You prefering it doesn't make it "objectively better".
It's not about preference, it's about facts.
Yeah, whatever...
One limits you to a set number of skills, which you need to unlearn and learn/re-learn, in order to use more.
I already said that the learn/relearn mechanic was crap. That's something I don't want to see again. But other stuff in DOS 1 was imo better.
I'd actually prefer a system that combines the systems/approaches of DOS1 and DOS2. The memory system in DOS2 is a good replacement for the learn/relearn mechanic of DOS1, but it's too rigid and limits the player too much and doesn't reward player progression. So it needs to be mitigated. At the same time I'd prefer the game working with more APs again, giving both the player and the systems more flexibility and also the capability to better balance the game.
The other only limits which ones are available to you within a single encounter.
It is literally as simple as increasing the number of skills allowed in a 'deck' to make the second one clearly superior.
Which is a change in tuning/balance, not a change in how the system works.
Increasing the number of skills allowed in a deck is exactly what you so intensively rejected if I may remember you...
A fun experience always trumps the notion of having rigid and inflexible, but "fair" mechanics against AI at every given time.
[Quote]As established, the rigidity of the current system is a function of tuning, not the fundamental rules it operates on.
That's true. But you are actually against every suggestion I made so far for "tuning" the system. I never suggested to completely abandon any combat mechanic that is currently present in the early access version...
Regardless of that: Enemy balance is not set in stone.
They can be made weaker or stronger to compensate for the amount of power a player is able to exert.
AI Enemies can be tuned to a power level that makes it 'fun' to fight them from a position of superior power, with the same abilities that are balanced in a PvP scenario.
The issue is that it's pointless and "counter-fun" to excessively limit the range of possibilities for the player in the campaign. Having only a very limited set of skill makes much sense in MP because it reduces the complexity for balancing (you always have to make sure that nobody is preferred and no build is objectively better than another). But in the campaign there is nothing wrong with the player becoming excessively powerful in terms of having a huge range of available skills. You can balance that with making enemies really strong as well (and by adjusting other mechanics like AP skill costs. In such a scenario sticking to the PvP-MP rules doesn't make the campaign experience better, but worse.
That fact makes it(I will use that word again) OBJECTIVELY(based on fact, not opinion), a better approach to balance a game with a PvP component, around that component, and fine-tune the rest from there, rather than the other way around.
Again, I don't think that it's good idea that PvP-MP and the campaign are based on the very same rules. I actually think that exactly THIS is the original sin: balancing a SP RPG with PvP-MP in mind. That's bound to fail.
