- 11,083
- 2,277
I think the theory is simply they do'nt want people to be only able to do one thing, or to have to do only one thing. You can still choose to only do that one thing, and I assume you'll be able to run setups that will be focused on healing or tanking(triple utility class with a weapon that has support abilities for example) however these setups are just not required.
That's the theory, practice it rarely works out very well, GW2 tried similar systems but it muddied the combat quite a bit and it put unnecessary strain on good players when they're grouped with shitty players because unlike a trinity system where you can carry other people(if you don't play DPS), it's much harder in a system with no trinity where everyone is responsible for their own health.
I agree that a no class based system could work better but I think there's a point in having clearly defined classes, if only by half their skills, for class recognition and shit. Some people like the concept of "being a paladin" or whatever, even though the system is flexible enough to also please people who "want to be everything". A pure skill based system, not so much and then you have to think of all the poor braindead people who can't figure out how to make a class if they don't have templates and shit like that. I guess that last point could be fixed, but still if you look at what they talked about in terms of class design, they said each class will have its own stances, its own armor, its own weapon skills. They showed Tempest weapon skills and they all had lightning, but the Warrior skills were all "hit stuff and make the ground shake" and shit. So class identity is something they want, not just do whatever system.
