Whatever happened to meaningful choice in a game. Since when should you be able to be so flexible. They are already putting their best foot forward to get rid of said trinity (which I'm happy to see). How much more flexible do you need your group to be. If everyone ends up being able to do any/everything on the fly that their class can do; what is the point?
Imagine a game of chess. Each piece does what it does best, but is limited; by the number of those pieces on the board and by their mobility (ie 8 pawns that can only move forward, diagonal to steal pieces, or completely change the game if they are allowed to slip by; being able to become any non-king piece). Without the limitation they lose their uniqueness.
I believe this same principle takes hold in many games. Even more so in MMOs where many players want to try to stand out among the rest.
Chess is a perfectly symmetric game. This is a discussion about Symmetry vs Asymmetry
. By saying GW2 should use principals from Chess you would argue that everyone starts with exactly the same skills traits professions and weapons. I don't think that is what anyone wants, because frankly a bit of assymetry adds variables and flavor, and of course the feeling that your build is your own and your team's strategy is unique.
If you want to use the Chess example, imagine if a part of chess was choosing which pieces you'd bring to the board, and then of those particular moves that each piece could make. That game would be assymetric because the sides are not even at the start and there is a large amount of planning and strategy in pre-game phases. If you could make some minor
adjustments after you see your opponent's choices you could make the game less asymetric by giving players the ability to get out of a situation where their pre-game intuition failed them; some believe this makes the skill cap higher by giving more choices, some believe it makes the skill cap lower by raising the power of the choice itself.
The part of Bridger (and my) viewpoint that people seem to be missing is that the power of the choice itself would not raise to the point that the other side of the debate insists. That side requires the power of the choice to be very high for arguments such as "why should I get better at the game when I can just switch utilities and auto-win?" and "The game would devolve into a constant merry-go-round of counterpicking". What we're saying is that your utility choice shouldn't have that much power. Your utility choice should not turn your profession into rock and then if someone presents paper you could switch your utilities and now you are scissors. Utilities are just that, utilities that help out in minor (albiet meaningful) ways, not profession defining super powers. More like an FPS, where what you bring to the table isn't as important as what you do once you're there, and through teamwork and smart in-game strategy you can make use of utilities (or weapons, classes in fps) to outplay your opponent.
Since they are (I believe anyway) just that, minor things, even if you can't change them I don't think it will be the end of the world or anything. The game will still be fine and super fun. I simply present this side of the debate to say that suggesting that our view makes the game have no point is a bit unfair.
Edit: And I feel obligated to say, I already promised once I'd respectfully withdraw from this discussion so I apologize for breaking that promise!