I forgot to mention this, but don't downvote this just because it benefits you AT THE MOMENT. I have no allegiance to any alliance, and I've been apart of both of them. Whenever one side uses these mechanics against the other and destroys them because of it, they complain. I have seen both sides complain about IFVs and guns multiple times, but they stop complaining whenever it benefits them. LOOK AT THIS FROM A FAIR GAMEPLAY POV! NOT WHAT HELPS U THE MOST!

I do agree that guns have been too eefy in terms of its balancing. However, gunners on sniper towers, forts and/or siege towns there to observe a defensive position and avoid being boarded were by the enemies. Yes, gunning inside claims and doing a high damage to ground forces low-risk, high-reward ; which is furthered when multiple guns are being used to target a single player.

In my opinion, I am against guns being used in claims while in a siege zone. As gun damage changes based on distance, using a sniper/rifle on the banner easily reaches the gun's peak damage (which is kind of stupid, at the same time understandable). Gun damage should be reduced inside claims in siege zones, as to give incentive to fight outside of it.

I see a lot of statements about how its not "fair" but that is exactly the point. You spend gazilion hours building a bigass fort to have as much of an advantage as you can in defense sieges. Getting rid of them is making forts useless (apart from shooting cannons but that also counts as being safe in a box). When you participate in large scale battles it might require extra effort to come up with ways to attack the enemy that is not just "stand on banner stab enemy that is close" which is what most people think sieges are. Sieges improved over the last 2 years and now people actually use movecraft in them and make siege bases so it might just need more time for people to actually figure out how to do more advanced stuff.

Overall, they are defending they should have an advantage since they legit spent so much time building a fort and attackers shouldnt win every offense considering that defenders have so much more to lose from defense siege than attackers who only lose like 20k for starting it. There are ways to prevent snipers or mitigate the damage so I feel like we should focus on expanding tactics a bit and not make it just melee pvp on banner

> as to give incentive to fight outside of it

Its way more fun trying to fight your way through the town instead of just clashing in random wild outside of it. Previous war systems failed to create a good way to do that so we are stuck with a scuffed one that forces fights outside of it since too many people complained about not being able to enter towns with too fat walls. Forts should keep their purpose and not just be a box that keeps your items and has few cannons. Fighting outside means almost equal advantage but that should not be the case, defenders should have more advantage since they are risking more since if they lose they get occupied, if attacker loses they lose like 20k they spent on placing the banner

guns are low risk low reward swords are high risk high reward that's just how the playstyles are, you can always build some fortification on banner or shoot back at them

guns are already no match against infantry (you'd all be using them if guns were better)

you can perfectly counter gunspammers by destroying their positions with cannonfire and tanks btw

Guns arent low reward, u dont see POV of pvpers, do u know how it works? Im on banner, doing 2v10 6v12, whatever, im highly aware of GUNS alot more than pvpers cause ONE shot of a gun is enough to make me low enough to be finished by 2-3 sword swings, guns have huge assistance, that they dont get direct kills it doesnt mean they get less reward

Guns are by far stronger than swords, even though they’re less skill reliant, cheaper, and lower risk. Whenever I’m in a fight, I can’t get lower than 6 hearts or I might be one shot. This did happen to me where I was hit and brought to 6 hearts, then I got one shot by a gun.

Destroying their fort is only a temporary solution. There are endless spots for a gun user to shoot from on the walls, so destroying one spot just means they move to another. Unless you plan on leveling their entire fort, you aren’t stopping them

Ill bring out this point 50 times if I have to, isnt the fort meant to be defenders advantage? It shouldnt be easy to win a conquest siege on a fort with equal numbers. Defenders should be able to win more times considering they risk occupation, taxes, maybe vassal and, well, respect when they lose while the attacker only loses the initial 20 or so thousand cash for starting it and whatever both sides lose in terms of equipment

If the part about one taps becomes an issue in the future zaify can always lower guns damage and make them shoot and reload faster to compensate for the damage loss so it should be easier to pot in time

Immediately disregarded, I want my novice member to be able to do something against the 90 lokan enemy

This suggestion is just stupid, to prevent people from using guns on top of fort to defend their own fort, as if its not hard already to spam guns vs imports considering the banner is not on top of the fort. Movecraft exists just because you a pvper cant use it doesnt mean it doesnt exist and it can melt forts if used efficiently(if thats the true motive behind the suggestion.) But quite literally not allowing people to fight from within their own fort is next lvl anti gun suggestion and like it or not youre a pvper suggesting this with pvpers backing it up for very obvious intentions. If guns were so OP and better than sword then there would be way more gun kills than sword kills. Guns only get strong once there is a large amount of people using them at the relatively same time or if efficiently coordinated with sword users en masse. If something is good when used by 4 ppl at once vs 1 person then it doesnt mean its OP. Ppl fail to see this as usual, u can quite literally use 1 pot or eat food and gun user 1v1 will run out of ammo rather than kill u.

Are guns safer than using a sword? Obviously yes, range is safer than melee. Is it more efficient in getting kills? Obviously no. A tryhard with a sword imported from club penguin can pretty much get 20 times the kills compared to average gun user in the same siege.

I do agree guns make people scared to go on a health amount thats close to half, but being able to just die from guns once in a while instead of jumping on ur safezone gank is a good thing considering 90% of melee kills in sieges are either claim gank or 1x1 hole in wild (gank) a bit of variety is surely more fun

Will you get a set from killing someone with a gun?
Most likely, no. Their ally will pick it up cuz its a range kill and thus you get no material reward.

Which mode of pvp encourages more fighters in the server?
Pure sword pvp which takes skill, good setup, nolifing
Or
Gun pvp, where you can fight with little experience as a casual player

Which encourages more toxic imports?
Sword pvp from all the tryhard pvp servers
Or
Gun pvp, which is unique to very few servers

Which encourages more nation building (literally the gamemode of nation's main purpose)
Finding very skilled sword users in a large amount to compete with older nations that bring clans from other servers or get streamrolled by the horde
Or
Recruiting multi role players that could be dogwater at pvp but can atleast do damage in a siege enviroment and potentially get a kill and may stand a chance against the horde (youre still losing)

This is what I think atleast, but the moment the suggestions reach the stage of anti gun to the point that they literally want guns off the forts is ridiculous, it would be more honest to make a suggestion to remove them altogether than this.