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.
I too regret the loss of granularity that came from reducing the number of AP being operated on, but it is unrelated to the fact that you continue to confuse tuning of a system, with it's operating principles. There is nothing to combine, Memory just needs to offer more slots and better granurality of how they're filled.
Increasing the number of skills allowed in a deck is exactly what you so intensively rejected if I may remember you...
You may remember lots of things, but this one you remember wrong.
The issue is that it's pointless and "counter-fun" to excessively limit the range of possibilities for the player in the campaign.
A fun experience always trumps the notion of having rigid and inflexible, but "fair" mechanics against AI at every given time.
I actually think that exactly THIS is the original sin: balancing a SP RPG with PvP-MP in mind. That's bound to fail.
Nowhere is it said that PvP balance is somehow equal to a reduced variety of skills available. And even if it were: there's more types of variety than just the quantifiable, surface, level of it, and that in itself does not strictly imply the result being less fun.
Some of the most fun games out there are based on a limited set of rules and mechanics, where the variety comes from the way they interact, not their number.
Restrictions, in general, serve to create a challenge.
If you're the type of person that does not want to be challenged, there will surely be a mode in which that's not a problem, but then why would you care about the number of spells at your disposal?
But you are actually against every suggestion I made so far for "tuning" the system.
Because I think you make bad suggestions.
That's just childish.
