Rename: "Leadership" -> "Inspiring"

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

That's a much more sensible approach. In fact, I'm not sure where "commanders" are explicitly referred to as "leaders" anyway. Maybe the help files? This is another reason I had absolutely 0 issue with this (what I thought was a) constructed problem.
rchandra
Posts: 35
Joined: December 18th, 2006, 11:41 am

Post by rchandra »

JW wrote:In fact, I'm not sure where "commanders" are explicitly referred to as "leaders" anyway. Maybe the help files?
I think "defeat all enemy leaders" and "death of your leader" are common victory/defeat conditions.
User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

rchandra wrote:
JW wrote:In fact, I'm not sure where "commanders" are explicitly referred to as "leaders" anyway. Maybe the help files?
I think "defeat all enemy leaders" and "death of your leader" are common victory/defeat conditions.
lol....nice. I admit I don't even think about such warnings. Okay, you got me.
User avatar
governor
Posts: 267
Joined: December 8th, 2006, 12:32 am

Post by governor »

JW wrote:
rchandra wrote: I think "defeat all enemy leaders" and "death of your leader" are common victory/defeat conditions.
lol....nice. I admit I don't even think about such warnings. Okay, you got me.
I have to admit that, at the beginning of this topic, I was wondering where exactly 'leader' was in game. I found that it is used primarily in standard objectives and very infrequently in the help window.

I am not certain that renaming a leader to commander or any other synonym will solve this (I agree with JW - constructed) problem. If someone can argue that it is safe to assume that a leader has leadership they can/will make the same argument/assumption for a commander. For instance, the original thread from which this thread is derived was named "Should all Kings have leadership by default" or something very similar.

I stand by my earlier posts - this is not a language issue. Its only an issue for people that don't properly interpret language - in this case English.
User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Post by irrevenant »

governor wrote:I am not certain that renaming a leader to commander or any other synonym will solve this (I agree with JW - constructed) problem. If someone can argue that it is safe to assume that a leader has leadership they can/will make the same argument/assumption for a commander. For instance, the original thread from which this thread is derived was named "Should all Kings have leadership by default" or something very similar.
IMO, it wouldn't completely avoid the issue, but it would improve the situation for minimal effort.

Basically all the core functionality of Wesnoth is finished. An increasing amount of improvements will be relatively minor 'polishing' touches.
governor wrote:I stand by my earlier posts - this is not a language issue. Its only an issue for people that don't properly interpret language - in this case English.
I disagree, but it's beside the point anyway. Whether they're right or wrong linguistically, enough people have trouble with the wording to make it worth changing. I don't suggest dumbing Wesnoth down, just using a less ambiguous word that serves the same purpose.
User avatar
Thrawn
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2047
Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
Location: bridge of SSD Chimera

Post by Thrawn »

maybe just change the conditions to talk about your hero rather than your leader?

simplicity ftw.
...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott

this goes for they're/their/there as well
Alweth
Posts: 6
Joined: February 17th, 2008, 4:09 am

What does Leadership do anyway?

Post by Alweth »

On a related note, I found the term "Leadership" confusing because it's rather vague what leadership would mean in game terms. It's obvious that units with Regenerate regenerate life, and units with Heal heal units, and its not surprising to find out that unites with Steadfast are good at defending. But I was surprised when I found out that units with a broad descriptor like "Leadership" only increase damage. Why can't "leadership" mean increased chance-to-hit, defense, or movement, or the ability to recruit? Certainly a leader could lead in those areas as well.

Maybe it would be good to change leadership into Leadership (Damage) or Damage Leader, or Assault Leader, or Damage Coordinator (since they don't really have to lead the attack for their role to work). Or how about Mentor (Damage), etc., because what they mostly do is help weaker units be better.

People would be less likely to expect all "leaders" or "commanders" to have a specific kind of leadership like "Leadership (Damage)". Furthermore, it would allow design space for a variety of different Leadership types, without those types having to be used. If, for example, you decided to create a unit in the future that gave lower-level units from the same team increased defense, you could call it "Leadership (Defense)" or whatever the equivalent was without having to make up another term to describe what they do, which would potentially be confused with "Leadership" or perhaps suffer from the same vagueness.

Finally, such a naming system would help make it more intuitive what those "leaders" are actually doing.
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Post by Velensk »

Quite simpily the current system keep things simple and works fine.

The leaders enhance the preformance of lower ranking units somehow this is represented by increased damage.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Post by irrevenant »

Velensk wrote:Quite simpily the current system keep things simple and works fine.
Leadership is not an ideal term - like someone else said, it doesn't directly translate to what the ability does - but thus far noone's been able to come up with a more appropriate term.

I'd still like to see "Leaders" changed to "Commanders" though. "Hero" is not appropriate because some of the protagonists aren't at all heroic.
User avatar
governor
Posts: 267
Joined: December 8th, 2006, 12:32 am

Post by governor »

irrevenant wrote:"Hero" is not appropriate because some of the protagonists aren't at all heroic.
A valid definition for hero is: the principal male (female-heroine) character in a story, play, film, etc.
While a suitable definition for heroic is: having or involving recourse to boldness, daring, or extreme measures

A hero doesn't have to be heroic, just as a leader doesn't need to have leadership.
Post Reply