As an aside, Robert Nozick made a good observation regarding this. He said if we take free will as our baseline (which everyone tends to do when looking at this issue) and then found difficulties with it, we are probably more likely to embrace hard determinism as an alternative. But if we were to go the other way we might embrace libertarianism once we saw the problems with hard determinism. He believed all three traditional stances (libertarianism, compatibilism and hard determinism) were highly problematic and all we could do was opt for the one that is least problematic (and he leaned towards libertarianism).
Or possibly none of them (esp. with people's slight/gargantuan unconscious/intentional differences in meaning/upshot) are ideal, and what we could do is start with what is and describe from there and avoid being boxed by the discrete (if wavy) consecrated tracks.