idk why youre being mean about it :( also 300 blocks is not that far and its totally fair to think that a conflict would spill over into that area

if anything it promotes not having overcrowded towns / cities, and the overall good from that feature vastly outweighs the bad. just ban people who abuse it

ok snoob i shall get a noob to make a town near you then spawn camp you for days
doesnt nations 2.5 sound fun

also you think staff want another reason to have an extra 300 tickets to deal with

just stay in other town till the siege ends lol not hard

LOL ur immediate response is to threaten me. awesome and very mature

im giving you an example of what will happen once everyone figures out how to abuse it

also blocking people from using their own town for 3 days is still not a good feature

Fully disagree on that first point and the last line of the suggestion. Players who have **actually participated** (unlike a certain someone) in multiple sieges have seen that attackers having fully immune towns as their bases when the defenders have explosions and PvP turned on, is not fair for both sides (in this aspect). If there is any town in a warzone, it should have PvP on, there should be no area, whether allied, enemy or neutral, in a warzone/battlefield that should act as a get-out-of-jail-free card and players can just stand a block or two inside these claims and be completely protected from any sort of damage or consequence.

im not talking about normal sieges

im talking about how this will obviously get abused to spawn kill randoms thrancia and teutonic claim camping shows people will do anything to inconvenience the other side

If you made your town near a non-peaceful, which is likely bound to form a warzone at some point, then you must face the consequences, the not-so likely instance of a newbie making a town near a non-peaceful town and then being spawnkilled because of PvP being on is not worth removing if it creates a completely immune and safe haven from any sort of damage in the middle of the battlefield. It was a really problematic thing in sieges when PvP was off in all towns except the besieged town.

Plus if un-serious sieges are done for the sole purpose to kill players in a nearby peaceful town, that in itself is illegal and against the rules

once again staff will get flooded with tickets from this sort of stuff
and then no one gets tickets resolved because there is too many

Right, so we fix one problem in staff latency by causing another problem in game balance?

allowing neutral towns to be spawn camped is an unnessacry feature

even if someone gets banned for abusing it staff will just unban them an hour later cause they reported an alt

1. there should be some examples of the abuse of the pvp radius to back up removing them, the feature has had very little time to actually be tested and should not be removed on assumptions
2. as taz mentioned, sieges for the point of harassing other towns that are unrelated is against the rules, and having illegal exploits be the reason to flatout remove a feature is a bad reason to remove something. using that logic anything could be considered abusable and therefor something to remove

If you look at places like Europe were just about every town is next to each other, pvp will be turned on in those towns, especially in places like Thracia were everyone is right next to eachother.

Even if you make a rule to prevent killing people in neutral towns who have nothing to do with the conflict, there will still be people who will siege and kill people in towns that aren't meant to be siege towns because "They're part of the Nation" this will effectively kill people who want nothing to do with sieges, which there are plenty of on the server.

Here's an Example: Let's say someone were to siege Trapezica (Thracian unpeaceful town), 19-20 towns would have pvp on, 10 of those are actually part of Thacia, 8 of those are United_Balkan, 1 is Nordic, 1 is Roman.

Whoever sieges Thracia at Trapezica can kill people in 10 towns and argue "well they're part of Thracia so they're automatically part of the siege"

I'm not going to speak on behalf of the people living in the said 10 towns, but if I were the mayor of "Modolva" one of those 10 towns, which by the way has 15 Players!!!! I would definitely loose heart of wanting to play on here because all of the members, who aren't into sieges, are being killed literally before me, and there wouldn't be anything I could do about it.

Since when you can't make walls and provide them equipment to defend?

imagine you are having a fun time in your town with no on disturbing your peacefulness then boom around 300 blocks around you get sieged then your town pvp for no reason turns on. just bull crap

Bullshit more like balanced sheeee

u are deleting sense, for example: if its irl old times, and there is war between 2 nations, and there is small village between them, u think these 2 big nations will say ,,hey dude, there is small village between us, lets dont touch it”. Any town near 300 blocks has pvp turned on is really good idea and main purpose was to turn pvp on in siege bases, plus 300 blocks isnt that big bru

and it also nerfs thing when u have peaceful towns from unpeaceful by 5-7 chunks away (for example thracia).

for exaple kiev and this is not irl Ijust

and Ijust theres if this is the case then zaify should also enable the cannon in the town which is turned pvp because based on IRL like you mentioned

no, no and no, people will just abuse towns with pvp turned off a couple chunks away from siege banner and camp there, this feature is good and should not be removed