Kurokami said:
hURR dURR dERP said:
Kurokami said:
hURR dURR dERP said:
There's nothing wrong with spawn camping.
There's a lot wrong with games where spawn camping is an unbeatable tactic, there's a lot wrong with players who can only win by spawn camping, and there's a lot wrong with players who simply suck too much at the game to overcome spawn camping. But there is nothing wrong with spawn camping itself.
You managed to state your answer but you have to show your working too.
Eh, what? You mean explain the reasoning behind my answer?
My reason is that spawn camping is a viable strategy, and that any rule against spawn camping is neither warranted nor enforcable. People who whine about spawn camping are usually just bad players who can't think of a way to beat the spawncamper. If there really
is no way to beat spawncampers, you're just playing a badly designed game and should blame the developers, not the guy who uses a winning tactic.
In short: Hate the game, not the player.
Oh, but I do so hate the players, don't get me wrong I also hate the develepers but I don't see this as a legitimate strategy, you're saying its only bad players that can't get out? Its only bad players that can't keep their damn crossheirs fixed on a target that's unfortunate enough to have his back turned against you. I don't take particular offense against your point of view as this is the reason I often don't bother with FPS', because the aim isn't to play the game so much as it is to win it. By your logic if everyone had the ability to simply type kill in console and have it work it would be perfectly legitimate and instead of saying that its a stupid approach to the game we should call the developers and force them to have an epipheny instructing them to stop making shitty and generic games.
Also, I thought the maths reference was pretty simple.
endofhorriblerant
Eh, it's not a horrible rant. I don't mind you having an opinion. I just disagree with you and, while I certainly see your point, I don't think it's an entirely valid one. If there was a game where typing "kill player" would let you win, you'd blame it on the
players? Who were the ones who put the function in the game to begin with? I would never play such a horrible game, and I honestly don't see why anyone would.
Also, the reason I missed he reference is mostly because English isn't my native tongue, and while I'm reasonably proficient at conversational English, catchin math references in a foreign language is a bit above my level.
Anyway, to explain my point of view a bit better: For the sake of example, let's break the spawn camp 'abuse' situation down in two parts: One part is whether or not the tactic used is unbeatable, and the other is whether or not the player using the tactic is doing so because it's the only way he can win.
Situation one: The tactic is unbeatable, and using it is the only way the 'cheap' player can win.
In this situation, there's a clear flaw in the game's setup that allows one tactic to beat all other possible tactics. This is clearly the fault of the developer, since they allowed the game to get unbalanced. The player using the tactic is playing to win, but he isn't particularly skilled: If it wasn't for that one tactic, you'd be able to beat him. But if you really are able to beat him, why aren't you able to beat him at his own game? Apparently, he's just better than you, either because you simply suck or because you refuse to use a winning strategy. Either way, the developers are the bad guys and the 'cheap' player deserves the win for doing what is necessary to get that win. If you can't stomach the idea that one tactic beats all (and honestly, that's a perfectly normal thing: I wouldn't either), you simply shouldn't be playing such a shitty game.
Situation two: The tactic is unbeatable, and the 'cheap' player can win any way he wants to.
In this case, the player is simply better than you. Whether or not he uses the unbeatable tactic, he'll still beat you. The most likely reason he uses the tactic is either because he doesn't know you suck, or he just wants you prevent you from doing the same thing yourself and land him in the losing position of situation one. Again, the developers fucked up and the 'cheap' player deserves the win.
Situation three: The tactic is not unbeatable, but it's still the only way the 'cheap' player can win.
In this case, the fault is entirely yours. If the tactic can be beaten and the other player is worse than you when not using that tactic, then you should be wiping the floor with the scrub. If you keep getting killed over and over again by a player who's less skilled than you, you should either learn to beat his tactic, or start wondering whether you really are good enough to beat him normally.
Situation four: The tactic is not unbeatable, and the 'cheap' player can win any way he wants to.
In this case you're just fucked. It doesn't matter why the opponent chooses to use the 'cheap' tactic, because he'll beat you any way you play. In this situation there really isn't any fault to speak of, other than that you're just not skilled enough. And if you start whining because the other guy was simply
better than you, you've really reached rock bottom, and probably shouldn't play online games anymore.