Karak Eight Peak, Karak Norn and Badlands on US. From 2008 to 2010 it was at least very much action all the time. These days Norn is seeing Warbands a lot less- mainly 2/3 each side in the evenings max- mostly people play in small groups. I thought the graphics were pretty good, dark in places but I see what you been been looking at graphic art. Some of teh feedback was really bad at times, this was sorted to a large degree in patches. Its teh same for many new games that get rushed out.
And I think the balance point is the invasion mechanic already suggested. You can't get the best rewards unless you open the gates and let in your opponents. But your opponents can't just decide to enter whenever they feel like it, or nick the reward by beating a small group who has done all of the work themselves. I referred to open invasions and no safe areas as inviting griefing because from what I've experienced on open PvP rule set servers, the primary motivation of players hunting in enemy new player territory, invading dungeon instances or camping spawn points is cheap and easy kills or just causing frustration. They're not looking for good fights, they're avoiding the places where those usually happen. They're not trying to do content themselves, just prevent the other side from doing it. I should add that my reference points in this have been WAR and Rift, where I spent time under both approaches in the same game, and SWTOR and Darkfall where it was all closed and all open respectfully. The open PvP sets never felt like a more fun experience (even though I kept feeling like it should be, and trying them again), they were smaller servers and they died faster because casual players were less likely to choose them and more likely to find them frustrating and leave. I really don't have a great deal to say which would recommend them, to be honest.
That kind of griefing really only applies in Stats/Level based MMOs. I wouldn't worry about it. (Not that it is actually griefing)
I was a bit upset with the game play of WAR. It was a typical MMO RPG game at the time. More so I was just upsate that I couldn't choose my Chaos God, I was stuck with Tzeentch for the sake of the story. I just really REALLY hope that the devs will let Chaos Players choose their path as either one of the four or of the undivided. I will add on a positive note to WAR, the art direction was gorgeous. The characters, the world, weapons even the places touched by Chaos felt right. I especially loved how it started for Chaos at the massive warp gate. Even the capital city was amazing, touched by Tzeentch with floating towers and stairways that went to impossible angles. That's what I hope we see in Chaos side. That same kind of 'chaotic' atmosphere. The Art Direction is up to the devs really. I don't want to be the guy that says "YOU SHOULD BE LIKE THEM!" So far from what we've seen in the newsletter vids, it's promising already. So I say: "Stay the coarse." I did enjoy the occasional RVR (pvp) of fighting at keeps. Those had some good moments. Even the npc side for the opposing faction added to the combat. I'll admit the siege weaponry could have been better. But the team work involved in taking a keep was exciting.
Its worse in stat-based MMOs, I completely agree, but its too early to say whether the possibility exists in EC. Whether we refer to it as griefing or not, the important thing is whether players on the receiving end consider it to be griefing, not what the ruleset says. If they do, and it impacts the likelihood that they'll continue playing, its potentially a problem with any player who enjoys that content. The biggest potential problem is instanced PvE (ie, dungeons) and the devs have already indicated that this will be safe from invasion until triggered. PvE occuring in the PvP world zone is fair game, and at the moment there's no indication of any PvE outside it. Provided that balance doesn't change, I agree there's not likely to be a major issue either way.
I consider people abusing PvE safezones to be griefing because it's impacting on my enjoyment and the probability that I will continue playing. It works both ways sadly.
You might need to define "abusing". If you're referring to people trying to retreat into PvE safe zones after being flagged for PvP, most games these days don't prevent the other side killing you if they try that. Retreating into spawn points that are protected by unkillable guards of death is often a somewhat necessary evil if the spawn point is to be protected, but could be avoided if designed in from the start to prevent spawn camping by not having fixed spawn points (for example). If you're arguing that being in a PvE zone because you're doing PvE is griefing to a player that wants you to be in the PvP zone so he can kill them (I assume you're not) then the argument against attacking PvErs at any and all times not being griefing because what the PvErs want is irrelevant either falls apart, or is hopelessly biased towards the wants of the PvPer. Take your pick. To be honest, It's unlikely that the absence of a small number of people doing PvE is going to be noticeable on the PvP battlefield. It's only an issue if people abandon the PvP areas and/or game in droves. Which no-one wants, And sadly WAR is practically a case study in how to cause that to happen.
It's a combination of all of them, You defined griefing as someone stopping you doing PvE content right? By that definition anyone stopping me doing PvP is griefing.
