Standardizing the names of hero units?

[RatcicleFan]

@ArrivedLeader22

So he now comes to this thread to pick on me because (he thinks) I am also asking for the removal of unique stuff from the game, while I clearly said I want those names to change simply because they don’t fit.

I see. I never saw him before so I didn’t know.

[BonnyMountain91]

I agree with your changes here though, lol. It would be good if explorers are standardized like you mentioned. I am only mildly surprised because removal of ‘things already in game’ when I have got this reply many times in past -

In fact what such “competitive players” request always include removing varieties or uniqueness that are already in the game.

@ArrivedLeader22

A few months ago in another thread, this guy asked for the removal of the unique unit and card names he cannot remember because they are harmful for his competitive play. I said those names are trivial to remember (and you don’t have to) and shouldn’t be removed.

Not really, it was a thread by someone else. I only suggested a middle path of keeping both generic name and unique name. Can confirm.
Also, I didn’t necro it, like Reticle mentioned.

[ArrivedLeader22]

@BonnyMountain91

In fact what such “competitive players” request always include removing varieties or uniqueness that are already in the game.

Basic logic 101:

1. “Competitive players request removing varieties or uniqueness” DOES NOT MEAN other people cannot or should not.
2. Like I’ve already said, this OP is NOT asking for removing varieties or uniqueness at all, but changing them to things that fit better.

This OP is NOT anything that you agree with. I’m suggesting names that fit better to the current game setting and their roles, because that would be more coherent, not because I cannot remember.
Like I play the game for fun. You guys play the game to competeeeeeete. We both play the game but from entirely different starting points.

Generic here means “a name that can describe ANY leader role, like Ras or Emir, not a very specific role like an explorer or monk”. It does not necessarily mean “shared”.
Specific here means narrow (for example, an explorer or monk that does not fit in the role as a leader), not “all different from each other that competeteeeeeeeve players cannot remeber”.
It has nothing to do with “removing uniqueness or varieties”.

In fact, I would not object to each civ given a unique hero name that could also be more generic (in terms of the role it describes) to enrage you completeteeeeeeve players. For example using the names for the explorer cards.

Again, the world is far from your competeteeeeve world and people think outside of that. Seems that your competeteeeeeve brain is so instantly triggered by the mere occurrence of the words “specific” and “generic” that you forgot these words have variable meanings.

Lololololololololol

@BonnyMountain91

I only suggested a middle path of keeping both generic name and unique name. Can confirm.

→ Cannot gitgud and beat Italian players.
→ Blames the name “merchant” and instantly empathizes with someone who wants to remove all of them. Even if that OP only talks about removing NAMES not anything in the game you don’t know how to beat (seems like it’s a pretty common behavior for you to find “teams” by a few keywords?)

You should go blaming your competeteeeeve peers who care about ELO so much that everyone chooses to exploit whatever meta it is at present to get more wins on the ladder when you don’t know how to beat them.

But no. Those are the higher caste. Those are your comrades. You cannot blame them. You team together with them and go and smash the toys of the lower caste casuals.

[M00Z1LLA]

@RatcicleFan

You can remove the flag without removing the general, and I’d rather not have the Padre as the sole Mexican hero when I’m already complaining about Monk heroes.

The General is okay, it’s just a little unnecessary when an Explorer is perfectly valid for USA, and this topic is about standardizing the heroes. Realistically, all civs should have their Explorer turn into a General when they have a revolution. That would make the USA and Mexico seem a little more consistent.

I don’t think it is at all hypocritical to support having the Padre while also calling to remove the Asian Monks. The Padre actually occupies a role equivalent to an Explorer, while the Asian Monks are nonesense orientalism.

[HoopThrower]

I kind of agree with the sentiment that having the general of a whole army just randomly going around the map exploring and discovering things on the ground is rather strange and probably completely detached of the original idea of what the explorers where.

Monks at least kinda still sort into that idea more or less well, since in theory they tended to be the more scholarly type.

Warchiefs are essentially the same idea as generals, just that they are from civs that aren’t “western”. Heads of state for africans is also extremely odd, although I could kinda see it working if they were, like, Princes and such.