Well the game is suposed to be a 'tactical' shooter. I'd say camping is a legit tactic. That has a counter built into it all ready, grenades or counter sniping. Rushing with the care package glitch is bull. But the abilities are there for a reason, if all else fails, spec with a shield, if you don't pull it out it covers you back, makes it harder for the speed demons to kill you from behind that way.
Poll: Modern Warfare 2: Is "Rush" as bad as camping? Your Views?
- Thread starter jonnymobs
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I Rush sometimes so i have nothing against it, i rather like running around really fast, i rarely ever knife though, camping is alot worse, cause you usually get to see the guy and get a chance to kill him before he gets you, when people are camping you just get shot from a guy crouching in a random ass corner
I will rush everyone once in a while with my Witch class (Marathon Pro, Light weight Pro, Commando Pro and Martyrdom, with the SCAR and USP with Tactical Knife.) But I have no problem with camping unless the sit in a corner with the rangers or model 1887s. I never used the run with the Care Package glitch though.
They both bug me slightly, but if you can't figure out a way around them, you probably shouldn't be playing to win.
To put this in perspective, if EVERYBODY camps the game makes no progress and ends in a stalemate. If everybody rushes, the body count is absurd but a victor is found. Thus, in the most basic sense, rushing is superior to camping.
Let it be said however that many game modes need a certain percentage of the players on a team to camp unless said team possesses dramatically superior skill and ability to work as a team. Somebody has to slow down the opposition as they approach flags in domination for example. Even in Team Deathmatch the camper has a place, albiet an unpleasant one. Staying still often allows one to score easy kills, and in some cases may represent the only real hope of getting more than a few accidental kills a player has. It must be said that either extreme has it's flaws. Running into knife range will often get you shot in a hurry if your opponents are paying attention, and you are consistantly thrust into situations where enemies may appear from more spots than you can possibly counter yourself. The camper on the other hand is often alone in a place with two or even three entrances to cover and only themselves and perhaps a claymore to watch all of them. What's more, the static nature of the play style inherently means one can simply avoid them, or bypass the most reasonable avenue of approach and get an easy kill.
I would like to iterate once again however, that, at one time at least, there was a distinction between a camper and a defender. Back in the early days of online gaming (quake 1 for example) there were few pure DM maps - most were repurposed single player levels. As a result, from time to time one would be given a room with only one entrance with a desirabe item located inside (usually health and/or armor). Camping refered to the sort of player who literally sealed themselves inside this room with a rocket launcher pointed at the door. Since deathmatch was the order of the day, and since it took cooporation between multiple players to resolve the problem. camping was seen as the lowest form of gameplay.
Sniping has only relatively recently been considered camping since the job is often static in it's very nature. Certainly one does not expect the player with a single shot rifle to rush into the melee after all. The trouble I see with snipers in MOST games is they rarely actually further the team objectives. In many games, simply shooting people doesn't really accomplish anything other than inconviencing a player for a few moments. In games like Battlefield, I rarely saw snipers overlooking the enemy spawn or a friendly point, instead they would hide in the middle of nowhere and rack up meaningless kills. This sort of activity is still not camping in my book but it is fantastically annoying. They do nothing to further the objectives of my team and simply annoy the opposition and I have no use for such nonsense.
Of course, in modern games, often some sort of static objective is at stake. This could be a flag (CTF) a point (king of the hill) several points (domination) or some other high value target. Obviously these points need to be defended and the most logical thing to do is stay nearby. That said, in many games there are natural approaches that most players follow. Is a person lingering nearby to be considered a camper or a legitmate defender?
The trickiest thing is in games like MW2, the maps are quite tiny and there are distinct avenues of approach that can be controlled. A single skilled static player can utterly close off an avenue which is a boon to the defender's team. Because of the nature of how the maps of designed, there is always an alternate route and the camper can certainly be dealt with easily enough, even by a single player. It seems to me that level design alone has eliminated the camper as a problem in modern games and as such the static defender has taken on the title. No matter how irrating a camper can be in modern games, it doesn't hold a candle to the activity that spawned the name.
Let it be said however that many game modes need a certain percentage of the players on a team to camp unless said team possesses dramatically superior skill and ability to work as a team. Somebody has to slow down the opposition as they approach flags in domination for example. Even in Team Deathmatch the camper has a place, albiet an unpleasant one. Staying still often allows one to score easy kills, and in some cases may represent the only real hope of getting more than a few accidental kills a player has. It must be said that either extreme has it's flaws. Running into knife range will often get you shot in a hurry if your opponents are paying attention, and you are consistantly thrust into situations where enemies may appear from more spots than you can possibly counter yourself. The camper on the other hand is often alone in a place with two or even three entrances to cover and only themselves and perhaps a claymore to watch all of them. What's more, the static nature of the play style inherently means one can simply avoid them, or bypass the most reasonable avenue of approach and get an easy kill.
I would like to iterate once again however, that, at one time at least, there was a distinction between a camper and a defender. Back in the early days of online gaming (quake 1 for example) there were few pure DM maps - most were repurposed single player levels. As a result, from time to time one would be given a room with only one entrance with a desirabe item located inside (usually health and/or armor). Camping refered to the sort of player who literally sealed themselves inside this room with a rocket launcher pointed at the door. Since deathmatch was the order of the day, and since it took cooporation between multiple players to resolve the problem. camping was seen as the lowest form of gameplay.
Sniping has only relatively recently been considered camping since the job is often static in it's very nature. Certainly one does not expect the player with a single shot rifle to rush into the melee after all. The trouble I see with snipers in MOST games is they rarely actually further the team objectives. In many games, simply shooting people doesn't really accomplish anything other than inconviencing a player for a few moments. In games like Battlefield, I rarely saw snipers overlooking the enemy spawn or a friendly point, instead they would hide in the middle of nowhere and rack up meaningless kills. This sort of activity is still not camping in my book but it is fantastically annoying. They do nothing to further the objectives of my team and simply annoy the opposition and I have no use for such nonsense.
Of course, in modern games, often some sort of static objective is at stake. This could be a flag (CTF) a point (king of the hill) several points (domination) or some other high value target. Obviously these points need to be defended and the most logical thing to do is stay nearby. That said, in many games there are natural approaches that most players follow. Is a person lingering nearby to be considered a camper or a legitmate defender?
The trickiest thing is in games like MW2, the maps are quite tiny and there are distinct avenues of approach that can be controlled. A single skilled static player can utterly close off an avenue which is a boon to the defender's team. Because of the nature of how the maps of designed, there is always an alternate route and the camper can certainly be dealt with easily enough, even by a single player. It seems to me that level design alone has eliminated the camper as a problem in modern games and as such the static defender has taken on the title. No matter how irrating a camper can be in modern games, it doesn't hold a candle to the activity that spawned the name.
It has come to my conclusion that the best way to play an online FPS is to NOT play it at all, this way, you won't have to worry about campers, rushers, haxxorers, and interaction with other gamers who will kill you, a lot.
People who whines that much should really consider switching games, if you can't kill a camper, or rusher, if you really can't while everybody else is, then maybe you need to reconsider how you are playing the game. Now if everyone is having the same problem, then it's a severe design flaw in the game.
Just play the damn game the way you want to and have fun. And if you really are not having fun, damn it, find something else to do.
Note: This post wasn't directed at the OP, or God. But you, the eternal QQ'er.
People who whines that much should really consider switching games, if you can't kill a camper, or rusher, if you really can't while everybody else is, then maybe you need to reconsider how you are playing the game. Now if everyone is having the same problem, then it's a severe design flaw in the game.
Just play the damn game the way you want to and have fun. And if you really are not having fun, damn it, find something else to do.
Note: This post wasn't directed at the OP, or God. But you, the eternal QQ'er.
R. Also, ninja noobs are the worst (after M203 "noob-tubers").
I personally prefer to be a rush/runner. I personally find camping boring, I've tried it a couple time, but sitting in a window and just starting out at nothing hoping to catch a glimpse of an enemy that sometimes doesn't even come gets tedious and the second I leave my spot some one spots me and blows my brains out. Though I must say two campers watching each others back is somewhat more annoying and harder to kill than two rushers running around.
Also, I'm surprised people generally just call knifers runners/rushers when machine pistols/ akimbo shotties can be just as stronger and in some cases stronger. Hell I've seen a runner with dual G18s take out an entire room (like 6 guys) with a single clip.
Also, I'm surprised people generally just call knifers runners/rushers when machine pistols/ akimbo shotties can be just as stronger and in some cases stronger. Hell I've seen a runner with dual G18s take out an entire room (like 6 guys) with a single clip.
wow, you're a major douche. not only do you ruin the game for everyone else, but "for fun" is just another way of saying "I suck so I cheat." I've tried a couple of glitches back when I was like 14 (like infinite money in Fable, invincibility in starcraft, etc.), and they in no way made the game more fun. they ruined the game and I'm happy I always saved before doing them. glitching in MW2 is just a way for you to level up faster or have a good record or whatever reason you do it (which, again, the reason can't be for fun)Random Bobcat said:
back on topic though, I don't think rushing or camping are unfair. camping can feel like it's a dirty tactic at times, but the carful player shouldn't have major problems with people who do it
Camping and rushing are both valid strategies that are beatable.
I don't really see what all the complaints are about. It seems childish to think if someone isn't playing the exact way you want them too, that it's cheating.
I don't really see what all the complaints are about. It seems childish to think if someone isn't playing the exact way you want them too, that it's cheating.
When you say 'rush' you're not really meaning rushers, more the knife whores. I'm fine with them so long as they don't use commando. That's such a dumb perk, being able to basically teleport three metres in order to stab someone.
Stopped playing MW2 a while ago, simply because the community (on both consoles) is even worse than the Halo community, and 90% of the people either camp or rush, and there are no actual tactics behind the game anymore. Moved on to MAG, and occasionally even back to Halo instead.
Still, I didn't find the rushers as bad as the campers. can still be rather effectively killed, as long as you dont try to snipe or knife them (I hate commando).
Still, I didn't find the rushers as bad as the campers. can still be rather effectively killed, as long as you dont try to snipe or knife them (I hate commando).
