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.
I don't confuse anything. I just state the changes I'd like to see in clear words. How you want to brand that is up to you.
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.
I thought you were against my suggestion to reduce the memory requirements for higher level spells once you level up in a school but maybe that was somebody else. In that case I'm sorry.
That's true. But you are actually against every suggestion I made so far for "tuning" the system.
Because I think you make bad suggestions.
Well, ok, that seems to be obvious. I think that your opinion isn't any more valid than mine though.
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.
But it is in Divinity, as we can all clearly see in the EA version.
But sure, fun is subjective. I clearly stated why I think that it's more fun the other way. You might think differently and that's ok.
But maybe you can enlighten me which types of variety beyond the surface should compensate for the lack of options in combat, the unsatisfying level progression and the inflexible, low-point AP system in the campaign...
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.
We don't talk about other games, we talk about Divinity. And if DOS1 proved anything it's that the more options you have the more fun it is to play the game, both in the world and in combat. Divinity is all about options and possibilities, not about limiting them from the start.
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?
How often do I have to repeat if for you?
I WANT AP COSTS AND COOLDOWN TIMES TO BE EQUALLY IMPORTANT FOR BALANCING.
I don't want a smaller challenge. I just want to have more opions in combat. I want reduced memory requirements but increased AP and cooldown requirements (if necessary). It's really not that hard to understand...
It's childish claiming to speak for the objective truth on the field of GAME DESIGN. I have no problem if we both state our opinion and bring up good reasons and argumets for it. Shutting down others by claiming to speak the ultimate truth is imo indeed childish though.
