Suggestion talk:20070713 Melee weapons-related major change

"Also, I do not understand the problem of free actions if you cannot have any direct control on them, can someone maybe explain in the discussion page?" as per Panurge

The free action problem is this: someone getting a 'free' attack, regardless of whether or not they control that action, is still a free action. Quote: "...when attacked by a melee weapon, retaliate automatically as a AP-free attack.." Therefore, a survivor attacking a zombie with a melee weapon would give the zombie a free action by 'counter-attacking', according to your suggestion. This is held as a big 'no' in the community, and has been a staple of rejected suggestions for sometime. --Ryiis 23:21, 13 July 2007 (BST)

Stuff.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:08, 14 July 2007 (BST)

The no free attack argument from the game assumptions page makes perfect sense; a free attack is an attack one could do Ad vitam æternam, so no matter how weak it is, it becomes overpowered. But doesn't this argument lose all of its purpose when the attack is not controllable? This is the part I do not understand and need enlightenment on! It seems to me that the no free attack law is something applied blindly, with no regard to the reason behind it. The loss of control makes this said reason moot. (unless there is another reason behind this taboo?) --Panurge 08:50, 14 July 2007 (BST)

The answers so far to my suggestion are a little confusing, it looks like everyone disagrees with it, but for what seems to be very conflicting reasons, so its hard to think of a way to make it better... Some say it would make firearms useless (because melee weapons would become too strong), others say it would make melee weapons useless (because firearms are more secure). The main idea is exactly that, to redistribute the advantages of each weapon type in a manner that makes more sense. Even in the zombie vs human aspect, its conflicting: an answer said that it would overpower humans, and others say it would give the too dangerous advantage of a free attack to zombies. With all these conflicting answers, it just looks to me as if there was a misunderstanding somewhere. Doesn't anyone else think the overall response to this is odd? --Panurge 08:50, 14 July 2007 (BST)

The reason the free attacks are never allowed is that would be akin to give that player/side more than 50AP per day. Keeping the 50AP limit is essential so that no player can do too much before his opponents log in to do their turn. Keeping each side balanced with each other is done by the tweaking of the search rates for survivors (since more AP spent searching means less AP actually fighting/killing zombies, and vice versa).
Your suggestion recognised that increasing the power of melee weapons should be countered by a down side, however the down side you chose messes with AP. And that is why no-one likes it. 'arm. 22:30, 14 July 2007 (BST)

I was under the impression that fighting back was one of those things that happens, that just isn't put into the game, like eating, or going to the crapper. I thought that fighting back was why swinging an axe at someone, and hitting them, only did 3 Damage.--Seventythree 22:34, 14 July 2007 (BST)

Okay mister crazy guy. The people in white suits will be here soon. Fire axes only do 3 because your not swinging it right. Duh!:). But yes, it is best to think that defending and stuff is auto-factored in the background of the game. Much like breathing, and listening to music, and keeping your player from going insane.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:08, 15 July 2007 (BST)