I've seen a lot of people in this sub complaining recently about their experiences in high-level content 1) being forced to carry low-level players, 2) failing missions because they cannot carry these low-level players, 3) feel as if low-level players are taking the positions which could have been filled with a more appropriately leveled character, 4) having their time and resources wasted by low-level players who contribute virtually nothing to the defense.
Obviously those are not really separate problems but rather are interconnected with low-level players in high-level missions at it's center. My worst experiences with under-leveled players has been relatively tame. I went into a 70+ mission and everyone there was about 40. We succeeded but it was really damn hairy and costs thousands of materials from all of us.
This was a pretty tame experience because at the end we won, everyone was contributing, and at lvl 40 you're not melting hulks but at least you're shooting for thousands rather than hundreds. That does at least make a difference. I can see how, especially in an online game with hundreds of matches played each day, far worse scenarios are must happen all the time.
A level threshold barring low level players from high level missions has been a common response to this problem. It is the most obvious solution, but I feel also probably the worst.
It's essentially a reverse cap. We all railed against stat ceilings not long ago, but a min player level requirement is like installing a stat floor which behaves as a ceiling to anyone beneath it. Minimum player level requirements would introduce even more gated content and make truly challenging missions more difficult to find.
I understand the problem. The problem of having players in their teens join missions designed for players in their 70s is not hard to understand. I don't want that person joining your mission anymore than you do.
However, a system which automatically rejects players from joining missions which they are otherwise able to access because they have satisfied the conditions of their main quest progress – TO ME – suggests a problem with main quest progression and not necessarily player level. Another red flag for me is how a minimum player level seeks to solve the problem by taking away freedoms players already enjoy. A min player threshold essentially boils the analysis of the problem down to: "Players have too much choice in selecting missions". While this is certainly a solution, there must be a better solution.
TLDR: I want to try and start a discussion about other ideas for how the most negative effects of having lower level players inside your mission can be mitigated, without installing new gates on existing content.
© Post "The Low-Level in High-Level Problem." for game Fortnite.
Top-10 Best Video Games of 2018 So Far
2018 has been a stellar year for video game fans, and there's still more to come. The list for the Best Games of So Far!
Top-10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2019
With 2018 bringing such incredible titles to gaming, it's no wonder everyone's already looking forward to 2019's offerings. All the best new games slated for a 2019 release, fans all over the world want to dive into these anticipated games!