@muker Not sure that the conflict is entirely necessary in that, merely assumed. I think a large portion of that will be things like knowledge for some skills being in places that the locals may not like you being around... but for the resources part I don't think that's a 100% truth.
As to ruining the game, I highly doubt it. It might mean a few less people gather for world pvp(ve) around certain resources... but then those people aren't interested in that world pvp(ve) anyway, and are likely just to continue asking for ways to get around it if the resources are really needed to be viable. It's far better to have those interested in the conflicts participate. NOTHING ruins a game faster than trying to drag, say, those who only are interested in peaceful or mostly peaceful times (whether on Arboreus or hoping to work in safe-haven type situations on Sydensia) into the wrong content. People simply leave if it is required. Just like making a PvP focused player spend a week doing PvE focused RP helping new players for a token that allows participation in 1 battle isn't really going to work out that well. Simply put, it not only creates toxic responses, but it kills game population.
That's not to say raiding has no place, merely that the idea that trade would destroy the game is the same sort of flimsy argument as saying that any ability to PvP means that the game is worthless (because there's some who even go so far as to say the two cannot coexist without causing problems even if the content is all instanced... and to some extent they are correct, as historically abilities for both change due to the other side's issues of course, that's a weak argument that has many potential fixes). Simply put, people who like the PvP will raid anyway, unless it is such a huge disadvantage that they find it far more painful than grinding... at which point balance changes are simply needed.