So many want to spew the same meaningless narrow argument, but are completely missing the point. It's doesn't matter if the classes are balanced for 1v1. Nobody said it was balanced for 1v1s. Nobody said it HAD to be. Nobody said it SHOULD be, least of all me. The balancing needs to stay exactly as it. The game is made for GvG and the balancing should reflect this. Allowing 1v1 battles does not mean balancing has to change. It would still be FUN to put my elementalist against my friend's. Or my Warrior against another one. Who cares what a necro can do against mesmer or if a monk stands a chance against a ranger. If you put your healing monk up against a damage class, you deserve what you get. Choose your battles.
Of all the BS I've heard about why 1v1s should not be allowed, the only two that made ANY kind of sense are:
1) Random 1v1 battles will be pitting classes together that don't make sense. I agree, duels should be strictly on a challenge/accept basis and again, only in an arena to cut down on the "duel me" spam.
2) Allowing 1v1s will make morons cry about classes being unbalanced. This is the only concern I would have, but I would have no problem ignoring the morons if it meant I could duel my friends. As long as the devs don't cave in to them, it's all good.
But sadly the argument I keep hearing the most is crap about unbalanced classes and/or classes that will just go round and round for hours. It doesn't matter! If duels are optional, you can choose your battles or just not duel at all.
And what's even sadder is the number of people that are only going to read part of this and/or not understand my point and simply rehash the same tired meaningless argument back at me again.
