While that's true it leads to nerfing across the bored. Add dueling for fun and rp reasons and just forget about balancing for 1v1.
Nobody involved with dueling is going to be satisfied with 'fun and rp', they are going to want to beat the class they are going up against. If a Warrior goes up against an Elementalist and ends up eating the dirt 9 times out of 10 in 1v1, you can guarantee that the Warrior is going to run bawling to the forums sreaming for a nerf to Elementailists. It won't matter if in WvWvW that Warriors can tear an Elementalist a new asshole every time because of GvG balancing, duel fans will be screaming about nerfs and 1v1 balance...not fun and rp.
Exactamundo.
People will not shrug their shoulders and say "ah well' if they are continually getting demolished in duels. Personally, I like imbalance. Either for the RP aspect or just because it's some new thing to deal with. But I think I'm a rare case. You should have seen the shitstorm I created when I had the temerity to suggest that charr should naturally move faster than anyone else when they are on all fours. Logical? Yes. Lore-friendly? Yes. Acceptable? Heh. You should have seen the amount of hate spew.
While we, enlightened few, might tolerate unbalanced dueling because we could still enjoy it, we're also a minority. The great masses simply won't tolerate it. And I'd rather ANet devote their precious time to perfecting the balance in a group environment, not wasting it on what's essentially a sideshow. A fun sideshow, but no more relevant than any other mini-game.
No 1v1 doesn't really bother me all that much, although I woul like to see them take a feather out of Tera'a hat and allow group duels. The dueling system in that game has been hands down the best I've tried with the ability to duke it out in large groups as well as place wagers beforehand.
Excluding 1v1 duels, I feel that this would definitely be a viable option to explore, as it would not only give duelers an outlet, but also provide a casual means of practice for PvP to the everyman.
Also, this could be awesome for guild related events, such as tournaments (with cash prizes) or settleling disputes.
No 1v1 doesn't really bother me all that much, although I woul like to see them take a feather out of Tera'a hat and allow group duels. The dueling system in that game has been hands down the best I've tried with the ability to duke it out in large groups as well as place wagers beforehand.
Excluding 1v1 duels, I feel that this would definitely be a viable option to explore, as it would not only give duelers an outlet, but also provide a casual means of practice for PvP to the everyman.
Also, this could be awesome for guild related events, such as tournaments (with cash prizes) or settleling disputes.
GW2 is already going to have the options for 5v5 pvp matches via either the Tournament system or the Pick-up version.
I am on the 1v1 dueling does not matter at all. It is a minority. Heck I do play wow horde side. The only ones that duel on my server are constantly doing it outside of oggrimmar , the same people. Some of the good pvpers i know DO not duel at all. I just love when a group of allience, prob a tournament team , shows up. wtf pwn many duelist dispite being outnumbered because they know how to play their class in a group.
In wow wanna get better in pvp, you get into an arena team, get your butt whipped with your pal or pals till you start working better as a team.
Its just full of stupid when that hunter dominates a rogue in a duel, throwing a flair at the start of the fight, prob spamming the hell out of hunters mark in hopes it hits the rouge before stealth, or if rouge was smart to stealth before the fight, hunter quickly drops traps around him, pops up flair around him. Hunter gloats how awsome in pvp he is because he beat that rogue bad. Then said hunter goes into a battle ground and gets his arse chewed by rogues that know how to play in groups.
I dislike dueling for me it proves nothing and it does not help in any way. Some say its to help practice, but true practice comes from working in a group, assistiing, ccing and healing. I just love when those arena teams come over, outnumbered by 4 to 5 heck even 7 and still win with no one on the team dying due to all the practice they had as a group.
I support this group vs group pvp and balancing on that then on pointless 1 vs 1.
Just check the wow fourms and see how idiotic some people post because they cannot defeat x class in 1 vs 1.
While that's true it leads to nerfing across the bored. Add dueling for fun and rp reasons and just forget about balancing for 1v1.
Nobody involved with dueling is going to be satisfied with 'fun and rp', they are going to want to beat the class they are going up against. If a Warrior goes up against an Elementalist and ends up eating the dirt 9 times out of 10 in 1v1, you can guarantee that the Warrior is going to run bawling to the forums sreaming for a nerf to Elementailists. It won't matter if in WvWvW that Warriors can tear an Elementalist a new asshole every time because of GvG balancing, duel fans will be screaming about nerfs and 1v1 balance...not fun and rp.
Exactamundo.
People will not shrug their shoulders and say "ah well' if they are continually getting demolished in duels. Personally, I like imbalance. Either for the RP aspect or just because it's some new thing to deal with. But I think I'm a rare case. You should have seen the shitstorm I created when I had the temerity to suggest that charr should naturally move faster than anyone else when they are on all fours. Logical? Yes. Lore-friendly? Yes. Acceptable? Heh. You should have seen the amount of hate spew.
While we, enlightened few, might tolerate unbalanced dueling because we could still enjoy it, we're also a minority. The great masses simply won't tolerate it. And I'd rather ANet devote their precious time to perfecting the balance in a group environment, not wasting it on what's essentially a sideshow. A fun sideshow, but no more relevant than any other mini-game.
Alright. You guys sold me on the case for not having Dueling.
I've watched games go through near continuous buff/nerf cycles in an effort to achieve balance and still never get it right. Not to the extent that it quiets the insufferable whining from players whose turn it is to get beat on by the dreaded nerf bat. I don't see how GW2 will differ in that respect, especially when the core mechanics of the game don't use it. And I also expect that group-based balancing will differ greatly from one-on-one.
Using contemporary warfare as an example, you don't deploy your artillery units near the front line where they can be directly threatened. You deploy them in the rear, away from the danger. Why? Because if they do somehow get overrun, they are lost. They aren't meant for direct confrontation, but to enhance the fighting capabilities of a force of units. Put them one-on-one against a tank brigade or an infantry battalion and they're toast. They need support to keep the bad guys off them so they can do their job. And that's group play.
Anyway, what I said is I don't see how it can be done. But if anyone is capable of pulling a rabbit out of a hat in game terms, it would be ArenaNet, so I'm amenable to anything they might come up with. At least initially.
That kind of translates into: "we will have rock-paper-scissors class balance like many other mmorpgs do (which is perfectly fine), but we want to avoid too much casual 1 on 1 encounters because some people might cry that their rock class can't be a pair of scissors when fighting paper".
That would perfectly fit their "avoid player tension" philosophy, (and it could very well be the main reason for Anet being dueling-averse) but I'd rather have them NOT disregarding an easily implemented and endless gameplay alternative which will offer casual fun to many people just to avoid the whinage of a few spoilt little brats (who will merrily whine about something else instead).
And like I said: issues with class imbalance will end up being a hot topic anyway, even without dueling, as every kind of group pvp offers many 1 on 1 moments.
But if it is fair and square rock-paper-scissors balance, with a slight chance to win from your anti-class when you are skillful enough, the discussion will end with a majority supporting Anet's balancing act (even though there will always be complainers).
Don't give in to terrorists* and implement dueling at launch, Anet!
(*read: people whining about natural and properly implemented rock-paper-scissors balance)
That isn't RPS balance. RPS would be artillery beats tank, tank beats infantry, infantry beats artillery. Personally I don't like RPS balancing, I find it lazy. But I do recognize that it can be useful, anyway, off of that tangent. This is more infantry and armor protect artillary while they reign hell in upon their enemies. Think gameplay in LoL or any other DotA clone. There isn't RPS balancing. But we have some extremely powerful heros that deal a ton of damage, but tend to be squishy and lack large amounts of CC. Then we have other ones that do steadier damage and have some CC and tanks who have higher armor and health values and tend to have some of the best CC. These tanks are usually used as 'Innitiators' meaning they innitate the fight by selecting a target and then using an ability on it. This ability is usually a stun or a root of some sort. This gives the rest of the group a chance to catch and kill that target much easier. It revolves around the team interaction, and the use of your Carry (high damage squishy hero) to properly take down enemies. Make that a 1 on 1, and the dynamic changes. Suddenly those Carries are insanely veulnerable against a good Innitiator, because of their array of CC abilities they can keep the Carry from doing anything or getting away and the Innitiator has some decent damage output himself.
That isn't RPS balance, it's a game balanced around the assumption that both sides have 5 players.
I've watched games go through near continuous buff/nerf cycles in an effort to achieve balance and still never get it right. Not to the extent that it quiets the insufferable whining from players whose turn it is to get beat on by the dreaded nerf bat. I don't see how GW2 will differ in that respect, especially when the core mechanics of the game don't use it. And I also expect that group-based balancing will differ greatly from one-on-one.
Using contemporary warfare as an example, you don't deploy your artillery units near the front line where they can be directly threatened. You deploy them in the rear, away from the danger. Why? Because if they do somehow get overrun, they are lost. They aren't meant for direct confrontation, but to enhance the fighting capabilities of a force of units. Put them one-on-one against a tank brigade or an infantry battalion and they're toast. They need support to keep the bad guys off them so they can do their job. And that's group play.
Anyway, what I said is I don't see how it can be done. But if anyone is capable of pulling a rabbit out of a hat in game terms, it would be ArenaNet, so I'm amenable to anything they might come up with. At least initially.
That kind of translates into: "we will have rock-paper-scissors class balance like many other mmorpgs do (which is perfectly fine), but we want to avoid too much casual 1 on 1 encounters because some people might cry that their rock class can't be a pair of scissors when fighting paper".
That would perfectly fit their "avoid player tension" philosophy, (and it could very well be the main reason for Anet being dueling-averse) but I'd rather have them NOT disregarding an easily implemented and endless gameplay alternative which will offer casual fun to many people just to avoid the whinage of a few spoilt little brats (who will merrily whine about something else instead).
And like I said: issues with class imbalance will end up being a hot topic anyway, even without dueling, as every kind of group pvp offers many 1 on 1 moments.
But if it is fair and square rock-paper-scissors balance, with a slight chance to win from your anti-class when you are skillful enough, the discussion will end with a majority supporting Anet's balancing act (even though there will always be complainers).
Don't give in to terrorists* and implement dueling at launch, Anet!
(*read: people whining about natural and properly implemented rock-paper-scissors balance)
That isn't RPS balance. RPS would be artillery beats tank, tank beats infantry, infantry beats artillery. Personally I don't like RPS balancing, I find it lazy. But I do recognize that it can be useful, anyway, off of that tangent. This is more infantry and armor protect artillary while they reign hell in upon their enemies. Think gameplay in LoL or any other DotA clone. There isn't RPS balancing. But we have some extremely powerful heros that deal a ton of damage, but tend to be squishy and lack large amounts of CC. Then we have other ones that do steadier damage and have some CC and tanks who have higher armor and health values and tend to have some of the best CC. These tanks are usually used as 'Innitiators' meaning they innitate the fight by selecting a target and then using an ability on it. This ability is usually a stun or a root of some sort. This gives the rest of the group a chance to catch and kill that target much easier. It revolves around the team interaction, and the use of your Carry (high damage squishy hero) to properly take down enemies. Make that a 1 on 1, and the dynamic changes. Suddenly those Carries are insanely veulnerable against a good Innitiator, because of their array of CC abilities they can keep the Carry from doing anything or getting away and the Innitiator has some decent damage output himself.
That isn't RPS balance, it's a game balanced around the assumption that both sides have 5 players.
If the kind of imbalance you describe is true, it will instigate a metric ton of rage regardles of dueling being in. People will find themselves in one versus one combat also in GvG, WvWvW and other group pvp scenario's. Probably more often than any of the "I'm fine with no dueling" crowd is imagining. If there will be classes that stand no chance AT ALL against certain other classes and if every time you stand mano a mano, the outcome can be determined by just looking at both sides, you have an issue with balance; player skill and tactics should be able to make up for the differences, even in very typical RPS balance.
Funny thing is what you describe looks like a textbook example of RPS balancing but done wrong.
Personally I can't imagine a developer like Anet going for that kind of imbalance and I suspect that the mobility, cc and higher amount of damage of squishy dps classes will be balanced to at least stand a chance against the cc and hardines of tanks, I mean "innitiators" *coughs*.
I'm not buying any of the "balancing for groups as well as 1 vs. 1 is not possible" excuses. And I think there will be some kind of RPS balancing which is fine. You don't want any class being a sure win option and much more powerful than most others as that kind of imbalance would also finds its way into prefered class choice and pvp group make-up and make group pvp imbalanced just the same.
So I think Anet's 1 vs. 1 balancing will be ok. What I do suspect is that Anet very much wants to be in control of what people do and where they do it. And the bit which I wrote before: wanting to avoid "player tension" and "player conflict" in the open world. Those are my guesses though, but for me those are bad reasons not to have consensual dueling in the open world (I haven't read a single reason not to have it in which stands up to scrutiny in this thread yet).
So I think Anet's 1 vs. 1 balancing will be ok. What I do suspect is that Anet very much wants to be in control of what people do and where they do it. And the bit which I wrote before: wanting to avoid "player tension" and "player conflict" in the open world. Those are my guesses though, but for me those are bad reasons not to have consensual dueling in the open world (I haven't read a single reason not to have it in which stands up to scrutiny in this thread yet).
Oh, c'mon, you know the REAL reason that they did it, don't you? Don't you?
There's a VP in charge of Darkpony Frustration, who looks for ways to spite you.
I hear he makes 6 figures at Anet just coming up with ideas like 'Guys, guys, we can't put duelling in the game!'
So I think Anet's 1 vs. 1 balancing will be ok. What I do suspect is that Anet very much wants to be in control of what people do and where they do it. And the bit which I wrote before: wanting to avoid "player tension" and "player conflict" in the open world. Those are my guesses though, but for me those are bad reasons not to have consensual dueling in the open world (I haven't read a single reason not to have it in which stands up to scrutiny in this thread yet).
Oh, c'mon, you know the REAL reason that they did it, don't you? Don't you?
There's a VP in charge of Darkpony Frustration, who looks for ways to spite you.
I hear he makes 6 figures at Anet just coming up with ideas like 'Guys, guys, we can't put duelling in the game!'
That isn't RPS balance. RPS would be artillery beats tank, tank beats infantry, infantry beats artillery. Personally I don't like RPS balancing, I find it lazy. But I do recognize that it can be useful, anyway, off of that tangent. This is more infantry and armor protect artillary while they reign hell in upon their enemies. Think gameplay in LoL or any other DotA clone. There isn't RPS balancing. But we have some extremely powerful heros that deal a ton of damage, but tend to be squishy and lack large amounts of CC. Then we have other ones that do steadier damage and have some CC and tanks who have higher armor and health values and tend to have some of the best CC. These tanks are usually used as 'Innitiators' meaning they innitate the fight by selecting a target and then using an ability on it. This ability is usually a stun or a root of some sort. This gives the rest of the group a chance to catch and kill that target much easier. It revolves around the team interaction, and the use of your Carry (high damage squishy hero) to properly take down enemies. Make that a 1 on 1, and the dynamic changes. Suddenly those Carries are insanely veulnerable against a good Innitiator, because of their array of CC abilities they can keep the Carry from doing anything or getting away and the Innitiator has some decent damage output himself.
That isn't RPS balance, it's a game balanced around the assumption that both sides have 5 players.
If the kind of imbalance you describe is true, it will instigate a metric ton of rage regardles of dueling being in. People will find themselves in one versus one combat also in GvG, WvWvW and other group pvp scenario's. Probably more often than any of the "I'm fine with no dueling" crowd is imagining. If there will be classes that stand no chance AT ALL against certain other classes and if every time you stand mano a mano, the outcome can be determined by just looking at both sides, you have an issue with balance; player skill and tactics should be able to make up for the differences, even in very typical RPS balance.
Funny thing is what you describe looks like a textbook example of RPS balancing but done wrong.
Personally I can't imagine a developer like Anet going for that kind of imbalance and I suspect that the mobility, cc and higher amount of damage of squishy dps classes will be balanced to at least stand a chance against the cc and hardines of tanks, I mean "innitiators" *coughs*.
I'm not buying any of the "balancing for groups as well as 1 vs. 1 is not possible" excuses. And I think there will be some kind of RPS balancing which is fine. You don't want any class being a sure win option and much more powerful than most others as that kind of imbalance would also finds its way into prefered class choice and pvp group make-up and make group pvp imbalanced just the same.
So I think Anet's 1 vs. 1 balancing will be ok. What I do suspect is that Anet very much wants to be in control of what people do and where they do it. And the bit which I wrote before: wanting to avoid "player tension" and "player conflict" in the open world. Those are my guesses though, but for me those are bad reasons not to have consensual dueling in the open world (I haven't read a single reason not to have it in which stands up to scrutiny in this thread yet).
The LoL analogy isn't perfect when it comes to "carries" because that game has all the champions starting at level 1 and needing to level and gear up during the course of the game. The "carries" start out weak but scale better than others with level and gear. If you can kill them early and often, they're an absolute joke. If you can't, they can become unstoppable juggernauts. PvP in GW2 won't have that extra dimension of leveling around which to balance professions.
But it did get me thinking though about the support champions in LoL. In LoL, there are only two maps. A 5v5 and a 3v3, with the 5v5 being bigger and taking longer to play. In 3v3, support champions don't really have a place. Each player is 1/3 of the offense and your group buffs only support 2 others. In 5v5 though, you're only 20% of the offense, and your group buffs support 4 others. I think it's easy to see how all things being equal, a profession could be very viable in 5v5, mediocre in 3v3 and terrible in 1v1. Or the opposite could be true. A necromancer's minion might be strong 1v1, but is balanced around 5 people being there to immediately chop it down.
I think versatility in group PvP is the key to success. 1v1 can be unbalanced in an RPS way because different professions just do different things. But that doesn't mean that just adding more of the same class is going to make you unstoppable. I think a group of 5 different classes always beats 5 of the same class, not even taking into account cross profession combos. One of the classes in that mixed group is going to be able to do something that other group isn't prepared to stop (barriers, aoe damage/disables, mass condition removal, whatever).
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Comments
Exactamundo.
People will not shrug their shoulders and say "ah well' if they are continually getting demolished in duels. Personally, I like imbalance. Either for the RP aspect or just because it's some new thing to deal with. But I think I'm a rare case. You should have seen the shitstorm I created when I had the temerity to suggest that charr should naturally move faster than anyone else when they are on all fours. Logical? Yes. Lore-friendly? Yes. Acceptable? Heh. You should have seen the amount of hate spew.
While we, enlightened few, might tolerate unbalanced dueling because we could still enjoy it, we're also a minority. The great masses simply won't tolerate it. And I'd rather ANet devote their precious time to perfecting the balance in a group environment, not wasting it on what's essentially a sideshow. A fun sideshow, but no more relevant than any other mini-game.
No 1v1 doesn't really bother me all that much, although I woul like to see them take a feather out of Tera'a hat and allow group duels. The dueling system in that game has been hands down the best I've tried with the ability to duke it out in large groups as well as place wagers beforehand.
Excluding 1v1 duels, I feel that this would definitely be a viable option to explore, as it would not only give duelers an outlet, but also provide a casual means of practice for PvP to the everyman.
Also, this could be awesome for guild related events, such as tournaments (with cash prizes) or settleling disputes.
GW2 is already going to have the options for 5v5 pvp matches via either the Tournament system or the Pick-up version.
Structured pvp
I am on the 1v1 dueling does not matter at all. It is a minority. Heck I do play wow horde side. The only ones that duel on my server are constantly doing it outside of oggrimmar , the same people. Some of the good pvpers i know DO not duel at all. I just love when a group of allience, prob a tournament team , shows up. wtf pwn many duelist dispite being outnumbered because they know how to play their class in a group.
In wow wanna get better in pvp, you get into an arena team, get your butt whipped with your pal or pals till you start working better as a team.
Its just full of stupid when that hunter dominates a rogue in a duel, throwing a flair at the start of the fight, prob spamming the hell out of hunters mark in hopes it hits the rouge before stealth, or if rouge was smart to stealth before the fight, hunter quickly drops traps around him, pops up flair around him. Hunter gloats how awsome in pvp he is because he beat that rogue bad. Then said hunter goes into a battle ground and gets his arse chewed by rogues that know how to play in groups.
I dislike dueling for me it proves nothing and it does not help in any way. Some say its to help practice, but true practice comes from working in a group, assistiing, ccing and healing. I just love when those arena teams come over, outnumbered by 4 to 5 heck even 7 and still win with no one on the team dying due to all the practice they had as a group.
I support this group vs group pvp and balancing on that then on pointless 1 vs 1.
Just check the wow fourms and see how idiotic some people post because they cannot defeat x class in 1 vs 1.
Alright. You guys sold me on the case for not having Dueling.
My theme song.
That isn't RPS balance. RPS would be artillery beats tank, tank beats infantry, infantry beats artillery. Personally I don't like RPS balancing, I find it lazy. But I do recognize that it can be useful, anyway, off of that tangent. This is more infantry and armor protect artillary while they reign hell in upon their enemies. Think gameplay in LoL or any other DotA clone. There isn't RPS balancing. But we have some extremely powerful heros that deal a ton of damage, but tend to be squishy and lack large amounts of CC. Then we have other ones that do steadier damage and have some CC and tanks who have higher armor and health values and tend to have some of the best CC. These tanks are usually used as 'Innitiators' meaning they innitate the fight by selecting a target and then using an ability on it. This ability is usually a stun or a root of some sort. This gives the rest of the group a chance to catch and kill that target much easier. It revolves around the team interaction, and the use of your Carry (high damage squishy hero) to properly take down enemies. Make that a 1 on 1, and the dynamic changes. Suddenly those Carries are insanely veulnerable against a good Innitiator, because of their array of CC abilities they can keep the Carry from doing anything or getting away and the Innitiator has some decent damage output himself.
That isn't RPS balance, it's a game balanced around the assumption that both sides have 5 players.
Disagreement Heirarchy
If the kind of imbalance you describe is true, it will instigate a metric ton of rage regardles of dueling being in. People will find themselves in one versus one combat also in GvG, WvWvW and other group pvp scenario's. Probably more often than any of the "I'm fine with no dueling" crowd is imagining. If there will be classes that stand no chance AT ALL against certain other classes and if every time you stand mano a mano, the outcome can be determined by just looking at both sides, you have an issue with balance; player skill and tactics should be able to make up for the differences, even in very typical RPS balance.
Funny thing is what you describe looks like a textbook example of RPS balancing but done wrong.
Personally I can't imagine a developer like Anet going for that kind of imbalance and I suspect that the mobility, cc and higher amount of damage of squishy dps classes will be balanced to at least stand a chance against the cc and hardines of tanks, I mean "innitiators" *coughs*.
I'm not buying any of the "balancing for groups as well as 1 vs. 1 is not possible" excuses. And I think there will be some kind of RPS balancing which is fine. You don't want any class being a sure win option and much more powerful than most others as that kind of imbalance would also finds its way into prefered class choice and pvp group make-up and make group pvp imbalanced just the same.
So I think Anet's 1 vs. 1 balancing will be ok. What I do suspect is that Anet very much wants to be in control of what people do and where they do it. And the bit which I wrote before: wanting to avoid "player tension" and "player conflict" in the open world. Those are my guesses though, but for me those are bad reasons not to have consensual dueling in the open world (I haven't read a single reason not to have it in which stands up to scrutiny in this thread yet).
My brand new bloggity blog.
Oh, c'mon, you know the REAL reason that they did it, don't you? Don't you?
There's a VP in charge of Darkpony Frustration, who looks for ways to spite you.
I hear he makes 6 figures at Anet just coming up with ideas like 'Guys, guys, we can't put duelling in the game!'
Sure looks like it. V_V
My brand new bloggity blog.
The LoL analogy isn't perfect when it comes to "carries" because that game has all the champions starting at level 1 and needing to level and gear up during the course of the game. The "carries" start out weak but scale better than others with level and gear. If you can kill them early and often, they're an absolute joke. If you can't, they can become unstoppable juggernauts. PvP in GW2 won't have that extra dimension of leveling around which to balance professions.
But it did get me thinking though about the support champions in LoL. In LoL, there are only two maps. A 5v5 and a 3v3, with the 5v5 being bigger and taking longer to play. In 3v3, support champions don't really have a place. Each player is 1/3 of the offense and your group buffs only support 2 others. In 5v5 though, you're only 20% of the offense, and your group buffs support 4 others. I think it's easy to see how all things being equal, a profession could be very viable in 5v5, mediocre in 3v3 and terrible in 1v1. Or the opposite could be true. A necromancer's minion might be strong 1v1, but is balanced around 5 people being there to immediately chop it down.
I think versatility in group PvP is the key to success. 1v1 can be unbalanced in an RPS way because different professions just do different things. But that doesn't mean that just adding more of the same class is going to make you unstoppable. I think a group of 5 different classes always beats 5 of the same class, not even taking into account cross profession combos. One of the classes in that mixed group is going to be able to do something that other group isn't prepared to stop (barriers, aoe damage/disables, mass condition removal, whatever).
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007