One of the debates that seems to flow in the undercurrent of these skill/class based arguments is that of players being able to play with "everyone".
I am not sure that you could do that in a way that didn"t make a veteran players existance and accomplishments borderline meaningless. I mean if I can log on and within an hour or two of starting a game I was capable of grouping with you, someone who"d been at it for a year or more, is that a good thing? Yes there are definite pluses to it but do they outweigh the negatives?
I thought Mentoring was an initial stopgap solution but as I played it grew on me to become a very very cool tool that allowed me to do this exact thing while actually reinforcing the time and effort I had put in as a good thing.
I also think that pushing this is another way to try and "please everyone" while in the end pleasing no one.
You have to plant your flag at some point, with regards to your target audience, and I don"t think you have to take direct aim at any one sector of players. You can reign in a massive audience of players from every type of play style and fan base without fracturing your game into 102 styles of game play, dabbling some in each but never in depth in any.
WoW, once again, proved it could be done. I think it was done as much technically as it was within the game. The barrier to entry on the technical side was so low that unlike many other games, I don"t think it ever lost anyone because they weren"t running a machine that didn"t meet the specs needed. That"s huge. We as gamers tend to think people fidget with their machines, and swap out their machines as often as we do, when in fact I think we are very much in the minority.