Another enchantment ideas:

- Flame: Self explanatory
- Hollow-Point: An enchantment that works basically as Power, mutually exclusive with
- Armor Piercing: A modified, ranged exclusive version of the yet-to-be-implemented Breach, that would diminish the effectiveness of Protection enchantments, Armor and even Resistance Status Effect. Mutually exclusive with Hollow Point or Power. Piercing enchantment could also be modified for this effect if it were to be applied on Guns, albeit, ¿Would be a sound idea to port the armor reducing power to the Piercing crossbows too?

No need to reduce resistances effectiveness guns already bypass it completely

They don’t need a buff each shot can easily do from 2-3 hearts and this needs to be balanced with the fact PvP is much more dangerous than spamming a gun for a whole session as you actually need to go out and fight on the battlefield

Ok cool fact that they do 2-3 hearts per shot but what is the consistency at which they do so please tell us all. If you are unaware of that fact then it would be nice for staff to finally add the statistics I was talking about so that people finally realise what I am talking about

Honestly not a good idea because it would make guns too op, guns are rather a support on sieges for pvpers, and making them op or giving them enchantments would totally change sieges, by just making them one hour and a half session of 20 players sitting in their fort or siege base and shooting themselves on each side without even one team capping the banner.

How much stronger are 1 sword 1 gun user versus a single sword user though. Sure on paper that is their role but their contribution for helping that fight is minimal. At best you land like 10 hits while your sword ally hit him 100 times

Two arguments for pvping you need a much higher investment and B there should be insensitive to go onto the battlefield and fight upclose after capping rather than sitting back and killing people super easy. If guns do the same damage at pvp then PvP is useless because it results in more deaths for the banner deffenders

I do not think you understand the full picture of gun usage

Guns do not do the same amount of damage as swords, at least not per fight. Their main role was backline consistent damage. They had lower damage per second but you were able to pump that damage out for quite a long time without needing to resupply. Melee combat had much higher damage per second output however you also took damage faster.

Melee is much more important since it applies a bigger pressure due to that higher damage output which can contest and hold the objective aka the banner. Guns can not make that big of a pressure to force an objective. People can take cover, heal from food which is now buffed and do many other things to mitigate a lot of the gun damage which is not possible in melee combat

There is also quite a benefit in going closer range with guns. Guns with shorter range have higher damage output, better consistency with landing shots, more freedom when it comes to angles to shoot from which means you get to take more shots opposed to waiting for them to be visible behind a wall or a roof, as well better visibility of the overall battlefield and allies in order to help them

The only benefit of long range snipers is higher spike damage which can surprise people to maybe quickdrop them and being safe on the wall. Other than that it has been proved many times in gameplay how easy it is to counter gun users and if somehow staff still doesn't know how that is done they are more than welcome to ask me to explain since I dont want to tell everyone my kits

And again, if you do want to debate then use actual stats, since I was keeping an eye out for collecting data on this for quite a long time so I do know what I'm talking about when I say they do no damage. You sure can land hits with guns but unless you land 3+ shots in a row you did absolutely nothing since it will be healed from food.



FYI the healing from saturation via steak is ~0.7hp/s (average from the time you eat food till the time hunger drops so you can eat again), regeneration 1 effect is ~0.4hp/s making it a total of ~1.1hp/s. With guns at max you will do 4hp/s without headshot if you have 100% accuracy and shoot as fast as it is possible. In reality you are well aware that you will never have 100% accuracy nor will you be able to take shots every 1-1.5 seconds. If you are lucky your damage is half of maximum possible and after it is deducted from enemy regeneration your damage left is hardly anything. For reference in melee pvp the average damage is 4-5hp/s with very high accuracy of hits (slightly less when you are taking damage ig). Do note that you can and will hit your allies more often than people in melee pvp so you can even reduce that from your damage as well

Not to mention that since guns are "additional damage" aka the damage is focused onto fewer people in the front lines you get the scenario where there is too many hits happening meaning you have a 50/50 chance to hit an enemy while they are under damage immunity which lowers your damage even further

So tell me after all of this what damage are you left with? How much are you contributing to the fight? How many potions of healing did enemy have to spend thanks your extra damage from a gun compared to them taking damage form other people in the fight? No one ever tries to answer these and yet people still keep talking about how it is strong. It is very much clear which type of players offer the most contribution to sieges and that its by quite a lot more compared to any people who you wish to identify as "better gun users"

Guns need to be in a way that it still makes PvP more useful so that people can use it

Refer back to paragraph 2. Melee puts way more pressure in advancing position and taking control of the objectives

And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the contribution of guns via stats. I'm sure at least someone who says "guns are too op" or "guns are fine now" can do it

I do like it