[Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

For writers working on documentation, story prose, announcements, and all kinds of Wesnoth text.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

User avatar
Drakefriend
Posts: 436
Joined: September 27th, 2009, 12:57 pm
Location: Wandering from one world to another
Contact:

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by Drakefriend »

I support Precision.
After far too long an absence, I have returned.
According to the quiz 100% Silver Mage (85% Archmage, 75% Shyde, 67% Flameheart and Ancient Wose,58% Assassin, Troll Warrior and Berserker). And my top score is exactly how I see myself.

User avatar
The_Other
Posts: 189
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: UK

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by The_Other »

The problem is that 'precision' is used elsewhere to refer to a different ability (fixed 80% chance to hit, IIRC?)
Nothing is true; everything is permissible.

Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by Insinuator »

The_Other wrote:The problem is that 'precision' is used elsewhere to refer to a different ability (fixed 80% chance to hit, IIRC?)
Perhaps, but as Penctartgon pointed out earlier, it is UMC that uses the term. This is a change to a Mainline ability. Mainline should always take precedence.

JaMiT
Developer
Posts: 511
Joined: January 22nd, 2012, 12:38 am

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by JaMiT »

Insinuator wrote:
JaMiT wrote:That being said, does anyone feel that "deadeye" has a strong ranged attack connotation? (It is usually associated with hitting things at a distance, but I have seen it used sometimes in close-range contexts.)
Snipers are called deadeyes, as were American gunslingers, both ranged attackers.
That does not preclude others from being called that. For example, snipers are called combatants, as were American gunslingers, both ranged attackers. Does that mean a fencer cannot be called a combatant?
Insinuator wrote:In fact, Webster's dictionary defines a "deadeye" as an "unerring marksman".
I would like to point out that I asked about connotation, not denotation.

User avatar
MetalKing
Posts: 197
Joined: July 8th, 2011, 11:34 am

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by MetalKing »

ancestral wrote: Possible alternatives to Marksman(ship):
  • Accuracy
  • Deftness
  • Finesse
  • Perceptiveness
  • Precision
  • Sharpness
Additionally, we need consistency with naming special attacks. They need to be all verbs, nouns, or adjectives, not a collection of all three.
I'm not sure if I got the Point. I think it's about naming an Attack and not an Ability or a Unit.
Why should an Attack always get named with a single Word? The Attack could otherwise e.g. named "Precise Strike". I prefer well-formed descriptive Names. It's about the Ability than Adjectives are the correct grammatic WordKind ("Part of Speech" sounds to unspecific to me). If we take Marksmanship for Precision of ranged Attacks we should consider if there is a Word for Precision indicating close Range. Another Way is to create an Expression like "MasterOf<Weapon>" as generic Expression to say the Unit knows well to handle that Weapon and extend it e.g. to "PreciseMasterOf<Weapon>" or "MasterOfPrecise<Weapon>" or "MasterOfPrecissionOf<Weapon>". If we consider "MasterOf<Weapon>" as first Skill a Unit have to get before getting more special Attributes like "Quick precise endurant Master of Weapon". As technical Term (Indentifier) it could abbreviated to "SwordPrecision" or something like.

As given (already existent) Traits did a long Time past Reaquirements. MAy be it's Time to think about a ReDesign the Convention for about TraitNaming. If a Change gets decided, rename the Traits and create Wraps/Links with old Names for Transition, change TraitNames step-by-step in Campaigns/Scenearios and anytime they ancient Names for Traits can get removed.

Btw: as the Traits are very important but can expressed by an Attribute I would prefer a "Quick Scout" which is a "Master of Unerring Sword" than a "Scout" with the Trait "Quick,Precise".
"Sir! We are surrounded by our enemies!" - "Excellent ! We can attack in every direction!"
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein
No Source - No Binary - No Trust!
Map Wesnoth Springs - The great War [200x120],Player=9

User avatar
Pentarctagon
Forum Administrator
Posts: 4221
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by Pentarctagon »

MetalKing wrote:I'm not sure if I got the Point. I think it's about naming an Attack and not an Ability or a Unit.
Why should an Attack always get named with a single Word? The Attack could otherwise e.g. named "Precise Strike". I prefer well-formed descriptive Names. It's about the Ability than Adjectives are the correct grammatic WordKind ("Part of Speech" sounds to unspecific to me). If we take Marksmanship for Precision of ranged Attacks we should consider if there is a Word for Precision indicating close Range. Another Way is to create an Expression like "MasterOf<Weapon>" as generic Expression to say the Unit knows well to handle that Weapon and extend it e.g. to "PreciseMasterOf<Weapon>" or "MasterOfPrecise<Weapon>" or "MasterOfPrecissionOf<Weapon>". If we consider "MasterOf<Weapon>" as first Skill a Unit have to get before getting more special Attributes like "Quick precise endurant Master of Weapon". As technical Term (Indentifier) it could abbreviated to "SwordPrecision" or something like.

As given (already existent) Traits did a long Time past Reaquirements. MAy be it's Time to think about a ReDesign the Convention for about TraitNaming. If a Change gets decided, rename the Traits and create Wraps/Links with old Names for Transition, change TraitNames step-by-step in Campaigns/Scenearios and anytime they ancient Names for Traits can get removed.

Btw: as the Traits are very important but can expressed by an Attribute I would prefer a "Quick Scout" which is a "Master of Unerring Sword" than a "Scout" with the Trait "Quick,Precise".
This thread is to discuss a possible renaming of marksman, not everything else. If you want, I can split this to a separate thread in the Ideas forum, but otherwise please stay on the original topic.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code

Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by Insinuator »

JaMiT wrote:
Insinuator wrote:Snipers are called deadeyes, as were American gunslingers, both ranged attackers.
That does not preclude others from being called that. For example, snipers are called combatants, as were American gunslingers, both ranged attackers. Does that mean a fencer cannot be called a combatant?
Combatant is a different word, and not relevant here. It purposefully has a broad connotation and so is quite the opposite of deadeye. Unless you have a plethora of examples of melee units being called "deadeyes", I think you have your answer. It has too much of a ranged connotation to be superior to Precision.
JaMiT wrote:
Insinuator wrote:In fact, Webster's dictionary defines a "deadeye" as an "unerring marksman".
I would like to point out that I asked about connotation, not denotation.
Well then you got both! How special you must feel! :D

User avatar
SpoOkyMagician
Posts: 281
Joined: September 5th, 2008, 8:04 am
Location: I have no idea...

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by SpoOkyMagician »

Drakefriend wrote:I support Precision.
I second this. (well, sort of...) It does sound a bit off for 60% CTH due to the RNG but, I cannot really think of another name that fits it. (on second thought...) My second choice would be accurate or accuracy. This sounds a bit better for a 60% CTH. Precision just sounds like it should be 80% so, I am unsure of which to fully support. Both terms are okay for me though.

~ SpoOkyMagician
"You don't have to understand me, I'm just there!" ~ SpoOkyMagician
Creator of: Unwelcome Guests Series, Modifiable Android Project, SpoOky's Survivals, and many more... (Most of my old stuff is gone.)
(User Page)

User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1720
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by Temuchin Khan »

Maybe we could call marksman "exact" or "exacting" instead.

JaMiT
Developer
Posts: 511
Joined: January 22nd, 2012, 12:38 am

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by JaMiT »

Insinuator wrote:
JaMiT wrote:For example, snipers are called combatants, as were American gunslingers, both ranged attackers. Does that mean a fencer cannot be called a combatant?
Combatant is a different word, and not relevant here.
That is my point. I changed one word for another and did not change the truth of the premises ("snipers are called X, as were American gunslingers, both ranged attackers"). Since the conclusion ("X is most certainly a word that favors ranged attacks") became false with this word change, the logic is flawed, hence the conclusion is invalid (regardless of which word is used).

Insinuator wrote:Unless you have a plethora of examples of melee units being called "deadeyes", I think you have your answer.
You think wrongly then. A plethora of examples would be needed to refute the slightest connotation of favoring ranged attackers. I asked about refuting a strong connotation, for which a much smaller number of examples would suffice.

Well, technically I suppose I do have my answer, since I asked "does anyone" instead of "do most people", and you do count as "anyone". Unintentionally weak phrasing on my part there.

Insinuator wrote:
JaMiT wrote:I would like to point out that I asked about connotation, not denotation.
Well then you got both! How special you must feel! :D
No, the attempt to provide connotation was flawed, so I only got the denotation. Also I am capable of using a dictionary, despite what you apparently think of my skills, so basically, I received nothing. Very special indeed... :roll:

One normally starts with denotation before asking about connotation, something I tried to point out by reminding you of what I asked. However, it would seem that was too subtle an attempt. Perhaps it would be better for me to start over, this time being more explicit and including those details I thought others would be able to fill in on their own:

I looked up "deadeye" in the dictionary, and found the definition "an unerring marksman", with "marksman" defined as "a person skilled at shooting at a mark or target". The "shooting" part implies ranged combat, but I recall a few cases where "deadeye" was used in a close-range setting. (Unfortunately, those cases were not memorable enough for me to specify where they occurred.) This indicates a possible discrepancy between denotation and connotation. If enough people agree that the connotation of being a ranged attacker is not that strong, poetic license could allow "deadeye" to be used to describe melee attacks in BfW, which would have more flavor than "precision". Do most people feel that "deadeye" has a strong ranged attack connotation?

Temuchin Khan wrote:Maybe we could call marksman "exact" or "exacting" instead.
I'd accept that as a possibility.

User avatar
Deusite
Translator
Posts: 110
Joined: May 31st, 2009, 1:38 am
Location: Oxford

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by Deusite »

I haven't seen deadeye much, but it does have 'eye' in it, which skews it towards ranged attacks for me.

Exact could work, but not exacting. That said, it sounds like strong term for this ability.

I'd like to suggest 'keen', since for me it has connotations of the unit's mental skill rather than something specifically physical. Or maybe 'acute', but that doesn't really work for me.
AKA Marz
Two profiles are better than one
Latin Translator

User avatar
The_Other
Posts: 189
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: UK

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by The_Other »

How about 'skilled' or 'skillful'? It clearly expresses that the unit attacks more effectively than others, but does not necessarily imply a greater-than-actual level of accuracy (as 'precise'/'precision' and similar terms do)
Nothing is true; everything is permissible.

Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by Insinuator »

Temuchin Khan wrote:Maybe we could call marksman "exact" or "exacting" instead.
Exacting is unsuited because it has to do more with one's manner towards others. An exacting boss, for example, is not one who can aim well, but rather one who demands much from his employees.

Exact is better, but in my opinion it is a rather dull word, not truly suited to describe such visceral assaults as are common in Wesnoth. Exact Cruiser missile strike, sure. Exact mace to the face..., meh. It is a good example of whether we're looking for an adjective or a noun, however.
The_Other wrote:How about 'skilled' or 'skillful'? It clearly expresses that the unit attacks more effectively than others, but does not necessarily imply a greater-than-actual level of accuracy (as 'precise'/'precision' and similar terms do)
But..., greater accuracy is exactly what we're trying to imply! Someone can be skilled at anything.
JaMiT wrote:I looked up "deadeye" in the dictionary, and found the definition "an unerring marksman", with "marksman" defined as "a person skilled at shooting at a mark or target". The "shooting" part implies ranged combat, but I recall a few cases where "deadeye" was used in a close-range setting. (Unfortunately, those cases were not memorable enough for me to specify where they occurred.) This indicates a possible discrepancy between denotation and connotation.
The only discrepancy exists in the shadows of your memory. Even a couple strong melee examples might make "deadeye" appealing, but you have zero. I'm sure a thorough search of the Internet will give you something. But the fact that such an exhaustive search would be necessary again shows that "deadeye" has a strong connotation to ranged units, which puts it in the same category as "marksman".

User avatar
The_Other
Posts: 189
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: UK

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by The_Other »

The_Other wrote:How about 'skilled' or 'skillful'? It clearly expresses that the unit attacks more effectively than others, but does not necessarily imply a greater-than-actual level of accuracy (as 'precise'/'precision' and similar terms do)
Insinuator wrote:But..., greater accuracy is exactly what we're trying to imply!
Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. What I mean is that, while the attack is more accurate than most others, we don't want it to sound more accurate than it actually is. To me at least, 'precision' (for example) suggests something much more accurate than Marksman's 60% CTH. Words like 'precise' and 'exact' sound like there is very little margin of error, and that the attack would be almost certain to hit (like the current 80% Precision ability). But Marksman, while better than a standard attack, is not as accurate as those names imply.
There are obviously various degrees of accuracy, and to my mind, 'precision' and similar names suggest a higher degree than is actually the case for this ability.
Nothing is true; everything is permissible.

JaMiT
Developer
Posts: 511
Joined: January 22nd, 2012, 12:38 am

Re: [Terminology] Should Marksman be renamed?

Post by JaMiT »

Insinuator wrote:Even a couple strong melee examples might make "deadeye" appealing, but you have zero.
Uh, yes. That is why I asked what others thought instead of actually suggesting "deadeye".
Insinuator wrote:I'm sure a thorough search of the Internet will give you something.
Hopefully. That is another reason for asking here -- searching the minds on the internet.

Or did you mean using a search engine to locate a few, potentially-obscure examples? That would hardly be productive, as the whole point of asking about connotation is to gauge how the target audience (BfW players) views the word (not to "prove" anything concretely). Determining how a word has been used does not significantly enlighten as to how a word is perceived.

Really, I do not see why you are so adamant about going on about this. Are you seriously trying to convince people that their perceptions are wrong because you lack their experiences? Deusite gave a very apropos response, with both a yes/no-type opinion and a reason for it. You, on the other hand, seem to be bent on not just stating your opinion, but also forcing me to accept your opinion as fact. Well, that is not going to work. I can accept a conclusion that my view does not agree with the majority's, but your attempt to change my view is doomed. You can continue to argue until you are blue in the face (well, I suppose "until your fingers go numb" would be more fitting imagery), but it will be a completely futile effort.

Post Reply