Rename: "Leadership" -> "Inspiring"

[irrevenant]

The "Leadership" Ability is essentially the ability to inspire adjacent troops to perform better. It seems essentially to represent an increase in morale.

Since this is an ability that:
(a) many (most?) leaders don't have (the Elvish Noble, Dwarvish Lord, Necromancer and Orcish Warlord don't have it); and
(b) can be held by non-leader units (currently just the Goblin Rouser, but would also make sense for morale-boosting units like bards)

I propose renaming it to something like "Inspiring" or "Motivate" with associated changes to the ability description.

P.S. Thanks to Anakayub for the name suggestion.

[governor]

(a) many (most?) leaders don't have (the Elvish Noble, Dwarvish Lord, Necromancer and Orcish Warlord don't have it);
(b) can be held by non-leader units (currently just the Goblin Rouser, but would also make sense for morale-boosting units like bards)

Leaders don't necessarily have the leadership quality. (A is B, B is not always A.) Likewise, a unit may have the leadership quality and not have been promoted to a leadership role.

I also find leadership ability name highly intuitive, therefore I don't think this needs to be renamed.


EDIT: Maybe a motivate trait (same or less effect as leadership) could be introduced for units like a bard.

[anakayub]

The problem is when people assume that leaders have leadership. It's a language issue giving the wrong impression, corrected by just changing the word. As non-leaders can have the ability as well, changing terms is okay in my opinion. Not necessary, but nice as it's more intuitive.

[Darker_Dreams]

What about units that give the bonus through proper tactical direction? (ie; sergents and leutenants...)

[CIB]

Inspiring sounds like art, motivating sounds better, IMO.

[anakayub]

What about units that give the bonus through proper tactical direction? (ie; sergents and leutenants...)

Huh?

This suggestion was simply to change the term used, without changing the ability itself. I don't see where you're going.

[AI]

He's simply arguing that leadership can be a correct term.

[Darker_Dreams]

He's simply arguing that leadership can be a correct term.

Exactly.

[governor]

The problem is when people assume that leaders have leadership. It's a language issue giving the wrong impression, corrected by just changing the word.

This is not a language problem - its a lack of education problem. BfW is not just a game, it also appears to be an educational tool.

I will go so far as to say that 99% of new players will not even know what leadership is (or how to use it) before they can identify which unit is their leader. The learning curve of the game and its mechanics almost guarantees that players make this distinction.

[anakayub]

Oops, I actually did not want to post that. Sorry.

I initially didn't understand what he meant, but then I thought again, and got what he meant. I must've accidentally pressed the submit button, but I never got the post submission notification. I just rewinded and reloaded the page and saw these posts. Again, sorry.

The problem is when people assume that leaders have leadership. It's a language issue giving the wrong impression, corrected by just changing the word.

This is not a language problem - its a lack of education problem. BfW is not just a game, it also appears to be an educational tool.

What I meant as a language problem was in the sense that just because you have a leader, it should have leadership, which people might think so when they learn of the leadership ability. Using a different root word would help solve this problem.

As I've said in the original thread, I'm neutral to the idea anyway, as those who understand the game well enough understand that not all leaders have/should have leadership.

[Darker_Dreams]

an alternate approach might be to rename the "leader," but that leads us back to the place of what would be a better term.

[irrevenant]

The problem is when people assume that leaders have leadership. It's a language issue giving the wrong impression, corrected by just changing the word.

This is not a language problem - its a lack of education problem.

"Leader/Leadership" has a few different meanings and Wesnoth uses different (valid) definitions in combination. This is not wrong (which I think is your point) but it is ambiguous and potentially confusing (which is my point). So why not use a term that's correct and unambiguous (and applicable to a wider range of units to boot)?

[JW]

Is this really a problem? A leader is a unit, leadership is an ability.

This would be like assuming human archers should get the trait dextrous like elvish archers, just because they're both "archers."

The inspire ability I added to the Messenger unit in the Era of Myths has a different name from leadership because it does something different than leadership. Since it "leads" units of the same level, most people found it confusing when it was called leadership because
1) there were no L0s
2) leadership only leads units of lwer level, so they thought there was no purpose.

I just used inspire as it was the next best thing to leadership. I relaly don't see a problem with the name and I think it's pretty crazy that I'm even needing to type this post up right now.

[Noy]

^Agreed.

[irrevenant]

Y'know, I had forgotten that Leadership about the level-interaction aspects of Leadership. Given the hierarchical implications, I concede that Leadership should not be renamed.

The inspire ability I added to the Messenger unit in the Era of Myths has a different name from leadership because it does something different than leadership.

From the sound of it I independently invented basically the same ability for the Free Goblins (I called it 'motivate'). I'll look at synching up with your version.

This would be like assuming human archers should get the trait dextrous like elvish archers, just because they're both "archers."

Actually, it would be like the Dextrous ability being called "Archer". I think we both agree that would be confusing, but it's a moot point now anyway.

I just used inspire as it was the next best thing to leadership. I relaly don't see a problem with the name and I think it's pretty crazy that I'm even needing to type this post up right now.

You didn't need to, but I'm glad you did because I needed to be reminded about the levels aspect. Thanks.