Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Axxle]

I'm thinking 1/2/3 too despite being a programmer.  Probably has to do with being a gamer and used to starting at level 1.

and I can't very well *not* make this joke:

[DStu]

I'm actually not sure, but I think 0/1/2, because the Level0 City is not a City yet...

[ipofanes]

Mathematical conventions and Edsger Dijkstra pamphlets aside: Given the flocks of Pokémons flooding this forum, I always assumed it would be "base", "lvl 1", "lvl 2".

[SirPeebles]

City
Shanty City
Grand City

Shanty City sounds worse than City.  Did you mean to start at Shanty City?

[GSDTheFlea]

I'm on board with the roman numeral idea. Even if we decide on a standard here between 0/1/2 and 1/2/3, it will still be ambiguous to anyone new.

Although now that I think about it more, you could still have City / City I / City II.

Damn.

What about City / 1-Pile City / 2-Pile City ?

[DG]

I don't get why anyone would want to call it city 1-2-3. It seems hard to come up with a more misleading description. It it really a level 3 city when 2 piles are empty and the city has the second extra ability? City level alpha/beta/gamma, London/Paris/Berlin, or anything else is less confusing.

I suggest the whole idea is scrapped or level 0/1/2 used as the less misleading option.

[Jimmmmm]

I don't think it's misleading at all. Level 1 = the first level = the most basic level = the level that you start off with. Level 2 = the second level = the second most basic level = the level that comes after the one you start off with, etc. That's what these terms mean, and that's by far their most common usage.

[Tables]

I don't get why anyone would want to call it city 1-2-3. It seems hard to come up with a more misleading description. It it really a level 3 city when 2 piles are empty and the city has the second extra ability? City level alpha/beta/gamma, London/Paris/Berlin, or anything else is less confusing.

I suggest the whole idea is scrapped or level 0/1/2 used as the less misleading option.

I think 0/1/2 is a lot more misleading. If someone says X is level 1, the immediate assumption is that it's at it's lowest level. Saying it's leveled up once to level 1 is pretty confusing. Sure, it matches the empty piles, but it's not intuitive with how we normally talk about levels of things.

[Morgrim7]

Each to his own.

[pinkymadigan]

City
City+
City++

...or 1984 style:
City
Plus Good City
Double Plus Good City

[DG]

I think 0/1/2 is a lot more misleading. If someone says X is level 1, the immediate assumption is that it's at it's lowest level.

That seems like an entirely false assumption. You are taking some other contexts and using them, ignoring other contexts you don't like, and ignoring the what cities actually do.

[theory]

City
City+
City++

I like this.

[pinkymadigan]

I think the amount of debate, the results of the voting, and previous confusion by some surely indicates there is reason to abandon the 'level' terminology altogether. Even if everyone likes the ideas of levels the best, going with terms that are so obviously ambiguously interpreted seems like a bad idea.

Someone with more initiative than me should put together a list of serious alternatives.

@theory: Thanks, I think it is swell too.

[SirPeebles]

Your pluses idea seems like the only reasonable, serious idea suggested so far -- aside from explicitly referencing piles, which is clunky.

One thing about City/City+/City++ though, is that they don't feel mutually exclusive to me.  That is, the term City could refer to City regardless of the number of piles, and City+ to me suggests that at least one pile is empty, rather than exactly one.  But then, this is a feature as much as it is a bug.  Most of the time if we mention City+, it's really just enough to mean that at least one pile is empty.

[pinkymadigan]

Your pluses idea seems like the only reasonable, serious idea suggested so far -- aside from explicitly referencing piles, which is clunky.

One thing about City/City+/City++ though, is that they don't feel mutually exclusive to me.  That is, the term City could refer to City regardless of the number of piles, and City+ to me suggests that at least one pile is empty, rather than exactly one.  But then, this is a feature as much as it is a bug.  Most of the time if we mention City+, it's really just enough to mean that at least one pile is empty.

Okay, just reviewed the thread again, I remembered more serious suggestions than there actually were.

I thought the roman numerals suggestion was okay as well (City I/City II/City III); though I can still see 'City/City I/City II' being used, it is a step in the right direction.

Also, the explicit suggestion of 0-Pile City/1-Pile City /2-Pile City is about as unambiguous as it gets.

[Kroet]

Perhaps you should call them 0/1.5/3. Then the meaning should always be clear. But I think no one would do that  .

[carstimon]

Your pluses idea seems like the only reasonable, serious idea suggested so far -- aside from explicitly referencing piles, which is clunky.

One thing about City/City+/City++ though, is that they don't feel mutually exclusive to me.  That is, the term City could refer to City regardless of the number of piles, and City+ to me suggests that at least one pile is empty, rather than exactly one.  But then, this is a feature as much as it is a bug.  Most of the time if we mention City+, it's really just enough to mean that at least one pile is empty.

Ah you're right, we need more sophisticated terminology.

How about basing it off what letters are capitalized?
city = the card in general.
City = zero piles.  CiTy = one pile.  CiTY = 2 piles.
Then we can use the "i" to mean "at least" e.g.
CIty = zero, one, or two piles.  CITy = one or two piles.
Since this scheme doesn't work so well with the plural "cities" we should just spell it "citys"

For example:
One of the best strategies in the game is to just buy citys.  Start by buying some silvers or other $3/$4s which will give you money like monument.  Once you buy enough of these you will be able to hit $5 pretty consistently. Since CIty is a village you can be extremely liberal in buying $3/$4 terminals.  But make sure you spend your $5 on citys!  If your opponent is silly enough to ignore this strategy in 14 turns or so you should have 10 CiTys.  At this point you should try to empty another pile (it helps to have some +buy beside CiTY) so that you have CiTYs.  Once you have 10 CiTYs you basically just win the game by buying all of the provinces.

This method is obviously the most precise.

[eHalcyon]

Your pluses idea seems like the only reasonable, serious idea suggested so far -- aside from explicitly referencing piles, which is clunky.

One thing about City/City+/City++ though, is that they don't feel mutually exclusive to me.  That is, the term City could refer to City regardless of the number of piles, and City+ to me suggests that at least one pile is empty, rather than exactly one.  But then, this is a feature as much as it is a bug.  Most of the time if we mention City+, it's really just enough to mean that at least one pile is empty.

Ah you're right, we need more sophisticated terminology.

How about basing it off what letters are capitalized?
city = the card in general.
City = zero piles.  CiTy = one pile.  CiTY = 2 piles.
Then we can use the "i" to mean "at least" e.g.
CIty = zero, one, or two piles.  CITy = one or two piles.
Since this scheme doesn't work so well with the plural "cities" we should just spell it "citys"

For example:
One of the best strategies in the game is to just buy citys.  Start by buying some silvers or other $3/$4s which will give you money like monument.  Once you buy enough of these you will be able to hit $5 pretty consistently. Since CIty is a village you can be extremely liberal in buying $3/$4 terminals.  But make sure you spend your $5 on citys!  If your opponent is silly enough to ignore this strategy in 14 turns or so you should have 10 CiTys.  At this point you should try to empty another pile (it helps to have some +buy beside CiTY) so that you have CiTYs.  Once you have 10 CiTYs you basically just win the game by buying all of the provinces.

This method is obviously the most precise.

This has too much burden of knowledge. We need something intuitive. I like the City+ idea. There is some aboguity, but I think it is acceptable. In an article, the author should explain the terminology briefly anyway. Context should take care of the rest.

[pinkymadigan]

Your pluses idea seems like the only reasonable, serious idea suggested so far -- aside from explicitly referencing piles, which is clunky.

One thing about City/City+/City++ though, is that they don't feel mutually exclusive to me.  That is, the term City could refer to City regardless of the number of piles, and City+ to me suggests that at least one pile is empty, rather than exactly one.  But then, this is a feature as much as it is a bug.  Most of the time if we mention City+, it's really just enough to mean that at least one pile is empty.

Ah you're right, we need more sophisticated terminology.

How about basing it off what letters are capitalized?
city = the card in general.
City = zero piles.  CiTy = one pile.  CiTY = 2 piles.
Then we can use the "i" to mean "at least" e.g.
CIty = zero, one, or two piles.  CITy = one or two piles.
Since this scheme doesn't work so well with the plural "cities" we should just spell it "citys"

For example:
One of the best strategies in the game is to just buy citys.  Start by buying some silvers or other $3/$4s which will give you money like monument.  Once you buy enough of these you will be able to hit $5 pretty consistently. Since CIty is a village you can be extremely liberal in buying $3/$4 terminals.  But make sure you spend your $5 on citys!  If your opponent is silly enough to ignore this strategy in 14 turns or so you should have 10 CiTys.  At this point you should try to empty another pile (it helps to have some +buy beside CiTY) so that you have CiTYs.  Once you have 10 CiTYs you basically just win the game by buying all of the provinces.

This method is obviously the most precise.

You win, obviously.

[SirPeebles]

The tricky thing is that actively engineering language is hard.  Perhaps this is what pinkymadigan was alluding to with his Newspeak reference.

I'm pretty happy with "partially activated" and "fully activated".  I don't like the unqualified "activated", since it's ambiguous.  Of course, it's fine in context, such as:

I would avoid Cities altogether on this board and focus on Fishing Village/Wharf.  While the Cities are sure to be activated as the Fishing Villages or Wharves are depleted, you really want to spend your $5 hands on Wharves, Wharves, and more Wharves (perhaps with the occasional double Fishing Village as needed).  Ultimately, you'll have more than enough actions, draw, and buys if you win the key splits, and there are better sources of coin than City.

[pinkymadigan]

The tricky thing is that actively engineering language is hard.  Perhaps this is what pinkymadigan was alluding to with his Newspeak reference.

Nah, it was just some mild referential humor.

[carstimon]

...

This has too much burden of knowledge.

That's what the FAQ is for.

[eHalcyon]

...

This has too much burden of knowledge.

That's what the FAQ is for.

You can't expect people to go to the FAQ just because some people are spelling poorly and capitalizing letters in the middle of words. This is the Internet! There needs to be some indication that there is a pattern or signal embedded in the text. Otherwise, it just looks like a string of typos.

[pinkymadigan]

...

This has too much burden of knowledge.

That's what the FAQ is for.

You can't expect people to go to the FAQ just because some people are spelling poorly and capitalizing letters in the middle of words. This is the Internet! There needs to be some indication that there is a pattern or signal embedded in the text. Otherwise, it just looks like a string of typos.

Maybe my sarcasm meter is off. Wasn't carstimon's post in jest?

[DStu]

55/54.  Seems like the guys from the neutral response have hijacked this voting...

Edit: 55/55. balance restored