What I find interesting is when people are stating their desire for an "Unlimited Action Set" they are forgetting 1 thing: balance. In a LAS skills can be more powerful because you have a limited amount of skills to choose from. In a UAS the skills are watered down due to having all of them available. UAS does get around this by having very high cooldowns on the more powerful abilities.
When the developers are thinking of combat and duration they look at the damage output of class/party vs defenses of monsters (and other items probably). If they want a fight to last 5 min they need to adjust the DPS of a party (Adjusting damage, mana pool, mana consumption, etc) so the mob is killed in 5 min. If you can only select 8 skills at 1 time they have to make sure the DPS meets the intended target with any combo of 8 skills. Same with UAS if you have access to 45 skills the Devs need to make sure that by using all 45 skills you meet the 5-minute target.
So the argument is not just about having limited access to your skills or unlimited access to your skills; but, the power (via DPS/Healing/Support) of each skill also. If Pantheon decided to go the UAS route they would have to rebalance every skill to fit that design decision.
Never played WoW; however, how balanced would WoW be if you had access to every skill instead of choosing which path to go down? I am guessing the game would be easier, and that is because WoW decided to do a "hidden" LAS instead of a UAS.
Counterfleche said:I am designing a game where you will be shown a random number between 1 and 20 and your goal is to add numbers to it to get the sum as close to 20 without going over (adding as few numbers as possible). In the UAS version, you have two hotbars, with a hotkey for every number between 1 and 20. In the LAS version, you have only 1 bar with 4 hotkeys and you get to pick the numbers. Which game is more fun? Which is more complex?
Well given your scenario, if it was truely RANDOM (key word) then 4 would be more difficult and in some cases impossible? It would also negate any chance of strategy of picking 4 numbers ahead of time because it would just be pure luck.
In order to allow people to win with only 4 choices, you have to make it way less complex. Where people can go in with standard 4 choices to win.
So what happens when you play the exact same scenario again, this time you already know solution ahead of time. Now its even easier and no challenge at all. So why even build a game designed to be so easy?
If you built this same game to be difficult with all 20 solutions on the bar, regardless of whether you know the outcome or not its still hard, now you have a much more difficult game.
Basically you are playing match with 4 universal cards, im playing it with 20 specific ones.
Razorbrains said:Counterfleche said:I am designing a game where you will be shown a random number between 1 and 20 and your goal is to add numbers to it to get the sum as close to 20 without going over (adding as few numbers as possible). In the UAS version, you have two hotbars, with a hotkey for every number between 1 and 20. In the LAS version, you have only 1 bar with 4 hotkeys and you get to pick the numbers. Which game is more fun? Which is more complex?
Well given your scenario, if it was truely RANDOM (key word) then 4 would be more difficult and in some cases impossible? It would also negate any chance of strategy of picking 4 numbers ahead of time because it would just be pure luck.
In order to allow people to win with only 4 choices, you have to make it way less complex. Where people can go in with standard 4 choices to win.
So what happens when you play the exact same scenario again, this time you already know solution ahead of time. Now its even easier and no challenge at all. So why even build a game designed to be so easy?
If you built this same game to be difficult with all 20 solutions on the bar, regardless of whether you know the outcome or not its still hard, now you have a much more difficult game.
Basically you are playing match with 4 universal cards, im playing it with 20 specific ones.
Too bad you still haven't actually tackle the monster in the room by not realizing every game has used LAS in their game, your just avoiding it becuase you known it is right and don't have an answer for it.
Riahuf22 said:Razorbrains said:Counterfleche said:I am designing a game where you will be shown a random number between 1 and 20 and your goal is to add numbers to it to get the sum as close to 20 without going over (adding as few numbers as possible). In the UAS version, you have two hotbars, with a hotkey for every number between 1 and 20. In the LAS version, you have only 1 bar with 4 hotkeys and you get to pick the numbers. Which game is more fun? Which is more complex?
Well given your scenario, if it was truely RANDOM (key word) then 4 would be more difficult and in some cases impossible? It would also negate any chance of strategy of picking 4 numbers ahead of time because it would just be pure luck.
In order to allow people to win with only 4 choices, you have to make it way less complex. Where people can go in with standard 4 choices to win.
So what happens when you play the exact same scenario again, this time you already know solution ahead of time. Now its even easier and no challenge at all. So why even build a game designed to be so easy?
If you built this same game to be difficult with all 20 solutions on the bar, regardless of whether you know the outcome or not its still hard, now you have a much more difficult game.
Basically you are playing match with 4 universal cards, im playing it with 20 specific ones.
Too bad you still haven't actually tackle the monster in the room by not realizing every game has used LAS in their game, your just avoiding it becuase you known it is right and don't have an answer for it.
Perhaps I need to clarify the point I was trying to make. In my fictional game senario, if you had UAS, you would have every number available. When you see the random number, you simply subtract it from 20 and you always win (which was getting as close to 20 without going over in the fewest moves). This isn't more challenging since every problem has an ideal solution, and you have access to all your solutions, so its mostly a test of your ability to know what solution to pick and to activate it. With LAS, you have only 4 numbers, so you need to figure out how to solve each problem, and you won't always have the perfect solution.
For example, try to get as close to 20 without going over in the fewest moves.
Random number displayed is 4.
UAS: you have access to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
LAS: you have access to 2, 6, 9, and 14. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
Which one takes longer to figure out? Which one is more challenging & fun?
Counterfleche said:Perhaps I need to clarify the point I was trying to make. In my fictional game senario, if you had UAS, you would have every number available. When you see the random number, you simply subtract it from 20 and you always win (which was getting as close to 20 without going over in the fewest moves). This isn't more challenging since every problem has an ideal solution, and you have access to all your solutions, so its mostly a test of your ability to know what solution to pick and to activate it. With LAS, you have only 4 numbers, so you need to figure out how to solve each problem, and you won't always have the perfect solution.
For example, try to get as close to 20 without going over in the fewest moves.
Random number displayed is 4.
UAS: you have access to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
LAS: you have access to 2, 6, 9, and 14. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
Which one takes longer to figure out? Which one is more challenging & fun?
What is this even supposed to try proving ? You're getting way too involved in that topic for it to still have any sense at all.
It's pretty clear. Though it's over-simplified, but that is what makes it so clear.
The point is, because you don't have the ideal answer easily available to simply 'select', you have to think through how to use potentially multiple of the skills you *do* have available. It is more challenging, interesting and fun to have the limited set.
nexus said: I personally lean toward UAS or a generous LAS. I feel LAS creates less dynamic encounters. This does not mean easier, at least at the start or the first few times. I feel LAS is a way to simplify encounter design, which does have the advantage on lower time to design and balance, but limits the ability for a truly dynamic encounters. I'm not a fan of the cookie cutter fight. Once you learn the "strategy" you a good to go. I want every flight to be a little different. Trying to find the balance between the true strategy of a turn based game and the in the moment excitement of an action bases game is not an easy task, but is something I'm looking for in an MMO. I just do not agree with some of the approaches being taken by VR. I think there are other way to achieve this better.
Why do you think encounter design for LAS would be simpler?
I can imagine why you might *think* it would be - 'less skills', right? - but there aren't less skills. There are the same number of skills, you just might not have some of them loaded and need to improvise and synergise with the group more.
In fact, LAS makes encounter design *more* difficult for devs, if anything. They don't know exactly what loadout players will have.
There's no reason at all that encounter design should be different for LAS and it certainly needn't be 'lesser' in any way.
They won't avoid certain monster abilities just because players might not have the ideal counter-skills loaded. In fact, that is the point. LAS adds potential for difficulty above just having all skills available all the time (UAS).
Counterfleche said:For example, try to get as close to 20 without going over in the fewest moves.
Random number displayed is 4.
UAS: you have access to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
LAS: you have access to 2, 6, 9, and 14. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
Which one takes longer to figure out? Which one is more challenging & fun?
Mobs are not randomly generated in Pantheon, so right off the bat you're starting with a false premise.
In Pantheon, nothing is stopping you from putting "16" on your "die" to complement the "4", that you already know is there.
In Pantheon, 19 or 21 can be just as good an outcome as 20; they're "close enough."
If you're trying to make an argument in favor of UAS, you've failed miserably.
eunichron said:Counterfleche said:For example, try to get as close to 20 without going over in the fewest moves.
Random number displayed is 4.
UAS: you have access to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
LAS: you have access to 2, 6, 9, and 14. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
Which one takes longer to figure out? Which one is more challenging & fun?
Mobs are not randomly generated in Pantheon, so right off the bat you're starting with a false premise.
In Pantheon, nothing is stopping you from putting "16" on your "die" to complement the "4", that you already know is there.
In Pantheon, 19 or 21 can be just as good an outcome as 20; they're "close enough."
If you're trying to make an argument in favor of UAS, you've failed miserably.
I think Mobs are randomly generated in Pantheon as they spawn, with different dispositions-
In response to Counterfleche:
I suppose the LAS number game would be more fun to me, but its too sudoku-ish. Maybe if you could change it so like there's a monster or something representing 20 and the numbers I can choose from are like spells or fighting- but I dont know what numbers they represent- that are further modified or subtracted from based on- like base character points. Oh! and make it look cool when I add it up with a whoosh! or a arrgh@! in a really neat looking area and maybe, make it so what happens is I am not so concerned about the numbers but rather about the description like "causes the ire of amon-ra to infiltrate the enemies mind" and I dont know what that does or what it means but it sounds cool and when I use it it looks cool! and does something and I can see what it does and it helps the group in a small way, or maybe backfires but from observation I see what it does and I can puzzle out how maybe I can use it differently next time.
stuff like that?
Manouk said:I think Mobs are randomly generated in Pantheon as they spawn, with different dispositions-
And we already went over this many pages ago, that there hasn't been anything to suggest that Dispositions will be completely random, and not tied to mob type. Most likely there will be a "pool" of different Dispositions that a particular mob can spawn with, and it shouldn't take more than a few clears of any given camp to get a handle on all the different possible Dispositions. As an example, it simply wouldn't make sense to have a caster mob with a "Berserking" Disposition that increases its melee damage, just as it wouldn't make sense to have a melee mob with a "Cautious" disposition that makes it stay at range of the group.
Learning the camps, memorizing the pulls, is something innate to the game, it will always get easier over time- whether LAS or UAS- it's part of the process of discovery, and that is what the game is about. LAS or UAS is inconsequential that element.
disposalist said:nexus said: I personally lean toward UAS or a generous LAS. I feel LAS creates less dynamic encounters. This does not mean easier, at least at the start or the first few times. I feel LAS is a way to simplify encounter design, which does have the advantage on lower time to design and balance, but limits the ability for a truly dynamic encounters. I'm not a fan of the cookie cutter fight. Once you learn the "strategy" you a good to go. I want every flight to be a little different. Trying to find the balance between the true strategy of a turn based game and the in the moment excitement of an action bases game is not an easy task, but is something I'm looking for in an MMO. I just do not agree with some of the approaches being taken by VR. I think there are other way to achieve this better.Why do you think encounter design for LAS would be simpler?
I can imagine why you might *think* it would be - 'less skills', right? - but there aren't less skills. There are the same number of skills, you just might not have some of them loaded and need to improvise and synergise with the group more.
In fact, LAS makes encounter design *more* difficult for devs, if anything. They don't know exactly what loadout players will have.
There's no reason at all that encounter design should be different for LAS and it certainly needn't be 'lesser' in any way.
They won't avoid certain monster abilities just because players might not have the ideal counter-skills loaded. In fact, that is the point. LAS adds potential for difficulty above just having all skills available all the time (UAS).
To be clear, I'm not saying that the difficults of an encounter has to be "lesser" with LAS. I just believe that encounters can be developed based on an "optimal" loadout in termsof type of spells and ability and then work back from there. Devs start with some predefined restriction versus having to consider a more open mix of abilities. With or without LAS, an encounter can be made as difficult as the devs want.
At the end of the day all of this debate comes down to personal preference. I would preference to have more flexilitity going to an encounter,
What I'm really looking for our encounters that are not recipe based - "Once we figure our the timers, we are good to go." I want encounters that are a little different each time - truly smart AI that adapts to what the group is doing.
nexus said:disposalist said:nexus said: I personally lean toward UAS or a generous LAS. I feel LAS creates less dynamic encounters. This does not mean easier, at least at the start or the first few times. I feel LAS is a way to simplify encounter design, which does have the advantage on lower time to design and balance, but limits the ability for a truly dynamic encounters. I'm not a fan of the cookie cutter fight. Once you learn the "strategy" you a good to go. I want every flight to be a little different. Trying to find the balance between the true strategy of a turn based game and the in the moment excitement of an action bases game is not an easy task, but is something I'm looking for in an MMO. I just do not agree with some of the approaches being taken by VR. I think there are other way to achieve this better.Why do you think encounter design for LAS would be simpler?
I can imagine why you might *think* it would be - 'less skills', right? - but there aren't less skills. There are the same number of skills, you just might not have some of them loaded and need to improvise and synergise with the group more.
In fact, LAS makes encounter design *more* difficult for devs, if anything. They don't know exactly what loadout players will have.
There's no reason at all that encounter design should be different for LAS and it certainly needn't be 'lesser' in any way.
They won't avoid certain monster abilities just because players might not have the ideal counter-skills loaded. In fact, that is the point. LAS adds potential for difficulty above just having all skills available all the time (UAS).
To be clear, I'm not saying that the difficults of an encounter has to be "lesser" with LAS. I just believe that encounters can be developed based on an "optimal" loadout in termsof type of spells and ability and then work back from there. Devs start with some predefined restriction versus having to consider a more open mix of abilities. With or without LAS, an encounter can be made as difficult as the devs want.
At the end of the day all of this debate comes down to personal preference. I would preference to have more flexilitity going to an encounter,
What I'm really looking for our encounters that are not recipe based - "Once we figure our the timers, we are good to go." I want encounters that are a little different each time - truly smart AI that adapts to what the group is doing.
I think we can all agree we want difficulty in the fights and we do not want cookie cutter run throughs. LAS/UAS really has no bearing on that. The argument can be made that UAS gives you more flexibility in your reactions to an encounter, but it really has no direct bearing on how difficult the encounter actually is. That is not dependent on UAS or LAS. It is as difficult as they make it. There is however more challenge when you have less tools in your toolbox to react with.
Counterfleche said:Riahuf22 said:Razorbrains said:Counterfleche said:I am designing a game where you will be shown a random number between 1 and 20 and your goal is to add numbers to it to get the sum as close to 20 without going over (adding as few numbers as possible). In the UAS version, you have two hotbars, with a hotkey for every number between 1 and 20. In the LAS version, you have only 1 bar with 4 hotkeys and you get to pick the numbers. Which game is more fun? Which is more complex?
Well given your scenario, if it was truely RANDOM (key word) then 4 would be more difficult and in some cases impossible? It would also negate any chance of strategy of picking 4 numbers ahead of time because it would just be pure luck.
In order to allow people to win with only 4 choices, you have to make it way less complex. Where people can go in with standard 4 choices to win.
So what happens when you play the exact same scenario again, this time you already know solution ahead of time. Now its even easier and no challenge at all. So why even build a game designed to be so easy?
If you built this same game to be difficult with all 20 solutions on the bar, regardless of whether you know the outcome or not its still hard, now you have a much more difficult game.
Basically you are playing match with 4 universal cards, im playing it with 20 specific ones.
Too bad you still haven't actually tackle the monster in the room by not realizing every game has used LAS in their game, your just avoiding it becuase you known it is right and don't have an answer for it.
Perhaps I need to clarify the point I was trying to make. In my fictional game senario, if you had UAS, you would have every number available. When you see the random number, you simply subtract it from 20 and you always win (which was getting as close to 20 without going over in the fewest moves). This isn't more challenging since every problem has an ideal solution, and you have access to all your solutions, so its mostly a test of your ability to know what solution to pick and to activate it. With LAS, you have only 4 numbers, so you need to figure out how to solve each problem, and you won't always have the perfect solution.
For example, try to get as close to 20 without going over in the fewest moves.
Random number displayed is 4.
UAS: you have access to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
LAS: you have access to 2, 6, 9, and 14. What number(s) do you pick and in what sequence to get to 20?
Which one takes longer to figure out? Which one is more challenging & fun?
Yeah tottally misread what you meant by that than, my bad, hope you have a good day, just keep seeing people assume the worst without any actual testing and it gets old, hopefully it stays LAS, and if they have to change if any at all would be to give your Bards/Enchanters/maybe Necromancers(CC class archtypes, believe i heard that necros might be part of this type) can have access to spell line that might give you a chnace to change out abilties with a moderate CD or something, not even going to admit that this is actually needed but if it helps than maybe its enough.
arazons said:I think we can all agree we want difficulty in the fights and we do not want cookie cutter run throughs. LAS/UAS really has no bearing on that. The argument can be made that UAS gives you more flexibility in your reactions to an encounter, but it really has no direct bearing on how difficult the encounter actually is. That is not dependent on UAS or LAS. It is as difficult as they make it. There is however more challenge when you have less tools in your toolbox to react with.
I think LAS/UAS has some real bearing on the general challenge level at any given point. If LAS is such that having the "wrong" or a "bad" loadout still holds a decent path to success (as has been stated) then encounters are likely less than challenging when players DO have the "correct" loadouts. With UAS they can tune it more easily to where even using the optimal abilities still leaves players with their backs against the wall, there is no group being or feeling unfairly punished here because they had a wrong loadout or were hit with any number of curveballs.
Iksar said:arazons said:I think we can all agree we want difficulty in the fights and we do not want cookie cutter run throughs. LAS/UAS really has no bearing on that. The argument can be made that UAS gives you more flexibility in your reactions to an encounter, but it really has no direct bearing on how difficult the encounter actually is. That is not dependent on UAS or LAS. It is as difficult as they make it. There is however more challenge when you have less tools in your toolbox to react with.
I think LAS/UAS has some real bearing on the general challenge level at any given point. If LAS is such that having the "wrong" or a "bad" loadout still holds a decent path to success (as has been stated) then encounters are likely less than challenging when players DO have the "correct" loadouts. With UAS they can tune it more easily to where even using the optimal abilities still leaves players with their backs against the wall, there is no group being or feeling unfairly punished here because they had a wrong loadout or were hit with any number of curveballs.
Choosing what spells you want to use doesn't have much to do with it either, you could litterally be using the same healing spell in a UAS format as you do in a LAS format and if they still aren't optimal in LAS still makes them just as optimal in UAS, not less so or more so, so you can say it does have affect, but i can say also that their isn't a game out there that doesn't use LAS festures in an MMO, and guess what i would be correct, too bad many havent caught up to that fact and are still debating how they think LAS is a bad Feature when every game has figured out that not using LAS in some way or form is impossible to actually scale a game too, at least all the devs from 20 years ago to now has figure that out, maybe one day the rest that havent will catch up.
bigdogchris said:Finally, I really like that VR is not going to make major game changes just because the vocal minority are screaming about changes in the forums. I think changes due to listening to the few people making the most noise is partially to blame for ruining EQ. Stick to your vision.
This. I totally agree! :)
To Joppa: I enjoyed the interview (thank you) and the LAS! It's terrific! Love it.
JOPPA AND VR FTW!!! Stick to your vision. You guys and gals keep rocking!
#communitymatters #makenightmatteragain #factionsmatter #riskvsreward #deathpenalty #HardRaiding #respectyourguild #HellLevels #worldsnotgames #aradune #restoreMMORPG
It's interesting that this "debate" is still going...
My 2cp -
I like the idea of LAS and what it will achieve. Especially after hearing C. Perkins talk more about it.
I think, when combined with synergies/dispositions/AI/etc., it will lead to some very interesting combat And some really cool stories.
Seems like a no-brainer for a game that is being designed to be group oriented, strategic, and challenging.
Ah, well...back to lurking~
Flea slips into the shadows.
I'm totally down with the LAS. The interview Bazgrim did with Joppa really solidified it for me. For me, going into battle where you have to improvise, adapt, overcome is so much more interesting than a battle where I "remember" all 30 spells I have ever used. It forces the group to really slow down, communicate, think. This is where UAS becomes button mashing. Think. Where are we. What do we think is coming up. It also means unbalanced groups work. I can have two Shaman in my group. One can focus in healing, one can debuff and dot.
I good with LAS VR is creating a virtual world with it's own sets of laws and physics. Players who try to dictate how many skills they can have, in a world in which they basically know nothing of the dynamic systems that are being built, are just being unreasonable. You don't have an arguement because it not based on the reality of the Pantheon world, which is unique and should not be compared to anything else.
The term "by design" is exclusive and reserved to game designers and world builders. They are the ones building the world. If players built the world, that would be like "god mode" and a distorted view.
I think people are missing the point of LAS in Pantheon. It is two fold; it requires cross referencing with other party members regarding their roles and load outs and adjust accordingly and (as Joppa has stated) they will make those layouts more potent. This is not limiting, this is role defining. This is action targetting.
This can also make multiples of the same class in a single group a viable option. For instance, you can have a druid with a healer loadout and a second druid in the same group with a support/utility load out. How is that limiting? It is actually increasing the compositions of groups you can adventure with. And this type of role-interplay will apply to most if not all classes. If you give a druid that can use everything, then realsitically you only need the one druid. This infact cuts down the group compositions.
You have to tailour your load out to compliment the groups abilities. Just because you have less buttons, does not mean it is dumbed down, infact I would consider it to be the exact opposite and require thought and planning about how the party will adventure and who does what. It will require chat and direction to understand where everyone is and what can be done. The learning then comes from what the group does when something happens that cannot be automatically dispelled. Just because this happens does not immediately mean a wipe. People are resilient and adaptive. This will be shown in game too. The group will adapt. LAS is a positive step, not a negative one and requires finesse with planning and communication which is the underpinning mandate of PRotF.
It is more realistic too. People very rarely have everything they wish for in life, but they manage it all the same. If you have a limited tool kit, you make it work for you. This is no different. In life you team up with people that have the required skills and tools that you dont. This is no different.
I would also argue that it is more rewarding to get your goal when you achive more with less.
Been playing a game with extreme LAS, but it is massive fun anyway.
You have a choice of 7 classes/specs, each with *dozens* of varied skills that they 'know', but you have to choose just 5 in your loadout.
For each encounter you might well choose a different spec and pick a specific loadout depending upon what you think you will be up against.
You frequently find yourself with 'the wrong' skills for the situation that evolves and have to rely on your team to synergise and coordinate in order to prevail until you get a chance to change.
It's called Battlefield 1 and it would not be anywhere near as challenging or fun if you could just change to the perfect gun/gadget/grenade/whatever whenever you want.
Been playing another very limited action set game, too, and it's single player, so if you pick skills that aren't perfect for the varied encounters you have, you simply have to struggle through.
It's called Diablo 3 and would be much less challenging and fun if you could simply change skills/gear to whatever you wanted.
No doubt people will pick apart my examples as inappropriate or whatever, but my point is, people need to open their minds. LAS is not conceptually 'evil' as some seem to imply.
LAS pushes you to be more tactical, think outside the box, rely on and synergise with your team. It is used intentionally in many many games and no one thinks twice, because that's just 'how it works' and it works well.
The thing that amazes me is people being *so* negative when we know there are other LAS MMORPGs, even, and they do just fine (or at least, they are bad because of LAS).
P.A. Again, as always, I hasten to add, I am not without 'concerns' for LAS. There were frustrations to it in EQ, but, good grief, let's give it a try before freaking out?
I haven't read this, but I feel that many games, such as dark souls and COD, prove that a game can be made challenging with limited actions.
Most shooters dont have an action bar with 20 fancy abilities, and yet are considered to be highly challenging experiences.
And I do believe that logic makes it clear that having a lot of actions can be complicated too. The problem is that it is very hard to balance all those actions so that some combo isn't op.
All in all, It's up to the sort of challenge you want. I prefer limited actions because I don't want to be thinking about my actions and which one to use, I want to think about the environment and what sort of ability might help with it. Lo and behold, if there are limited actions, I can employ that ability. Make it challenging by making sure that the ability doesnt win the match, just like one well timed/placed dodge roll in dark souls is not enough to beat the boss.