Poll: Camping in Gaming

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Camping may get you a couple of kills, but if the other side is working as an effective team then they should know where you are then and do something about it.

The best campers are ones that flit between 3-4 positions, not just a single door or pinch point. This gives the illusion on manoeuvre, defence by not being bogged down, but also allows a greater hold on your position.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I never play FPS games competitively so, pardon my ignorance, but I must ask... "camping" is when you remain in one position with a long-range weapon such as a sniper rifle, yes?

if so, then... aren't you using the weapon EXACTLY the way it was intended to be used? what's the alternative? running up to enemies with your long range weapon and firing from the hip?

Camping is a little more broad than that. You can use any weapon and be at any range. The degree of movement is also, to some extent, debatable. Some would argue that camping is simply sitting in a corner or some odd hiding place waiting for someone to come by. Others would extend this to doing something like holding one (possibly two) buildings and killing anyone who comes by, but this requires some movement around the area to be effective. This is why, at least in some communities, they have names like "corner camping" and "tactical camping" respectively.

Unfortunately, it sort of has become the quick go-to accusation against "cheap" players. Most games offer a way to deal with campers, or they can at least be dealt with through simple map knowledge. However, it is a lot easier to blame someone for a "cheap" tactic than it is to change your own strategy or take the time to learn the map and become good at playing it. And that isn't to say that camping is never cheap. It can certainly be a rather cheap (and semi-hilarious) way to grab a kill or two against a careless or inexperienced player. The problem comes when people seem to think that it is illegitimate, which it is anything but. Done as more than just the easy way to grab a kill against certain players, it is actually a very important part of competitive play in some games.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Camping is a legitimate strategy, whether you should use it is entirely situational.

If you're a good player, i.e. play competitively, then you'll know that camping violates some of the fundamental rules of killing.

1. never stay still, always keep moving, a moving target is harder to hit and kill than one that is standing still, furthermore, your awareness is dependent on what you can see and hear and if you're moving around more you'll know what's going on. If you stay still you won't know what's going on and it's easier to get backraped or out flanked.

2. A good killer will be proactive and look for kills. Sure, camping might get you the odd kill now and then but you'll get more if you go looking for people to kill, if you have the skill to do this of course.

Having said that, some mission modes require you to camp in order to defend the objective. That's fine but if you're going to be defending an area i.e. area control, then you should do it in a coordinated way with your teammates utilizing cover, crossfires and kill zones etc.

 

[Albino Boo]

I'm providing support fire:

Translation: I'm taking long range post shots and getting 3 kills in 10 minutes

I'm defending

Translation: I am looking at the cap while the other team caps it.


If you don't play the objective in team games then you are a waste of a slot. The team that wins on most pub servers is the one with the lest number of campers. If you team has more people playing the objective than the other then you win. Its not about doing repeated frontal attacks its about using your brain. Shooting someone in the back in much easier than shooting someone in the front. Hard and fast flanking will win, being a woodland fairy and hiding will not. I don't have the fastest reactions and I have played on US servers with pings in the 100 region and yet I still average a Kpd of 1.5-1.75 and a win/loss ratio of around 2 to 1. Thats over 3200 hours of fps gaming.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Camping is great. I camp areas not spots get my kill change angles be somewhere bizzare and you can keep killing them through multiple spawns. Plus more players start coming to your spot=more kills. Thats in tdm in objective games snipers piss me off when they aren't covering objectives sure defending A gets you a free kill every minute or so but really come help us out on pushing B respawners can cover A.

EDIT what dude said above me.

 

[PolarBearClub]

I've been playing a lot of Advanced Warfare recently. My go-to game mode is Hardcore Kill Confirmed, because for the most part it forces people out to collect the tags.

Saying that, however, I regularly top the scoreboards at the end of a match, not just down to most kills, but because the tags I've collected are usually within a couple of my total kills. I don't understand when you see someone crouched in a corner, racking up kills but not contributing towards winning the game.

It also strikes me as a very boring way to play. Especially with AW's emphasis on speed, I spend the round zipping around the map.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

No, but it is incredibly boring. I used to camp in MW2, stealthing between multiple spots throughout each level and generally using very sneaky tactics (which didn't go down well, the number of 'unsporting conduct' complains my gamer profile notched up during that time attests to that), and it is a valid tactic in most game-modes. But it's just not fun. Satisfying, maybe, but not fun. I'll take a 25 kill/10 death scorecard in which I've been constantly on the move, flanking the enemy, dashing in to capture flags and generally hooning about over a 15 kill / 0 death scorecard in which I've stayed on the fringes of the action, staring intently through my scope and picking off the odd straggler any day of the week.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Camping is perfectly fine. It can be annoying when you're on the receiving end but you just have to learn to adjust your tactics.

I don't get why people complain in objective based games where the entire point of the game is to defend the objective. I haven't played Call of Duty in a while but my favourite mode was Search and Destroy where if you die you stay dead for the rest of the round and you have to either plant a bomb at one of two objectives or defend the objectives. It's happened to me more than once, people on the other side complained because I was defending the objective.

I don't bother with Call of Duty anymore, hate the yearly release, having to grind just to get the equipment I need to play Search and Destroy and how after two years few people will be playing and hackers run rampent. I know Counter Strike is the game that Search and Destroy is based on, maybe I'll try that at some point in the future.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Camping, aka "For the love of God people smoke grenades are actually useful."

Yeah, it's a legit strategy, if not a particularly good one. People often just suck fighting it.

 

[Bat Vader]

Every military around the world does it. It's a viable tactic that spotters and snipers use. If they stay for a prolonged period of time though the enemy can figure out where the shots are coming from and focus their fire on that area. There is a risk to it. I have never understood why some people get so angry over it. As long as people aren't cheating they should be allowed to play however they want to play.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Using a sniper the way it's meant to be used doesn't really count as camping in my mind. Now hiding in a corner in Team Deathmatch, that's some bullshit right there.
Then again, in an objective game (which almost all games are these days), I'd take a guy camping with a shotgun near the oobjective over a useless sniper anyday.

I have no problems with 'campers' really, it's snipers that give me the shits.

Unless they're the 1 in 50 who actually know what the fuck to do, like find a good place where your team can spawn on you close-ish to the action, have eyes on the objective and the enemy side of the field, actually hit your fucking shots, know when it's time to move in and back up the team etc,.

Now those snipers I like.

 

[duwenbasden]

Only to a point when it is obvious the camping is no longer giving any chance to the other team, thus giving them no reason to continue playing. There is a reason why Brazil scored a goal in that World Cup finals game, and Germany stopped after 7. Yes, you can say it is a valid strategy to keep scoring, but it'll no longer be enjoyable for both side if the other side just AFK, since there is no difference between that and spending the energy just to get killed.

Spawn camp -- no, you do not spawn camp, ever, for the same reason stated above.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

I've never played many online games, but couldn't the camping problem be solved by playing in teams and having at least one team member act as a counter sniper?

That is generally the best way to play as a sniper in a video game (though I've always felt (designated) marksman/sharpshooter was a more accurate description), you first eliminate the enemy sniper (your primary threat, and the threat your team will have the most difficulty with), then proceed to act as long-range support while your close and medium range guys take/control objectives.

However, most players will not do this. They simply identify the sniper as a low risk : high potential reward weapon. They won't think in terms of "What can I do to help the team win?" or "Where are my skills best put to use in this game/match?" but rather "Which weapon will get me the highest K?"

Artillery in World of Tanks is somewhat analagous to snipers in fps games. Long range, high damage, (usually) low rate of fire. In arty, you can camp. However, the most effective artillery players are usually mobile, relocating to prevent counter-battery from enemy artillery, to shoot around cover, and cause confusion and panic in the enemy team. Effective snipers in games tend to operate similarly. The biggest difference between arty and snipers, is that while a sniper can be at least somewhat effective without support, artillery relies on it's team mates to find targets and protect it (Arty can't see as far as other classes so they rely on others to report enemy positions). However, both are vastly more effective when supporting friendly forces than when trying to maximise their own kills/damage.

 

[HardkorSB]

I like camping in games:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler: conclusion

Square likes to do camping

 

[sanquin]

In an actual match it's perfectly legitimate to camp. Because then any tactic to win is allowed. But public games are about fun and a little sportsmanship. Camping is cheap, far easier than walking around. So in public games people see it as un-sportsmanlike and cheap. And people don't like those kinds of players.

 

[seris]

while camping can be cheap, it can be a dumb move by both players or one or the other can either pick up on the other player being in the same spot every time or the camper can move to a new position to throw you off.

 

[NoX 9]

I actually thought this would be about tents, campfires and scary stories. My friends and I used to do this in the Fallen Earth MMO... Good times.

---

In an actual match it's perfectly legitimate to camp. Because then any tactic to win is allowed.

My issue with 'camping' isn't it's stationary nature though, it is more that 'win' part. Some players have no awareness of how the game is evolving, and will remain in the very same spot no matter what. See this quite a bit in Warthunder GF, where map control is extremely important for a win. They will occupy a tiny flake of land, letting their enemy manouver as they see fit on the rest of it.

The 'rush and die' guys are equally annoying though, and often the same ones to cry "noob camper team" in chat when they die.

 

[Malbourne]

This seems like a good question for weeding out those of us who haven't played FPS's nearly as much as RPG's.

I like camping. Sometimes it's nice to just take in the sights while you wait for someone to wander into your scope sight. It can be boring sometimes, which is why I prefer playing more dynamically, but it gets the job done for certain missions like capture points. It's also the best I can do in certain games where the players are much more proactive, knowledgeable, or experienced.

 

[Casual Shinji]

In Modern Warfare 2 there was a map that was a field with trenches and a bunker right in the middle. It was basically made for camping.

I was always under the impression that it was designed for snipers to sit back and for everyone else to spam noob tubes endlessly in the middle. But I'm not fond of MW2 so I could be seeing that completely wrong.

I just know I always made a mad dash for that bunker, because of the meriad of air assaults people could unleash on you. If your team was locked outside with someone on the bunker team calling in an attack chopper, you basically already lost that match.

 

[Username Redacted]

Is camping in games wrong? Short answer: no. Longer answer:

No and if it's something that bothers you then it's on you to learn how to deal with it OR, in extraordinarily rare scenarios, the developer to re-balance their game so that sitting in one spot isn't a dominant strategy. Complaining about a tactic like this just makes you look like a ***** and/or ***** and/or sore loser and/or ***** and while I no longer play shooters on the regular this sort of discussion/complaint can easily extend to almost all competitive multi-player games (MOBAs, fighting games, etc.) as figuring out how to deal with the most obvious space control tools that the game allows for is critical to improving at the game. Whether that's a sniper rifle, a hadoken or whatever (lack of familiarity with MOBAs showing through) shouldn't matter and isn't something that I take complaints about seriously as it's usually coming from someone who's losing to the same thing over and over again but who refuses to improve/adapt.