What a bloody mess.****
There are two schools of thoughts going on:
One wants a reward for fighting enemies.
The other want to punish for fighting enemies.
****I'm refering to the opposing schools of thought. Your opinions are perfectly valid.
Indeed and I do see why some people would want a direct reward for killing enemies. It's an effective way to provide short term gratification.
Personally, I'm against this mechanic because it destroys the "versatility" of enemies if that makes any sense. It does "improve" the enemies, but it sacrifices their versatility as part of something larger.
Most common sense or logical applications of "enemies" run on the idea that they are obstacles that try to prevent you from completing your objectives. This means enemies are a challenge to overcome to get to the reward they are trying to prevent you from reaching. When you provide a direct "reward" for killing enemies, you've turned them into challenges with rewards already built in. This makes fighting them better, but that's the only thing it makes better. This means that the enemies are no longer as effective as an obstacle or deterrent. It also runs on the assumption that destroying enemies is the only way towards your goal, and ignores other possibilities.
Yes, it is true that not having a reward for killing enemies turns them into purely obstacles that keep you from getting to where you want, but if you think about what enemies are supposed to be in the game's universe, this makes sense. They're "enemies", that's what they do!
They're "bad guys", and to me it makes sense that running into "bad guys" should be, well, "bad" for you!
In some games, rewarding players directly for killing enemies makes sense because those games are purely about combat. If combat is the only thing you do and is in fact your primary objective when playing the game then yes, in those cases I believe it would make sense. However, in the case of A Valley Without Wind, doing this would be bad for a lot of the other possibilities available in the game.
Again, this is just my opinion, obviously other people believe otherwise. It wouldn't kill the game for me if enemies started dropping useful things, but it certainly wouldn't be a positive to me.
To the point that I overlook that I still have the two spell 90% of the game feeling that it doesn't help with.
If you give players a lot of tools, they're going to pick a few they like and use them over and over again if there is a choice or consequence associated with getting said tools.
I don't think more spells or more variation is going to do much to fix this.
A way I can see to really alleviate this would be to either have more "forced variation" that intentionally blocks off certain spells at certain times, or have a large number of spells use entirely "non-mission" resources so their use is not tied to the "choices" associated with doing missions (this is already true to some degree, at least with some early tiers for some spells).
I would actually be in favor of more the latter. I think it would be nice if anything that is not a direct projectile spell did not use "mission-only" resources, that way using and maintaining them becomes completely detached from the "this or that" choice of continent tier raising missions.