Honest question, why is camping frowned upon?
- Thread starter Royta
- Start date
The general hatred for campers spawned from fast paced games. It's a valid tactic, but most players are not use to a sudden ambush on the fast paced games. This hate got amplified on COD massively, and has since infected almost all games, hell even red orchestra 2 *rolls eyes*
Thats how it was explained to me.
In fighting games, the opponent has a fighting chance. You are always visible, and the other player is engaged in the match.
To get the feeling of Camping, you should have both fighters sit in opposite corners for 30 minutes. Then as soon as the other player stretches his hands, take him out. It is boring, and then you loose.
As far as RTS games go, its the same story. Turtling artificially inflates the length of the game. What should be a short exciting match, becomes a long boring three hour stand-off. Some RTS games have tactical options that can use turtling against your opponent.
In fighting games, the opponent has a fighting chance. You are always visible, and the other player is engaged in the match.
To get the feeling of Camping, you should have both fighters sit in opposite corners for 30 minutes. Then as soon as the other player stretches his hands, take him out. It is boring, and then you loose.
As far as RTS games go, its the same story. Turtling artificially inflates the length of the game. What should be a short exciting match, becomes a long boring three hour stand-off. Some RTS games have tactical options that can use turtling against your opponent.
Camping is not defending an objective camping is stay in one spot that is otherwise not vital to the game and the person is staying there just for cheap kills ie spawn camping. There is nothing wrong with defending say the mcom or the hq but sitting outside of spawn should get a piano dropped on your character's head and it does happen in a CoD 2 mod.
Although weapon camping in something like Halo or Quake is just as bad as it slows the pace of the game, makes it boring and more or less removes that weapon and that player from the game. This can sometimes be because of bad map design or weapon placement. An example of this in Halo 3 is a beach type map(I think) where 2 Ghosts spawn but no anti vehicle weaponry so if one guy who is good enough in a Ghost gets 1 then destroys the other one the other people have basically no chance to kill him unless there is a co-ordinated effort. You try getting a co-ordianted effort in a FPS with random people and see how well that goes.
Although weapon camping in something like Halo or Quake is just as bad as it slows the pace of the game, makes it boring and more or less removes that weapon and that player from the game. This can sometimes be because of bad map design or weapon placement. An example of this in Halo 3 is a beach type map(I think) where 2 Ghosts spawn but no anti vehicle weaponry so if one guy who is good enough in a Ghost gets 1 then destroys the other one the other people have basically no chance to kill him unless there is a co-ordinated effort. You try getting a co-ordianted effort in a FPS with random people and see how well that goes.
there are different types of camping, it gained its hatred because of what is called Spawn camping (hanging out at the enemy spawn to kill opposition while they are unaware). nowadays, it is used in irritation for players that aren't that good for doing what is supposed to be done i.e. defending the objective or strategic point of access.
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20060826
this explains it best though
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20060826
this explains it best though
In my opinion on Camping.
Guarding an objective, or sitting in a place and giving cover for your team: Legitimate, and a really good strategy.
Sitting in a corner where you are hard to hit and can get the jump on anyone just to bolster ones score while not getting anything done for the team: legitimate, but extremely dickish.
Sitting on a rock with a sniper rifle, shooting people from afar, not moving. Legitimate, and depending on how it is being done, with either the intention of giving cover and eliminating threats to your team, or just to get points, can be either really dickish or a really good strategy.
Guarding an objective, or sitting in a place and giving cover for your team: Legitimate, and a really good strategy.
Sitting in a corner where you are hard to hit and can get the jump on anyone just to bolster ones score while not getting anything done for the team: legitimate, but extremely dickish.
Sitting on a rock with a sniper rifle, shooting people from afar, not moving. Legitimate, and depending on how it is being done, with either the intention of giving cover and eliminating threats to your team, or just to get points, can be either really dickish or a really good strategy.
Playing defensively and camping can be two very different things, especially in the context of a shooting game.
In fact, camping in a shooter usually translates into "sniping from a easily defended high-point on the other side of the map"; it's often ludicrously effective, especially for racking up kills (made even worse if the sniping spot also houses the sniper rifle). Should a sniper have a good view of the various respawn locations on the map, killing people immediately after they respawn is a strong possiblility; and yes, it's extremely cheap. Good map design should never allow for such camping spots, where a player could dominate the match easily because they're effectively unapproachable because any opposing players have to be funnelled through a choke-point (or have to cross a huge open area with no cover); the only possible way to get to the camper is tactical suicide. The camper might be having fun (in form of a power-trip); but everyone else isn't, they're just getting frustrated due to their inability to be effective.
Playing defensively tends to translate moreso into "defend the key location or objective", or "staying behind cover as much as possible". Waiting for your opponent to strike and then countering their actions might sound fairly similar to camping, but the latter leaves people with only one real viable option -- to leave themselves open for a easy sniper kill while they try to get in close. Waiting for someone to run around the corner while you have a shotgun is probably a better analogy for someone playing defensively; in games like Halo series, there's always grenades (which everyone has) and there's the range limitation to deal with (though things can get silly in the infection gametype, choke-points of any time ruin that).
---
Perhaps the best way to distinguish camping and playing defensively is how they're used.
Camping is choosing an easily defended location, as well as having a weapon which allows the camper exclusive to himself which is then used to dominate the match. A sniper spot where the only way to access it is to run straight through his or her scope is the classic example. It's incredibly cheap, because it's absurdly effective and requires little effort.
Playing defensively is similar, but it doesn't allow the player to dominate the map easily; choice of location seldom matters. It's just a matter of staying alive, not dominating the match.
In fact, camping in a shooter usually translates into "sniping from a easily defended high-point on the other side of the map"; it's often ludicrously effective, especially for racking up kills (made even worse if the sniping spot also houses the sniper rifle). Should a sniper have a good view of the various respawn locations on the map, killing people immediately after they respawn is a strong possiblility; and yes, it's extremely cheap. Good map design should never allow for such camping spots, where a player could dominate the match easily because they're effectively unapproachable because any opposing players have to be funnelled through a choke-point (or have to cross a huge open area with no cover); the only possible way to get to the camper is tactical suicide. The camper might be having fun (in form of a power-trip); but everyone else isn't, they're just getting frustrated due to their inability to be effective.
Playing defensively tends to translate moreso into "defend the key location or objective", or "staying behind cover as much as possible". Waiting for your opponent to strike and then countering their actions might sound fairly similar to camping, but the latter leaves people with only one real viable option -- to leave themselves open for a easy sniper kill while they try to get in close. Waiting for someone to run around the corner while you have a shotgun is probably a better analogy for someone playing defensively; in games like Halo series, there's always grenades (which everyone has) and there's the range limitation to deal with (though things can get silly in the infection gametype, choke-points of any time ruin that).
---
Perhaps the best way to distinguish camping and playing defensively is how they're used.
Camping is choosing an easily defended location, as well as having a weapon which allows the camper exclusive to himself which is then used to dominate the match. A sniper spot where the only way to access it is to run straight through his or her scope is the classic example. It's incredibly cheap, because it's absurdly effective and requires little effort.
Playing defensively is similar, but it doesn't allow the player to dominate the map easily; choice of location seldom matters. It's just a matter of staying alive, not dominating the match.
Because there is a massive difference between legitimately waiting in a strategic spot so you have a jump on your opponents and traditional camping. In one you are pretty much constantly on the move until you hear or other wise locate an enemy in which case you choose a position wait for them to come and kill them before moving on. In the other you simply sit in one spot for the majority of the time only killing people that walk by you. I don't know about others in the world but considering the only FPS I really play involves me having to wait for every player on one team to die before I can respawn I don't enjoy waiting for 3 or 4 minutes for the other team to scour the map for someone who is so crap they are just going to die anyway.
As for games that don't make you wait, or have instant respawn I still don't like campers. The main reason why is because it is I suppose a good way to kill people. But it is also boring as all hell. If you are fighting against campers then the best way to beat them is to camp also, and that means if a few people camp it encourages everyone to camp turning a fast pace extremely fun warzone into a boring waiting game. Even when this happens I prefer not to camp but it almost always ends up with me being at a disadvantage.
As for games that don't make you wait, or have instant respawn I still don't like campers. The main reason why is because it is I suppose a good way to kill people. But it is also boring as all hell. If you are fighting against campers then the best way to beat them is to camp also, and that means if a few people camp it encourages everyone to camp turning a fast pace extremely fun warzone into a boring waiting game. Even when this happens I prefer not to camp but it almost always ends up with me being at a disadvantage.
Isn't he helping his team by stopping your flanking attack?Rednog said:
I don't really see the issue with camping, most games have provided a way around it. In Blackops I use the Nova Gas grenade to flush out campers (I have yet to find one who uses the gas mask perk). Red Orchestra 2 has maps that are difficult to camp. (Sure, you can bring your sniper rifle to the top of the grain tower, but when somebody with an SMG comes up the ladder you're fucked, and you can't see all that much from the tiny windows.)
And sometimes camping makes sense, such as when playing Capture The Flag. Of course, you don't want your entire team camping at once.
Then again, I'm more of a proponent of patrolling or 'backpacking' than camping. Moving around an area you know very well with a claymore in a key spot can be more effective and help your team.
OK yea, that's a little stupid on his part then. Your original post just made it sound like "How DARE he guard an alternate path into his own base!!?" which is something I'd have no sympathy for. But if he stayed there even after it was clear that your team had stopped using that path it's a different story. Shame too, TF2 never struck me as the sort of game where people care about kill/death ratios which is the main reason for that sort of camping.Lilani said:
Well, not EVERY server shows your kill to death ratio. The server I happen to frequent does. It's set for capture the flag, but sometimes we just use it as a deathmatch server. That game was one of the times everybody was playing for the intel...but either that Heavy didn't get the memo or didn't care.Duskflamer said:
I don't necessarily like games that base the player's skill on a kill/death ratio. Likewise, I don't like game types that support this, such as deathmatch and team deathmatch. I prefer objective-oriented gameplay where you don't even necessarily have to have any kills in order to win. Players competing for kills will always develop "cheap" tactics that other players frown upon.
I look at it like this: in real life, a squad of soldiers doesn't rush into a terrorist hideout and camp corners, waiting for the kills to come to them, and they don't celebrate over their opponents' deaths. They're there to complete an objective as quickly and efficiently as possible, like defuse a bomb, secure a location, or rescue hostages (oh, hello, Counter-Strike).
I look at it like this: in real life, a squad of soldiers doesn't rush into a terrorist hideout and camp corners, waiting for the kills to come to them, and they don't celebrate over their opponents' deaths. They're there to complete an objective as quickly and efficiently as possible, like defuse a bomb, secure a location, or rescue hostages (oh, hello, Counter-Strike).
2 reasons.
The first is that it appears to take away agency. In a good game, a player makes a choice, based on information the game is giving them. They carry out that choice, and get feedback from there enviornment in a way that makes them feel like they had agency with the events. When a person dies to a camper, if that person doesn't recognize that anticipating campers is a part of the game, they feel like they have lost agency. It feels, "Cheap", and not as rewarding as a straight up fight where both players start on an even footing. This comes in a variety of flavors. Sometimes it happens in a fast paced game full of direct confrontations where camping may feel like a variation and additional, complicating tactical concern, OR a break from formula that hurts the pacing.
The other situation is where Camping is a strategy that limits the fun of the opposing team, all without providing a real advantage to the camper. For example, in TF2, sometimes snipers will camp a location that may get them a good K/D ratio, but won't really help them get their objectives. It's ultimately fruitless, but still annoying.
The first is that it appears to take away agency. In a good game, a player makes a choice, based on information the game is giving them. They carry out that choice, and get feedback from there enviornment in a way that makes them feel like they had agency with the events. When a person dies to a camper, if that person doesn't recognize that anticipating campers is a part of the game, they feel like they have lost agency. It feels, "Cheap", and not as rewarding as a straight up fight where both players start on an even footing. This comes in a variety of flavors. Sometimes it happens in a fast paced game full of direct confrontations where camping may feel like a variation and additional, complicating tactical concern, OR a break from formula that hurts the pacing.
The other situation is where Camping is a strategy that limits the fun of the opposing team, all without providing a real advantage to the camper. For example, in TF2, sometimes snipers will camp a location that may get them a good K/D ratio, but won't really help them get their objectives. It's ultimately fruitless, but still annoying.
Is it considered camping if I run from spot to spot and then wait for people to stumble past me, then silently finish them off?
I go around chokepoints and silently flank the enemy, then wreak havoc among the enemy.
I often end up kicked for "camping" and a high K/D.
(We're talking Battlefield)
I go around chokepoints and silently flank the enemy, then wreak havoc among the enemy.
I often end up kicked for "camping" and a high K/D.
(We're talking Battlefield)
Personally I see nothing wrong with camping unless it involves a bug.
All campers are doing is covering a sector and by covering that sector they stop the enemy from flanking their team. Thus, unless the teams are small, they are team players. If you are repeatedly being killed by a camper then you need to smart up and smoke his ass with a grenade, your own flanking move, a flash bang etc.
All campers are doing is covering a sector and by covering that sector they stop the enemy from flanking their team. Thus, unless the teams are small, they are team players. If you are repeatedly being killed by a camper then you need to smart up and smoke his ass with a grenade, your own flanking move, a flash bang etc.
If we're talking about spawn camping then it's an issue with a player picking people off before they've even had a chance to not be dead.
Now if we're talking about picking a spot of the map and turning it into your own little "fish in a barrel" scenario then that's just good tactics, and from what I understand the military uses it all the time because a leg up on your opponent is a leg up. It's annoying but hardly unbeatable.
Now if we're talking about picking a spot of the map and turning it into your own little "fish in a barrel" scenario then that's just good tactics, and from what I understand the military uses it all the time because a leg up on your opponent is a leg up. It's annoying but hardly unbeatable.