Ranking weaponry...
What would be like if enemies weaknesses were based on these ranks? For example, SUPPOSE we have to get to level 10 to be able to upgrade weapons to II. Enemies in level 9 would be normally affected by Level I weaponry, and be marginally weaker to Level II and extremely much more weaker against III. Such would be the opposite. Trying to take down an enemy worth of Level V weaponry with a level I would be hard. Differences between levels would be consistent if proper designed. Beyond lv 10-worth-weaponry would stand enemies slightly more resistant than before. Bullet sponges are so waste of time.
@PandaTar wrote:
Ranking weaponry...
What would be like if enemies weaknesses were based on these ranks? For example, SUPPOSE we have to get to level 10 to be able to upgrade weapons to II. Enemies in level 9 would be normally affected by Level I weaponry, and be marginally weaker to Level II and extremely much more weaker against III. Such would be the opposite. Trying to take down an enemy worth of Level V weaponry with a level I would be hard. Differences between levels would be consistent if proper designed. Beyond lv 10-worth-weaponry would stand enemies slightly more resistant than before. Bullet sponges are so waste of time.
Yeah other games I've played have done things like that. I had to kinda of laugh at how rank III actualy requires level 10. As if I had the materials or need to craft anything before level 10. The first two ranks seem completely superfluous.
Bullet sponges are boring but in ME:A I must admit to being more annoyed by the enemy AI. They can move really fast at times and of course that takes a lot of energy so they often have to hide behind cover for two minutes to recuperate.
