EnigmaGrey

Pretty much? Anything else, based on hindsight, inevitably has trade-offs or situations that made it impossible to happen earlier in development. The staff available now doesn't become available earlier; the money made now doesn't somehow get made earlier; the lessons learned in the past don't relearn themselves today. That's always the dilemma with "what ifs."
 
All TIS really could have done differently comes down to communication (and maybe embracing marketing instead of word of mouth):  maybe being more humble early on would have prevented TIS from setting itself up to "fail" at its own self-imposed goals. Maybe they should have taken the publishing deal in 2014 and surrendered control / moved on with the game in a "good enough" state instead of what they originally wanted to do. That sort of thing: hide, conceal, fake it -- give the impression of speed or achieving your goals without really doing it.
 
It's not as though we don't see this time and time again in the game industry: companies hide information from the user, aside from what's useful for marketing purposes, and pretend things are going just swell right up to release. And sure, the result is a disappointing game that doesn't meet its original goals, but what does it matter? The money is made back, people don't care enough en masse to seemingly stop buying the games that do it. I can only guess offers a sense of closure you don't get with a game that tells you upfront "It'll take as long as it takes." One you don't feel like you're waiting for it, the other you do; one is spent; the other has potential. So on and so forth. 
 
Edit: I guess if you wanted a list of practical stuff, it'd be something like
 
TIS could have stuck with XNA instead of acting on Microsoft's decision to nix it TIS could have finished PAWS instead of starting a new game (PZ) TIS could have picked a prebuilt engine (but would have inevitably run into the limits of something like Unity for this style of game, especially in 2011) TIS could have foregone supporting multiple platforms (something Java promised to be able to handle gracefully, but didn't really for games) and a web-based version of the game (the pre-release game was an applet) TIS could have stuck with C# -- the thing they knew -- instead of using Java TIS could have built the game engine's architecture with an Entity Component System (the new hotness in 2020) instead of inheritance (good ol' OOP) TIS could have foregone OpenGL and OpenAL, which had some pretty severe compatibility issues later in life TIS could have opted not to install an auto-updater for the game, costing them significant money when it was abused by pirates TIS could have abused "free file hosting" opportunities to try and save money when updating the game outside of Desura TIS could have used a different payment provider instead of Google Wallet and PayPal to avoid having issues when those services deemed selling incomplete games problematic (naturally that policy didn't stick around for very long )  TIS could have had a better backup solution when they moved in 2011 (remember, at this point, they were basically bedroom coders, living in an apartment, not offices or Big Corp) TIS could have avoided any GNU code to avoid copy-left trolls TIS could have dropped most of their requirements for a Steam release and entered early access ~10 months earlier (also takes care of file hosting)  
That sort of thing ate up a lot of time and ate into what little money they had early on, imo. It gets less possible to "save time" as things progressed and the game saw more success.
 
TIS could have been more direct that their goals were based on getting a publisher (while they were being actively courted by one) TIS could have gone corporate and taken (a) the publisher's deal TIS could have used GIT differently to avoid issues with long commit times and binary files (or never used GIT at all, opting for SVN, Plastic SCM, and other alternatives)  
And then it gets just weird:
 
TIS could have avoided supporting mods (Lua, especially built on top of Java, is -not great- in terms of performance and does fragment the game development somewhat) TIS could have been satisfied with the release of MP in 2014 (or 2016 -- but 2016 was basically Project Zomboid: Together w/ the implementation of Steam co-op)  and called it done; anything not done would just be done post-launch or as DLC to keep the company afloat (or not) TIS could have just bluntly taken mod content instead of hiring modders as devs, as some advocate and even insist on TIS could have pivoted to making expansions or sequels out of the subsequent big updates that followed this point (in-game coop hosting; cars; weather; the animations update; the MP re-release; and now animals)  
I don't think there's much else they could have done that wouldn't require cosmic forces conspiring to help them earlier, such as certain staff members being available much earlier in production than they were, so I don't think there's much point going down that particular rabbit hole.
 
 

“Teams” meaning individual people for the most part. We’re not that big.
 
There’s no need to force everyone into an office. The cost would be astronomical for absolutely no gain. We’d end up losing staff who can’t or won’t move and probably shuttering in a year or two if we were to do that. That’s the way you kill a company, not speed up development.
 
… I don’t see the point in getting into the rest of it.
 
So: We’re slow. We’ll focus on making the best game we can rather than doing things fast and loose. You can see that this has always worked out well despite it being a constant source of complaints, no matter the time between updates, over the past 12 years. You’ll just have to make peace with that. 

To get to the point, PZ is a game that most people get around 20 hours out of. There’s maybe 50-60 hours of actual content ( enough to get you through a winter ) otherwise. It took 12 years to get there, mind — to get to the point where only a decade ago, this would have been considered a crazy amount of content for 3x-6x the price.

If you end up spending hundreds  or thousands of hours playing it or (as people like myself have done) make a job out of it, you’re going to have quite a different view of it, naturally. No game can withstand that level of scrutiny,  provide the content necessary to fulfill the desire for novelty, or act as a vehicle to create content for when it’s effectively being played over and over again hundreds of times. And that, at least to me personally, is the main problem in many of those videos. (Ignoring that concerns about b42 often are imagined problems that people then argue for or against because they don’t and can’t have the full picture when it’s not out.)
 
I get that waiting sucks, that we all naturally become bored and jaded with the game, and that the long period of time between updates creates a kind of void where people invent and argue against their own ideas of future content, but it’s never been something we could address. I don’t think anyone can. 
 
Prophetizing the game’s death due to an imaginary wave of hate, if only we don’t change the approach that made us successful for the past 12 years, now,  will not help anyone or change anything.
 
Please don’t take the game so personally. It’s just one of thousands of great games to play. It’s not your job to “fix” it; it’s not worth investing yourself into; you don’t need to worry about it or try to change its nature. It’s just a game.
 
 Now I’m going to go visit the family for the weekend and spend my holiday away from
 this “whole” PZ thing. I hope you can do the same.
 
Have a Merry Christmas.

“Teams” meaning individual people for the most part. We’re not that big.
 
There’s no need to force everyone into an office. The cost would be astronomical for absolutely no gain. We’d end up losing staff who can’t or won’t move and probably shuttering in a year or two if we were to do that. That’s the way you kill a company, not speed up development.
 
… I don’t see the point in getting into the rest of it.
 
So: We’re slow. We’ll focus on making the best game we can rather than doing things fast and loose. You can see that this has always worked out well despite it being a constant source of complaints, no matter the time between updates, over the past 12 years. You’ll just have to make peace with that. 

Pretty much? Anything else, based on hindsight, inevitably has trade-offs or situations that made it impossible to happen earlier in development. The staff available now doesn't become available earlier; the money made now doesn't somehow get made earlier; the lessons learned in the past don't relearn themselves today. That's always the dilemma with "what ifs."
 
All TIS really could have done differently comes down to communication (and maybe embracing marketing instead of word of mouth):  maybe being more humble early on would have prevented TIS from setting itself up to "fail" at its own self-imposed goals. Maybe they should have taken the publishing deal in 2014 and surrendered control / moved on with the game in a "good enough" state instead of what they originally wanted to do. That sort of thing: hide, conceal, fake it -- give the impression of speed or achieving your goals without really doing it.
 
It's not as though we don't see this time and time again in the game industry: companies hide information from the user, aside from what's useful for marketing purposes, and pretend things are going just swell right up to release. And sure, the result is a disappointing game that doesn't meet its original goals, but what does it matter? The money is made back, people don't care enough en masse to seemingly stop buying the games that do it. I can only guess offers a sense of closure you don't get with a game that tells you upfront "It'll take as long as it takes." One you don't feel like you're waiting for it, the other you do; one is spent; the other has potential. So on and so forth. 
 
Edit: I guess if you wanted a list of practical stuff, it'd be something like
 
TIS could have stuck with XNA instead of acting on Microsoft's decision to nix it TIS could have finished PAWS instead of starting a new game (PZ) TIS could have picked a prebuilt engine (but would have inevitably run into the limits of something like Unity for this style of game, especially in 2011) TIS could have foregone supporting multiple platforms (something Java promised to be able to handle gracefully, but didn't really for games) and a web-based version of the game (the pre-release game was an applet) TIS could have stuck with C# -- the thing they knew -- instead of using Java TIS could have built the game engine's architecture with an Entity Component System (the new hotness in 2020) instead of inheritance (good ol' OOP) TIS could have foregone OpenGL and OpenAL, which had some pretty severe compatibility issues later in life TIS could have opted not to install an auto-updater for the game, costing them significant money when it was abused by pirates TIS could have abused "free file hosting" opportunities to try and save money when updating the game outside of Desura TIS could have used a different payment provider instead of Google Wallet and PayPal to avoid having issues when those services deemed selling incomplete games problematic (naturally that policy didn't stick around for very long )  TIS could have had a better backup solution when they moved in 2011 (remember, at this point, they were basically bedroom coders, living in an apartment, not offices or Big Corp) TIS could have avoided any GNU code to avoid copy-left trolls TIS could have dropped most of their requirements for a Steam release and entered early access ~10 months earlier (also takes care of file hosting)  
That sort of thing ate up a lot of time and ate into what little money they had early on, imo. It gets less possible to "save time" as things progressed and the game saw more success.
 
TIS could have been more direct that their goals were based on getting a publisher (while they were being actively courted by one) TIS could have gone corporate and taken (a) the publisher's deal TIS could have used GIT differently to avoid issues with long commit times and binary files (or never used GIT at all, opting for SVN, Plastic SCM, and other alternatives)  
And then it gets just weird:
 
TIS could have avoided supporting mods (Lua, especially built on top of Java, is -not great- in terms of performance and does fragment the game development somewhat) TIS could have been satisfied with the release of MP in 2014 (or 2016 -- but 2016 was basically Project Zomboid: Together w/ the implementation of Steam co-op)  and called it done; anything not done would just be done post-launch or as DLC to keep the company afloat (or not) TIS could have just bluntly taken mod content instead of hiring modders as devs, as some advocate and even insist on TIS could have pivoted to making expansions or sequels out of the subsequent big updates that followed this point (in-game coop hosting; cars; weather; the animations update; the MP re-release; and now animals)  
I don't think there's much else they could have done that wouldn't require cosmic forces conspiring to help them earlier, such as certain staff members being available much earlier in production than they were, so I don't think there's much point going down that particular rabbit hole.
 
 

Pretty much? Anything else, based on hindsight, inevitably has trade-offs or situations that made it impossible to happen earlier in development. The staff available now doesn't become available earlier; the money made now doesn't somehow get made earlier; the lessons learned in the past don't relearn themselves today. That's always the dilemma with "what ifs."
 
All TIS really could have done differently comes down to communication (and maybe embracing marketing instead of word of mouth):  maybe being more humble early on would have prevented TIS from setting itself up to "fail" at its own self-imposed goals. Maybe they should have taken the publishing deal in 2014 and surrendered control / moved on with the game in a "good enough" state instead of what they originally wanted to do. That sort of thing: hide, conceal, fake it -- give the impression of speed or achieving your goals without really doing it.
 
It's not as though we don't see this time and time again in the game industry: companies hide information from the user, aside from what's useful for marketing purposes, and pretend things are going just swell right up to release. And sure, the result is a disappointing game that doesn't meet its original goals, but what does it matter? The money is made back, people don't care enough en masse to seemingly stop buying the games that do it. I can only guess offers a sense of closure you don't get with a game that tells you upfront "It'll take as long as it takes." One you don't feel like you're waiting for it, the other you do; one is spent; the other has potential. So on and so forth. 
 
Edit: I guess if you wanted a list of practical stuff, it'd be something like
 
TIS could have stuck with XNA instead of acting on Microsoft's decision to nix it TIS could have finished PAWS instead of starting a new game (PZ) TIS could have picked a prebuilt engine (but would have inevitably run into the limits of something like Unity for this style of game, especially in 2011) TIS could have foregone supporting multiple platforms (something Java promised to be able to handle gracefully, but didn't really for games) and a web-based version of the game (the pre-release game was an applet) TIS could have stuck with C# -- the thing they knew -- instead of using Java TIS could have built the game engine's architecture with an Entity Component System (the new hotness in 2020) instead of inheritance (good ol' OOP) TIS could have foregone OpenGL and OpenAL, which had some pretty severe compatibility issues later in life TIS could have opted not to install an auto-updater for the game, costing them significant money when it was abused by pirates TIS could have abused "free file hosting" opportunities to try and save money when updating the game outside of Desura TIS could have used a different payment provider instead of Google Wallet and PayPal to avoid having issues when those services deemed selling incomplete games problematic (naturally that policy didn't stick around for very long )  TIS could have had a better backup solution when they moved in 2011 (remember, at this point, they were basically bedroom coders, living in an apartment, not offices or Big Corp) TIS could have avoided any GNU code to avoid copy-left trolls TIS could have dropped most of their requirements for a Steam release and entered early access ~10 months earlier (also takes care of file hosting)  
That sort of thing ate up a lot of time and ate into what little money they had early on, imo. It gets less possible to "save time" as things progressed and the game saw more success.
 
TIS could have been more direct that their goals were based on getting a publisher (while they were being actively courted by one) TIS could have gone corporate and taken (a) the publisher's deal TIS could have used GIT differently to avoid issues with long commit times and binary files (or never used GIT at all, opting for SVN, Plastic SCM, and other alternatives)  
And then it gets just weird:
 
TIS could have avoided supporting mods (Lua, especially built on top of Java, is -not great- in terms of performance and does fragment the game development somewhat) TIS could have been satisfied with the release of MP in 2014 (or 2016 -- but 2016 was basically Project Zomboid: Together w/ the implementation of Steam co-op)  and called it done; anything not done would just be done post-launch or as DLC to keep the company afloat (or not) TIS could have just bluntly taken mod content instead of hiring modders as devs, as some advocate and even insist on TIS could have pivoted to making expansions or sequels out of the subsequent big updates that followed this point (in-game coop hosting; cars; weather; the animations update; the MP re-release; and now animals)  
I don't think there's much else they could have done that wouldn't require cosmic forces conspiring to help them earlier, such as certain staff members being available much earlier in production than they were, so I don't think there's much point going down that particular rabbit hole.
 
 

Pretty much? Anything else, based on hindsight, inevitably has trade-offs or situations that made it impossible to happen earlier in development. The staff available now doesn't become available earlier; the money made now doesn't somehow get made earlier; the lessons learned in the past don't relearn themselves today. That's always the dilemma with "what ifs."
 
All TIS really could have done differently comes down to communication (and maybe embracing marketing instead of word of mouth):  maybe being more humble early on would have prevented TIS from setting itself up to "fail" at its own self-imposed goals. Maybe they should have taken the publishing deal in 2014 and surrendered control / moved on with the game in a "good enough" state instead of what they originally wanted to do. That sort of thing: hide, conceal, fake it -- give the impression of speed or achieving your goals without really doing it.
 
It's not as though we don't see this time and time again in the game industry: companies hide information from the user, aside from what's useful for marketing purposes, and pretend things are going just swell right up to release. And sure, the result is a disappointing game that doesn't meet its original goals, but what does it matter? The money is made back, people don't care enough en masse to seemingly stop buying the games that do it. I can only guess offers a sense of closure you don't get with a game that tells you upfront "It'll take as long as it takes." One you don't feel like you're waiting for it, the other you do; one is spent; the other has potential. So on and so forth. 
 
Edit: I guess if you wanted a list of practical stuff, it'd be something like
 
TIS could have stuck with XNA instead of acting on Microsoft's decision to nix it TIS could have finished PAWS instead of starting a new game (PZ) TIS could have picked a prebuilt engine (but would have inevitably run into the limits of something like Unity for this style of game, especially in 2011) TIS could have foregone supporting multiple platforms (something Java promised to be able to handle gracefully, but didn't really for games) and a web-based version of the game (the pre-release game was an applet) TIS could have stuck with C# -- the thing they knew -- instead of using Java TIS could have built the game engine's architecture with an Entity Component System (the new hotness in 2020) instead of inheritance (good ol' OOP) TIS could have foregone OpenGL and OpenAL, which had some pretty severe compatibility issues later in life TIS could have opted not to install an auto-updater for the game, costing them significant money when it was abused by pirates TIS could have abused "free file hosting" opportunities to try and save money when updating the game outside of Desura TIS could have used a different payment provider instead of Google Wallet and PayPal to avoid having issues when those services deemed selling incomplete games problematic (naturally that policy didn't stick around for very long )  TIS could have had a better backup solution when they moved in 2011 (remember, at this point, they were basically bedroom coders, living in an apartment, not offices or Big Corp) TIS could have avoided any GNU code to avoid copy-left trolls TIS could have dropped most of their requirements for a Steam release and entered early access ~10 months earlier (also takes care of file hosting)  
That sort of thing ate up a lot of time and ate into what little money they had early on, imo. It gets less possible to "save time" as things progressed and the game saw more success.
 
TIS could have been more direct that their goals were based on getting a publisher (while they were being actively courted by one) TIS could have gone corporate and taken (a) the publisher's deal TIS could have used GIT differently to avoid issues with long commit times and binary files (or never used GIT at all, opting for SVN, Plastic SCM, and other alternatives)  
And then it gets just weird:
 
TIS could have avoided supporting mods (Lua, especially built on top of Java, is -not great- in terms of performance and does fragment the game development somewhat) TIS could have been satisfied with the release of MP in 2014 (or 2016 -- but 2016 was basically Project Zomboid: Together w/ the implementation of Steam co-op)  and called it done; anything not done would just be done post-launch or as DLC to keep the company afloat (or not) TIS could have just bluntly taken mod content instead of hiring modders as devs, as some advocate and even insist on TIS could have pivoted to making expansions or sequels out of the subsequent big updates that followed this point (in-game coop hosting; cars; weather; the animations update; the MP re-release; and now animals)  
I don't think there's much else they could have done that wouldn't require cosmic forces conspiring to help them earlier, such as certain staff members being available much earlier in production than they were, so I don't think there's much point going down that particular rabbit hole.
 
 

I mean, I’m afraid I have to agree with Win on this one. The thread is basically “if you don’t do it how I want, you’ll fail” after a considerable number of suggests and other criticisms, seemingly in the same vein over the past month. 
 
 I really would suggest just taking a break from the game. It’ll come on its own time and in its own way. It need not be forced.

I mean, I’m afraid I have to agree with Win on this one. The thread is basically “if you don’t do it how I want, you’ll fail” after a considerable number of suggests and other criticisms, seemingly in the same vein over the past month. 
 
 I really would suggest just taking a break from the game. It’ll come on its own time and in its own way. It need not be forced.

Changed my mind; not interested in micromanaging it. Let chaos reign.

I mean, I’m afraid I have to agree with Win on this one. The thread is basically “if you don’t do it how I want, you’ll fail” after a considerable number of suggests and other criticisms, seemingly in the same vein over the past month. 
 
 I really would suggest just taking a break from the game. It’ll come on its own time and in its own way. It need not be forced.

Yes. Members from General Arcade work on the mp side of the game. The rest of works on sp/the engine itself, baring areas that bleed into one another (like admin tools or ui).
 
We’re all going as fast as we can, but we’re not going to metaphorically flog the staff bloody and to the point of unconsciousness to go slightly faster … and still be called “too slow” anyway. 
 

To be clear, are the bugs you’re referring to things that those mods fix? Because if so, a lot of those seem counter to the vanilla game vs “fixing” it. That is, I think overall your take on what is fitting simply doesn’t match ours. 
 
I guess I just don’t want you to feel like you’re tilting at windmills here, so I apologize if I’m confusing two separate things (bugs vs qol mods).

Yes. Members from General Arcade work on the mp side of the game. The rest of works on sp/the engine itself, baring areas that bleed into one another (like admin tools or ui).
 
We’re all going as fast as we can, but we’re not going to metaphorically flog the staff bloody and to the point of unconsciousness to go slightly faster … and still be called “too slow” anyway. 
 

And when it comes to mods, as Puppers, and Maddan touches on …
 
Well. Sometimes we’re just going to disagree. The dev team has its own goals and tolerance for the game’s systems and what you may consider bugs or poor design (take bites being 100% fatal — awful design … shame that’s a fundamental part of the game’s lore). We’re not always going to be on the same page with millions of players or tens of thousands of modders. It’s simply not possible make everyone happy and we’d be insane to try. 
 
Take both mods and the vanilla game as they are rather than try to pit them against each other or try to force one to be like the other. That is, sometimes all that we can do is respect each others’ decisions for why they do something and get on with it. Sometimes you can’t square the circle.

Our success came from being both ambitious and thorough, which naturally means being slow. I get that, to those who’ve played the game considerably more than the average, that the bloom eventually falls off the rose, but that doesn’t mean changing our approach now is the right choice or that the game is dying. We’ve heard it every single day for 12 years yet every build is ultimately more successful than the last and we have suffered from alternative approaches, be it smaller and/or faster builds or multiple simultaneous builds at once.
 
That does not mean the game doesn’t have flaws or shortcoming (assuredly, we’re well aware of them and are addressing them as fast as possible as part of build 42), but there comes a point where people need to move on and play other games. A good tell is when you start feeling contempt for something you once enjoyed. We all get there eventually, no matter the game or the development methodology behind it. Take a break, have some fun, and don’t worry about us.

Our success came from being both ambitious and thorough, which naturally means being slow. I get that, to those who’ve played the game considerably more than the average, that the bloom eventually falls off the rose, but that doesn’t mean changing our approach now is the right choice or that the game is dying. We’ve heard it every single day for 12 years yet every build is ultimately more successful than the last and we have suffered from alternative approaches, be it smaller and/or faster builds or multiple simultaneous builds at once.
 
That does not mean the game doesn’t have flaws or shortcoming (assuredly, we’re well aware of them and are addressing them as fast as possible as part of build 42), but there comes a point where people need to move on and play other games. A good tell is when you start feeling contempt for something you once enjoyed. We all get there eventually, no matter the game or the development methodology behind it. Take a break, have some fun, and don’t worry about us.

Could just not kill yourself by excessive exercise and let it happen naturally though a well paced routine.
 
 You know. Like in reality.

Could just not kill yourself by excessive exercise and let it happen naturally though a well paced routine.
 
 You know. Like in reality.

Could just not kill yourself by excessive exercise and let it happen naturally though a well paced routine.
 
 You know. Like in reality.

Changed my mind; not interested in micromanaging it. Let chaos reign.

Changed my mind; not interested in micromanaging it. Let chaos reign.

You get prompted to pick your settings when you launch a server in-game. Just make the settings ahead of time, then there’s no need for futzing with it.
 
 If modders made the mistake of using duplicate ids, then it’d be best to ask them to change it*, but this shouldn’t be a problem in build 42.
 
*that goes especially for people making packs of other peoples’ mods without doing so.

I mean the meta of this is that "it's on you to learn how to play the game, it's quirks and features, and to act accordingly." If you can't do that, or you don't enjoy it, then all I can suggest is either tweaking it in sandbox, using mods, or finding something else to play. There's no point trying to force it, you'll only frustrate yourself and others.
 
In detail:
* You don't understand how the movement system works. Sprinting is meant to go fast in a straight line. If you encounter obstacles, you're going to have a bad time, full stop (pun intended). Same thing for the forest -- there are no "invisible obstacles."
* You're in control of your character. It's your responsibility to equip 'em with weapons. Don't blame the game for failing to reach into your backpack and doing it for you.
* We've never been able to reproduce the instant-bite thing, outside of the Hypochonriac trait. Of late, some users have mentioned that they healed themselfs in debug mode, likely only removing the wound state instead of overall infection. They get infected again, they're already fatally infected they instantly die.
* Zombies can't bite you through the windshield? Do you mean car doors? The reason they can bite you through a door is that you interrupted the close door command by doing something, like driving away immediately after getting into the car. That there is not a visual indicator that the door is open or closed is indeed "our bad" but now you know. Don't interrupt the action; wait for the door close sound to play. It takes roughly a third of a second. (If the car door window was down or smashed, they can also bite through that, naturally.)

There is obvious cause and effect in all this.
You ran into a tree, you fell.
You ran into a wall, you fell.
You didn't equip a weapon. Your hand got cut smashing the window.
You got into a car and immediately drove away. The door wasn't closed and you got bit.
 
There's observable cause and effect. Unless you refuse to experiment and learn from it, it should be "fairly" intuitive, aside from the last one.
 
You are not the arbitrator of what is right or good in game design outside of your own personal self. Don't expect others to agree with your personal feeling of what is reasonable, good, or lazy -- especially not when there's millions of people who've bought and seemingly largely liked the game at this point.

Regardless, you have sandbox and mods. You can make it (almost) anything you want without our intervention. If you disagree with any of the above, feel free to use the tools you were given and help yourself.

Just to avoid confusion: there's no real penalty to kiting right now beyond a short pause when you swing the weapon. It doesn't mater if you do it over corpses, curbs, brush, or into trees.

That makes it obnoxiously over-powered. You're basically invincible when backpedalling  and constantly swinging with (especially with higher nimble skill) unless something sneaks up behind you. It makes dealing with groups of zombies simple, so naturally we'd want to balance that. Should we eventually address it, there'll be sandbox options for it, but it does need to be addressed because the base game builds its fun on over-coming challenges (sometimes that means yourself -- be it refusing to learn how the game plays or bringing your own assumptions to it) not just being able to murder hordes with impunity from day 0, be it by kiting or by fire.