to the federation token with the QIC, as opposed to FED2.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flo P
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There is an obvious struggle between conciseness and lucidity when trying to introduce abbreviations for talking about this subject. Clearly the reductionism can be propagated even further and one can only specifiy the class of entities we are talking about (BOO vs TEC, etc.) and simply enumerate every element of a class (James' suggestion). This leads to a very concise, well-structured codification, with the drawback that one will basically need a translation table until everything is memorized.

Lenrok's suggestion strikes a nice balance between those two poles, which is why I think it could have a good chance not only to catch on, but also to be understandable for 'the uninitiated'. The description that was adopted from snellman in the TM forums is terribly arbitrary and can seem overly elitist/snobbish to someone not used to it. At the very least it introduces a communication barrier and will therefore always have an exclusive element. As such I also prefer a mnemonic approach here - I can see even people new to the discussion quickly picking up on what the point of a certain debate is, despite any specialized terms that were introduced to it. So maybe it doesn't have to be in this exact form, but trying to find a concise, precise and descriptive way to talk about the different game elements at this early stage of the game, will surely be of some benefit to the community later on.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Wolfpacker
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
BOO1 to BOO10 is already in the rulebook so people just need to go ahead and take that to the bank. I was thinking that calling them B1 to B10 would also be OK, but that's probably too far.

You don't need 3 letters for all of the resources. This is sufficient:

o = Ore
c = Credits
k = Knowledge
q = Q.I.C.
pw = Power
pt = Power Token
vp = Victory Points

Also for buildings:

m = Mine
ts = Trading Stations
rl = Research Laboratories
pia = Planetary Institutes and Academies
b = Buildings

I like your ideas in doing this and I do agree that the Snellman naming convention does create some barrier. However, I think using 1 or 2 letters makes enough sense for people.

The adv techs are the ones that are most likely to trip people up since there are more of those than anything else.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Marsh
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
ahh, get it off.. get it... GET IT OFF!!
badge
ahh, get it off.. get it... GET IT OFF!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JamesWolfpacker wrote:
BOO1 to BOO10 is already in the rulebook so people just need to go ahead and take that to the bank.


the nomenclature that came to dominate TM did not appear in the rulebook. given that i don't think this argument makes a lot of sense. whatever the consensus adopts is what will be the standard in the forums.

if there's a snellman implementation then that will likely become the standard. barring that i think it depends on what people on the forums prefer. i think the more descriptive abbreviations listed here would be better.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Wolfpacker
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
colinmarsh wrote:
JamesWolfpacker wrote:
BOO1 to BOO10 is already in the rulebook so people just need to go ahead and take that to the bank.


the nomenclature that came to dominate TM did not appear in the rulebook. given that i don't think this argument makes a lot of sense. whatever the consensus adopts is what will be the standard in the forums.

if there's a snellman implementation then that will likely become the standard. barring that i think it depends on what people on the forums prefer. i think the more descriptive abbreviations listed here would be better.


Page 23 (Appendix 4) in both the English and German rules has all 10 round boosters described and lists them 1 through 10.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Maisonneuve
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For naming, I think these would suit better:

Trd = Trade Station
Sct = Sector
Bld = Building
Crd = Credit
VP = Victory Points

There is no real point to have an ambiguity breaker for "when building" and "when scoring" since because none give the same amount of points and people need to know a minimum the game to use this sytem, so they know which one is which.

Camel-style for writting stuff is better because it make it easier to read and gives the emphasis when a new "section" of the name start.

Ex:

AdvMinV = 2 VPs per mine scoring
vs
ADVminV = 2 VPs per mine scoring

BooKnw = 1 knowledge + 1 ore income
vs
BOOknw = 1 knowledge + 1 ore income


But I think a simply more descriptive, yet still short, name would be better:

Adv-Bon3Ore = 3 ore bonus action
Adv-Bon3Knw = 3 knowledge bonus action
Adv-1QIC5Crd = 1 Q.I.C. + 5 credits bonus action
Adv-Lab3VP = 3 VPs per research laboratory when passing
Adv-Gai2VP = 2 VPs per gaia planet scoring
Adv-Typ1VP = 1 VP per planet type when passing
Adv-Stp2VP = 2 VP when tech track step gained
Adv-Min2VP = 2 VPs per mine scoring
Adv-Min3VP = 3 VPs when building a mine
Adv-Trd4VP = 4 VPs per trade station scoring
Adv-Trd3VP = 3 VPs when building a trade station
Adv-Sct2VP = 2 VPs per sector scoring
Adv-Sct1Ore = 1 ore per sector bonus
Adv-Fed5VP = 5 VPs per federation scoring
Adv-Fed3VP = 3 VPs per federation when passing

Boo-3Nav2Pow = +3 navigation boost + 2 power income
Boo-1Ter2Crd = 1 terraforming step + 2 credits income
Boo-1Knw1Ore = 1 knowledge + 1 ore income
Boo-1QIC2Cred = 1 Q.I.C. + 2 credits income
Boo-2Pwt1Ore = 2 power tokens + 1 ore income
Boo-Min1VP1Ore = 1 VP per mine when passing + 1 ore income
Boo-Trd1VP1Ore = 2 VPs per trade station when passing + 1 ore income
Boo-Lab3VP1Knw = 3 VPs per research laboratory when passing + 1 knowledge income
Boo-PIA4VP4Pow = 4 VPs per presidential institute and academies when passing + 4 power incomes
Boo-Gai1VP4Crd = 1 VP per gaia planet when passing + 4 credits income

Rnd-Ter2VP = 2 VPs per gained terraforming step
Rnd-Stp2VP = 2 VPs per gained tech track step
Rnd-Fed5VP = 5 Vps per gained federation token
Rnd-Min2VP = 2 VPs when building mine
Rnd-Gai3VP = 3 VPs when building a mine on gaia planet
Rnd-Gai4VP = 4 VPs when building a mine on gaia planet
Rnd-Trd3VP = 3 VPs when building a trade station
Rnd-TrD4VP = 4 VPs when building a trade station
Rnd-PIA5VP = 5 VPs when building a planetary institute or academy

Fin-Bld = Most buildings final scoring
Fin-Fed = Most buildings in federations final scoring
Fin-GAI = Most gaia planets final scoring
Fin-Sct = Most sectors final scoring
Fin-Typ = Most planet types final scoring
Fin-Sat = Most satellites final scoring

Fed-6VP2Knw = 6 VPs + 2 knowledge
Fed-7VP2Ore = 7 VPs + 2 ore
Fed-7VP6Crd = 7 VPs + 6 credits
Fed-8VP2Pwt = 8 VPs + 2 power tokens
Fed-8VP1QIC = 8 VPs + 1 Q.I.C.
Fed-12VP = 12 VPs

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Wolfpacker
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Those are still too long, when I get time I'll post a list that is much shorter. Really, when you play the game a few times, the abbreviations can be much shorter.

One thing in doing this is you have to adjust your writing for the audience. When discussing rules questions, it's better to be long winded and fully descriptive because the players probably don't know what you're talking about.

So instead of saying:

Quote:
BOO 10 doesn't give Lantida vp for mines on shared planets, but BOO 6 does.


I'd say:

Quote:
The round booster with 1vp per mine on a gaia planet (BOO 10) doesn't give Lantida vp for mines on shared planets, but the booster with 1vp per mine built (BOO 6) does give them vp for mines on shared planets.


This way, the player can also learn the terminology as well.

The standard we are aiming for in this topic and my Sector Topic is for people who have played the game several times and understand the rules well enough.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
I paid 100 Geek Gold so that you can read this! :-)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think that whatever terminology you guys invented (or still plan to invent) will stick, unless somebody comes along and gives us a Gaia Project App or online gaming opportunity. And even if GP ever reaches a situation like Terra Mystica (where Juho's online moderator defines a de-facto "established" list of shortcut terminology), your audience will still understand you way better if you write "BON5 (+1w +3pw)" instead of just "BON5"; plus it's polite.

To me, a numbering scheme ("BOO1", ...) is crazy, even if the GP rules provide numbers for some components. I'm not going to learn these unless a online/app implementation forces me to do so, and I certainly hope that such an implementation offers the real information along with whatever shortcut it uses (just like Juho and Lode do for TM).

There are easy-to-understand abbreviations (like M/TS/RL/PI/AC for the buildings, or o/c/k/QIC for resources, as in "upgrading a M to PI costs 6o+9c"), but you'll need to spell out most of the other tiles in some unambigous terms. And these will tend to be longish, and few people will look up somebody else's terminology list for the "correct" term instead of making something up while typing. I wouldn't even expect consistency from any given person - somebody may call it "the PI+AC**4/+4pw booster" now and "the big-buildings-give-VP booster" tomorrow.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K O
msg tools
I am happy to see my proposal discussed here

I also think that Wildhorns abbreviations are too long so I am very curious about Wolfpackers proposal.

To adress DocCools concerns, I think there are only a few "trendsetters" needed that use the abbreviations regularly and consistently, so the rest of the community will just tag along and go with it. The abbreviations should be self explanatory, so no need of learning some lengthy code.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.