The purpose of this thread is to explore alternative systems for the co-op commander mode. We should all keep in mind the purpose of a co-op mission: to be a replayable experience that players will seek to play many times with multiple commanders and combinations of playstyles. A good co-op mission is designed with replay value in mind above all else, and as such generally doesn't have more than a backdrop for its story, but focuses instead on creating multiple paths to victory where all current and future commanders should be able to fulfill the main objectives.
From my perspective, the current co-op system has the following issues:
-The only reward for being skilled at your commander is that you make every mission trivial. When you win, it feels like it was the natural conclusion; that the AI would never have done anything to stop you from winning, because you've grinded until your commander is overtuned and/or you're skilled at that commander.
-Similarly, the only punishment for not being skilled at your commander is that you can't make any mission do-able. When you lose, it feels unfair; you would have to be good enough or high-level enough to trivialize every mission. There is no in-between, only these two extremes, at which point it does not feel genuinely rewarding nor punishing when you win or lose.
-The AI is uninteractive. Their attack waves are spawned and their behavior does not adapt to the toolsets the players have. There is no specific reaction to powerful units or heroes entering a certain area, or a commander ability being used. Players act on an object that does not think for itself, issue attacks itself, purchase upgrades itself, or even defend itself. Its assault patterns are arbitrary rather than adaptive. It lacks harassment capabilities altogether. Players exploit the default tactical AI of units and it has become the status quo for the AI to simply sit there while its base/army is dismantled.
-The commanders you can play as are poorly designed. Commanders with actives (Nova/Vorazun/Alarak) are too powerful and commanders with passives (Abathur/Stukov) lack impact. They have variety in their units and loadouts, but outside of niche cases, very few of them act as specialists that work best when combined with other commanders, thus defeating the entire purpose of co-op. Raynor/Artanis is a good combo because of mass-produced infantry and the invulnerable-before-death shield; Vorazun works well with other allies that cloak or burrow their units. But Karax is a better version of Swann, and Kerrigan/Zagara/Abathur all lack the tools to compete with the most powerful commanders. The current roster lacks identity in some cases and viability in others.
-The maps do not facilitate high replay value. Once you've experienced a map once or twice, you should know it inside and out, regardless of which race you went up against, as there are very few variations to the AI's army compositions, very few objective variations (mostly what order they appear in, if anything) and no terrain variations, leading to a very linear experience as opposed to one that at least has a chance to be different the next time you play the map.
-Nearly every mutator in the game is based around an unfair mechanic or relies on poor game design to even be noteworthy (i.e. weather that damages your units without the game notifying you of it).
I put forth the following suggestions. More will likely come when I have some more time to think on the topic, and when I'm not so tired.
-Make the AI reactionary, as opposed to predetermined, and have the degree to which they react to external stimuli scale with difficulty. If two hero commanders are selected, have the AI prioritize single-target damage. If two spammy commanders (Raynor/Artanis/Stukov) are selected, have the AI prioritize area-of-effect. If two defensive commanders are selected, have the AI prioritize siege weaponry. And so on and so forth, scaling up or down in each priority depending on how many commanders of what archetype are selected. Have several different army comps that fulfill each reactionary role, i.e. a void ray comp and an immortal comp for single target, so the player doesn't already know what they'll face before they start the mission. Have the AI mix and match from pre-set comps depending on the opposition.
-Additionally, make the AI more interactive. Give them many more bases, expand map sizes. Make spawned attack waves come from outposts that the player can destroy (though the AI will always attempt to rebuilt/can rebuild them in other spots) in order to stem the flow of spawned attack forces, albeit temporarily. Make the AI slower to respond to attacks if its workers have been sniped out. Make the AI attack with more basic units if its tech structures have been destroyed. In an effort to make them more reactionary, make them defend their outposts/workers/tech more if players are prioritizing them. Make the AI adapt its defense and offense based on player interaction.
-Give commanders more clear-cut identities and play to their strengths. A defensive commander should struggle to egress into enemy territory, but should be able to achieve the "hold" part of "take-and-hold" quite nicely if an offensive commander clears the way for them. It also shouldn't be impossible for a defensive commander to solve the "take" part of that equation, either - just make it less optimal than if you're an offensive commander. Similarly, have a mobile offensive commander that can move across the map quickly (probably zerg), but is less effective and powerful than a slower offensive commander that has stronger individual units (probably protoss). I don't have detailed outlines for how to change all individual commanders, but this approach should be used to rebalance some commanders and make them superior/inferior situationally as opposed to some being superior/inferior holistically.
-Create terrain variations that open and close different tactical windows. These ensure that the player will have to change their attack plan even beyond how they handle the AI.
-Add more bonus objectives for all maps, and randomize which ones become active. There are always one or two (destroy x, escort x here), sometimes three (Void Launch) - change it up. On higher difficulties, enable more than the default amount. Players who overcommit to these bonus objectives could lose the main game, but teams who are smart about their resource and unit allocation can earn even more rewards.
I'll add to this list (both of grievances and of suggestions) as I think of more of them. Please feel free to analyze both lists, and give your perspectives. I hope this is helpful to creators.
-The only reward for being skilled at your commander is that you make every mission trivial. When you win, it feels like it was the natural conclusion; that the AI would never have done anything to stop you from winning, because you've grinded until your commander is overtuned and/or you're skilled at that commander.
People in general want this. Coop is partially to be a grind. It also is a sandbox to screw around in. If I want difficulty, there is mutators and custom mutators. Those can ramp the difficulty as high as I want.
-Similarly, the only punishment for not being skilled at your commander is that you can't make any mission do-able. When you lose, it feels unfair; you would have to be good enough or high-level enough to trivialize every mission. There is no in-between, only these two extremes, at which point it does not feel genuinely rewarding nor punishing when you win or lose.
I would disagree, given people can often take on brutal at level 1 with commanders.
-The AI is uninteractive. Their attack waves are spawned and their behavior does not adapt to the toolsets the players have. There is no specific reaction to powerful units or heroes entering a certain area, or a commander ability being used. Players act on an object that does not think for itself, issue attacks itself, purchase upgrades itself, or even defend itself. Its assault patterns are arbitrary rather than adaptive. It lacks harassment capabilities altogether. Players exploit the default tactical AI of units and it has become the status quo for the AI to simply sit there while its base/army is dismantled.
The AI does rebuild but people do tend to just exterminate the bases if they can. Often the objective keeps people preoccupied enough that by the time one would even consider attacking a base, you have an overwhelming army anyhow.
-The commanders you can play as are poorly designed. Commanders with actives (Nova/Vorazun/Alarak) are too powerful and commanders with passives (Abathur/Stukov) lack impact. They have variety in their units and loadouts, but outside of niche cases, very few of them act as specialists that work best when combined with other commanders, thus defeating the entire purpose of co-op. Raynor/Artanis is a good combo because of mass-produced infantry and the invulnerable-before-death shield; Vorazun works well with other allies that cloak or burrow their units. But Karax is a better version of Swann, and Kerrigan/Zagara/Abathur all lack the tools to compete with the most powerful commanders. The current roster lacks identity in some cases and viability in others.
I can agree that some commanders are weaker then others. But the only real standout one currently is Stukov. Abathur is probably the most unstoppable army once he gets going (Queens are incredible with their heals).
-The maps do not facilitate high replay value. Once you've experienced a map once or twice, you should know it inside and out, regardless of which race you went up against, as there are very few variations to the AI's army compositions, very few objective variations (mostly what order they appear in, if anything) and no terrain variations, leading to a very linear experience as opposed to one that at least has a chance to be different the next time you play the map.
I believe this is a product of the many commanders. If you examine their guidelines for the coop map contest, 2 major ones standout to remove quite a few mechanics in maps.
1) You can not have a mechanic that makes the map incredibly trivial for a single commander, nor a mechanic that punishes you for playing a specific commander. For example, one person proposed an idea that the enemy would get stronger based on the deaths of your units. This of course makes Zagara, Stukov and Alarak pointless, and makes Karax, Kerrigan and Nova free wins.
2) The game must last under 40 minutes.
Given these restrictions, it becomes increasingly difficult inside a single map to keep to these guidelines, while still retaining a cohesive map mechanic.
-Nearly every mutator in the game is based around an unfair mechanic or relies on poor game design to even be noteworthy (i.e. weather that damages your units without the game notifying you of it).
In general, yes. It becomes very tricky to add mechanics that are fair and can not be overcome by RPG grinds.
I put forth the following suggestions. More will likely come when I have some more time to think on the topic, and when I'm not so tired.
-Give commanders more clear-cut identities and play to their strengths. A defensive commander should struggle to egress into enemy territory, but should be able to achieve the "hold" part of "take-and-hold" quite nicely if an offensive commander clears the way for them. It also shouldn't be impossible for a defensive commander to solve the "take" part of that equation, either - just make it less optimal than if you're an offensive commander. Similarly, have a mobile offensive commander that can move across the map quickly (probably zerg), but is less effective and powerful than a slower offensive commander that has stronger individual units (probably protoss). I don't have detailed outlines for how to change all individual commanders, but this approach should be used to rebalance some commanders and make them superior/inferior situationally as opposed to some being superior/inferior holistically.
These already exist. For the highly mobile offensive commander, you have Kerrigan, with her Omega Worms (free, short cooldown, usable by both players). For the defensive commander, you have Karax. For a slower offensive commander that has stronger unit, that would be Artanis or Mech Alarak.
Could some commanders use some modifications? Sure. But I feel all of them have pretty unique identities as is.
Artanis: Well rounded offensive army with heavy artillery units (Tempests, High Templars or Reavers).
Swann: Mechanized assault, but can do mechanized defense, with some of the highest hp units and buildings.
Raynor: Bio, Mech, general purpose
Kerrigan: Hero, has mostly support army, ultra mobile.
Zagara: Suicide disposable army
Karax: Ultimate defense, super resilient army
Stukov: Hybrid, is both Zagara and Swann at once
Alarak: Sacrificial army, uses death to his advantage
Nova: Special Forces, micro army
Abathur: Snowball, evolution into super army
Vorazun: Distract/Disorient. Fields the most CC of all, army can be destroyed pretty easily, but has so much disable and cloaking, often doesn't get hit
One thing that prevents the explicit synergy is the fact that you have little or no control on what commander you could be partnered with. As a result, the commanders need to stand on their own. If there is synergy, then it is likely to be emergent or just accepted as a possibility (Kerrigan + Stukov for global attack speed/hp buff, Karax + Swann for nearly unbeatable defense, etc.).
In regards to the topic at hand, I would like to raise a few questions.
1. Couldn't you simply program the AI as a dependent to the Commander that is currently playing the map? EG: Player hero is Zagara so in turn -> AI gets Protoss units for attacking. Although this might be 'more work' it would certainly improve the AI aspect of it, IF it could react to the Commander/Units/Structures the OF the player.
2. Could you also set up a system that would par same race characters? Kerrigan & Zagara, Raynor & Swan, and so on? but that would have to go into the 'match making' aspect of it. Don't know if that is do able though.
3. What if you keep the Mutations aspect of the Co-op map hidden from the player and they had to 'find out' what they where up against?
Modifying matchmaking is not going to ever fly. Many people enjoy the either deliberately synergistic commanders or the unsynergistic commanders. Also excluding certain combos would make some mutators VERY narrow. I'm pretty sure if you limit each commander to ones in the same race, the only combo worth playing would become Vorazun/Karax. And to top it off, just makes games slower, since you no longer can pair up with anyone, you can statistically only pair up with 1/3 of the playerbase, possibly less.
The problem I would have with reactive AI is that means your mastery choices are pointless, the AI is going to hardcounter them anyhow. And some can't really be countered because of how general they are (Chrono boost for example). And some commanders, regardless of the AI comp, are going to destroy them (no AI comp is going to be able to hack their way through Karax).
Hiding the mutators is just being even more unfair, its a form of fake difficulty, and again violates some of the very guidelines laid out out for the contest. You should NEVER make it so the game is decided by time X, but you will lose at time that is later then X, that truly is wasting your time.
Couldn't you simply program the AI as a dependent to the Commander that is currently playing the map? EG: Player hero is Zagara so in turn -> AI gets Protoss units for attacking. Although this might be 'more work' it would certainly improve the AI aspect of it, IF it could react to the Commander/Units/Structures the OF the player.
That's not randomization, that's an equation. If this, then that. I'm talking about making the AI smarter and reactive regardless of race, with unique challenges for the players to overcome depending on which race the AI rolls into.
Could you also set up a system that would par same race characters? Kerrigan & Zagara, Raynor & Swan, and so on? but that would have to go into the 'match making' aspect of it. Don't know if that is do able though.
I wouldn't want that, part of the allure is finding interesting combinations through matching with a wide variety of commanders. There's not much to be gained by limiting each commander to only be able to play with a pre-designated set of other commanders.
What if you keep the Mutations aspect of the Co-op map hidden from the player and they had to 'find out' what they where up against?
If mutators were more fair, maybe this would be a usable strategy. I think this is already covered by the fact that bonus objectives, AI playstyles, and strategic terrain would be more varied in this new system, creating more uncertainty as to what exactly you'll be up against.
The problem I would have with reactive AI is that means your mastery choices are pointless, the AI is going to hardcounter them anyhow.
Rebalance the mastery choices if that's actually a problem. Your choices would never be pointless, your commander and toolset would just occasionally be less optimal in some cases and more optimal in others. I don't see a problem with this.
And some commanders, regardless of the AI comp, are going to destroy them (no AI comp is going to be able to hack their way through Karax).
Why not? Why can't there be a siege comp that (intelligently, and with interactivity in mind) negates some of Karax's strengths selectively, so that he must be smart with his positioning and communicate with his ally to properly support his defensive efforts? Why should some commanders be able to play and win while their partners underperform (or in Karax's case, blatantly AFK)? It's a co-operative, team effort. If one part of your team can't make the cut, you'll stand less of a chance.
Hiding the mutators is just being even more unfair, its a form of fake difficulty, and again violates some of the very guidelines laid out out for the contest.
Mutators themselves are almost exclusively fake difficulty, as I've already pointed out. Hiding them could be a strategy if they held more depth to them, and added interactivity rather than taking more of it away.
Quote from ArcaneDurandel>>And some commanders, regardless of the AI comp, are going to destroy them (no AI comp is going to be able to hack their way through Karax).
Why not? Why can't there be a siege comp that (intelligently, and with interactivity in mind) negates some of Karax's strengths selectively, so that he must be smart with his positioning and communicate with his ally to properly support his defensive efforts? Why should some commanders be able to play and win while their partners underperform (or in Karax's case, blatantly AFK)? It's a co-operative, team effort. If one part of your team can't make the cut, you'll stand less of a chance.
I guess the question is, how far do you want to go outside standard SC2 units? Karax fundamentally can't be sieged through because his top bar abilities. Now, could you remove those and rework them? Sure, but easily a 1/3rd of his design revolves around it, so you just end up dumping Karax altogether.
Current SC2 siege units are simply never going to be match for Karax, but that is by design. He sacrifices an army and mobility and being in many places at once, in exchange for nearly unbeatable defenses. Now, he can be defeated, but it requires Vipers.
Also, I hate to say this, but having seen this have seen this in other games, if you DO make a siege comp that can crush Karax, a smart player will see that comp and immediately exit and reroll. Players will either complain about the comp, not play Karax or fish for a beatable.
I think the divergence of opinion is how you view what needs to be experimented with: The maps, or the commanders.
We can have a wide variety of maps and AI comps, but that by necessity means we must limit commanders power (as you propose). Or we provide semi standard comps and a set of maps, and they are treated as a sandbox for you to experiment what your commanders can do.
Currently the attitude seen with the current setup is Brutal must be beatable by a pair of commanders with no mastery. If you want more difficulty, you have mutators, unfair difficulty to counter your own unfair capabilities.
Currently the attitude seen with the current setup is Brutal must be beatable by a pair of commanders with no mastery. If you want more difficulty, you have mutators, unfair difficulty to counter your own unfair capabilities.
And I think this is where most of the poor design choices come from. The hardest difficulty should not be beatable (easily, I might add) by casual, low-skill players playing low-level commanders. That is the entire point of difficulty. If brutal were actually brutal and not just a stupid AI with unfair mechanics, you wouldn't even need mutators.
The purpose of this thread is to explore alternative systems for the co-op commander mode. We should all keep in mind the purpose of a co-op mission: to be a replayable experience that players will seek to play many times with multiple commanders and combinations of playstyles. A good co-op mission is designed with replay value in mind above all else, and as such generally doesn't have more than a backdrop for its story, but focuses instead on creating multiple paths to victory where all current and future commanders should be able to fulfill the main objectives.
From my perspective, the current co-op system has the following issues:
-The only reward for being skilled at your commander is that you make every mission trivial. When you win, it feels like it was the natural conclusion; that the AI would never have done anything to stop you from winning, because you've grinded until your commander is overtuned and/or you're skilled at that commander.
-Similarly, the only punishment for not being skilled at your commander is that you can't make any mission do-able. When you lose, it feels unfair; you would have to be good enough or high-level enough to trivialize every mission. There is no in-between, only these two extremes, at which point it does not feel genuinely rewarding nor punishing when you win or lose.
-The AI is uninteractive. Their attack waves are spawned and their behavior does not adapt to the toolsets the players have. There is no specific reaction to powerful units or heroes entering a certain area, or a commander ability being used. Players act on an object that does not think for itself, issue attacks itself, purchase upgrades itself, or even defend itself. Its assault patterns are arbitrary rather than adaptive. It lacks harassment capabilities altogether. Players exploit the default tactical AI of units and it has become the status quo for the AI to simply sit there while its base/army is dismantled.
-The commanders you can play as are poorly designed. Commanders with actives (Nova/Vorazun/Alarak) are too powerful and commanders with passives (Abathur/Stukov) lack impact. They have variety in their units and loadouts, but outside of niche cases, very few of them act as specialists that work best when combined with other commanders, thus defeating the entire purpose of co-op. Raynor/Artanis is a good combo because of mass-produced infantry and the invulnerable-before-death shield; Vorazun works well with other allies that cloak or burrow their units. But Karax is a better version of Swann, and Kerrigan/Zagara/Abathur all lack the tools to compete with the most powerful commanders. The current roster lacks identity in some cases and viability in others.
-The maps do not facilitate high replay value. Once you've experienced a map once or twice, you should know it inside and out, regardless of which race you went up against, as there are very few variations to the AI's army compositions, very few objective variations (mostly what order they appear in, if anything) and no terrain variations, leading to a very linear experience as opposed to one that at least has a chance to be different the next time you play the map.
-Nearly every mutator in the game is based around an unfair mechanic or relies on poor game design to even be noteworthy (i.e. weather that damages your units without the game notifying you of it).
I put forth the following suggestions. More will likely come when I have some more time to think on the topic, and when I'm not so tired.
-Make the AI reactionary, as opposed to predetermined, and have the degree to which they react to external stimuli scale with difficulty. If two hero commanders are selected, have the AI prioritize single-target damage. If two spammy commanders (Raynor/Artanis/Stukov) are selected, have the AI prioritize area-of-effect. If two defensive commanders are selected, have the AI prioritize siege weaponry. And so on and so forth, scaling up or down in each priority depending on how many commanders of what archetype are selected. Have several different army comps that fulfill each reactionary role, i.e. a void ray comp and an immortal comp for single target, so the player doesn't already know what they'll face before they start the mission. Have the AI mix and match from pre-set comps depending on the opposition.
-Additionally, make the AI more interactive. Give them many more bases, expand map sizes. Make spawned attack waves come from outposts that the player can destroy (though the AI will always attempt to rebuilt/can rebuild them in other spots) in order to stem the flow of spawned attack forces, albeit temporarily. Make the AI slower to respond to attacks if its workers have been sniped out. Make the AI attack with more basic units if its tech structures have been destroyed. In an effort to make them more reactionary, make them defend their outposts/workers/tech more if players are prioritizing them. Make the AI adapt its defense and offense based on player interaction.
-Give commanders more clear-cut identities and play to their strengths. A defensive commander should struggle to egress into enemy territory, but should be able to achieve the "hold" part of "take-and-hold" quite nicely if an offensive commander clears the way for them. It also shouldn't be impossible for a defensive commander to solve the "take" part of that equation, either - just make it less optimal than if you're an offensive commander. Similarly, have a mobile offensive commander that can move across the map quickly (probably zerg), but is less effective and powerful than a slower offensive commander that has stronger individual units (probably protoss). I don't have detailed outlines for how to change all individual commanders, but this approach should be used to rebalance some commanders and make them superior/inferior situationally as opposed to some being superior/inferior holistically.
-Create terrain variations that open and close different tactical windows. These ensure that the player will have to change their attack plan even beyond how they handle the AI.
-Add more bonus objectives for all maps, and randomize which ones become active. There are always one or two (destroy x, escort x here), sometimes three (Void Launch) - change it up. On higher difficulties, enable more than the default amount. Players who overcommit to these bonus objectives could lose the main game, but teams who are smart about their resource and unit allocation can earn even more rewards.
I'll add to this list (both of grievances and of suggestions) as I think of more of them. Please feel free to analyze both lists, and give your perspectives. I hope this is helpful to creators.
My YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter
People in general want this. Coop is partially to be a grind. It also is a sandbox to screw around in. If I want difficulty, there is mutators and custom mutators. Those can ramp the difficulty as high as I want.
I would disagree, given people can often take on brutal at level 1 with commanders.
The AI does rebuild but people do tend to just exterminate the bases if they can. Often the objective keeps people preoccupied enough that by the time one would even consider attacking a base, you have an overwhelming army anyhow.
I can agree that some commanders are weaker then others. But the only real standout one currently is Stukov. Abathur is probably the most unstoppable army once he gets going (Queens are incredible with their heals).
I believe this is a product of the many commanders. If you examine their guidelines for the coop map contest, 2 major ones standout to remove quite a few mechanics in maps.
1) You can not have a mechanic that makes the map incredibly trivial for a single commander, nor a mechanic that punishes you for playing a specific commander. For example, one person proposed an idea that the enemy would get stronger based on the deaths of your units. This of course makes Zagara, Stukov and Alarak pointless, and makes Karax, Kerrigan and Nova free wins.
2) The game must last under 40 minutes.
Given these restrictions, it becomes increasingly difficult inside a single map to keep to these guidelines, while still retaining a cohesive map mechanic.
In general, yes. It becomes very tricky to add mechanics that are fair and can not be overcome by RPG grinds.
One thing that prevents the explicit synergy is the fact that you have little or no control on what commander you could be partnered with. As a result, the commanders need to stand on their own. If there is synergy, then it is likely to be emergent or just accepted as a possibility (Kerrigan + Stukov for global attack speed/hp buff, Karax + Swann for nearly unbeatable defense, etc.).
In regards to the topic at hand, I would like to raise a few questions.
1. Couldn't you simply program the AI as a dependent to the Commander that is currently playing the map? EG: Player hero is Zagara so in turn -> AI gets Protoss units for attacking. Although this might be 'more work' it would certainly improve the AI aspect of it, IF it could react to the Commander/Units/Structures the OF the player.
2. Could you also set up a system that would par same race characters? Kerrigan & Zagara, Raynor & Swan, and so on? but that would have to go into the 'match making' aspect of it. Don't know if that is do able though.
3. What if you keep the Mutations aspect of the Co-op map hidden from the player and they had to 'find out' what they where up against?
Modifying matchmaking is not going to ever fly. Many people enjoy the either deliberately synergistic commanders or the unsynergistic commanders. Also excluding certain combos would make some mutators VERY narrow. I'm pretty sure if you limit each commander to ones in the same race, the only combo worth playing would become Vorazun/Karax. And to top it off, just makes games slower, since you no longer can pair up with anyone, you can statistically only pair up with 1/3 of the playerbase, possibly less.
The problem I would have with reactive AI is that means your mastery choices are pointless, the AI is going to hardcounter them anyhow. And some can't really be countered because of how general they are (Chrono boost for example). And some commanders, regardless of the AI comp, are going to destroy them (no AI comp is going to be able to hack their way through Karax).
Hiding the mutators is just being even more unfair, its a form of fake difficulty, and again violates some of the very guidelines laid out out for the contest. You should NEVER make it so the game is decided by time X, but you will lose at time that is later then X, that truly is wasting your time.
If mutators were more fair, maybe this would be a usable strategy. I think this is already covered by the fact that bonus objectives, AI playstyles, and strategic terrain would be more varied in this new system, creating more uncertainty as to what exactly you'll be up against.
Rebalance the mastery choices if that's actually a problem. Your choices would never be pointless, your commander and toolset would just occasionally be less optimal in some cases and more optimal in others. I don't see a problem with this.
Why not? Why can't there be a siege comp that (intelligently, and with interactivity in mind) negates some of Karax's strengths selectively, so that he must be smart with his positioning and communicate with his ally to properly support his defensive efforts? Why should some commanders be able to play and win while their partners underperform (or in Karax's case, blatantly AFK)? It's a co-operative, team effort. If one part of your team can't make the cut, you'll stand less of a chance.
Mutators themselves are almost exclusively fake difficulty, as I've already pointed out. Hiding them could be a strategy if they held more depth to them, and added interactivity rather than taking more of it away.
My YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter
My YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter