I hope they have a spiked mohawk and those goggles. :teehee: (In fact, I really wish they had those goggles, I love em. But my Resistance-Character probably won't look like that. Fun fact: That one is a cop.)


Or you sit in a tight spot with a shotgun.

But you can also do the sniping-thing with an Assault Rifle and the shotgun-job with a SMG.

Wow, people here have no clue what "camping" is, do they?

How can you POSSIBLY be camping with a sniper-rifle? Am I supposed to be running around quick-scoping people like in COD or Halo in order for you not to peg me as a camper? Snipers are supposed to find secluded, hard-to-reach places (if they're smart) to pick off people from a distance .. that's why they have a sniper-rifle!

Defending objectives is camping here .. sniping is camping here .. what's next from this thread?

...whoops.


True; I'd just suggest a shotgun and/or a sniper rifle because they're often the ones that can do a one-hit kill as long as you hit the upper body.

there is no sniper and an assualt rifle will at least take two or three shots in the head to kill you

Actually that is the light rifle in 2-3 (maybe) asaault rifle more like 3-6 but assault rifle has better ROF.

that makes it a lot harder

I can't believe Depends is really high in votes. :blink:

It's not like we know for sure until May 17.

Hmm, well yeah that is true.
Feels like I should change my vote to depends. :homestar:

well based off the information we have been given so far, it looks like camping wont be a big factor in the game

Well, this is an objective based game, therefore camping might end up being more prevalent than expected...depending on your definition of camping. Passive defences of a capture point could be considered camping by some (just imagine someone camping the crane in Container City...).

I'm far from set on this point. Good map design should prevent it being such a big issue, time will tell, really

I hate when people see you defending an objective, and say you're camping. You're clearly gaurding and defending an objective, but it's their def., so whatever I guess. :glare:

While I agree with you, we both know all too well that not everyone does (while some do only when THEY are on defence)

Exactly, but I see more people defending the objective (by supposedly "Camping" in some other peoples definitons) in Brink. :thumbsup:

Most likely, sad to say, camping will work. You don't need to have a sniper to camp, you just have to be someone who likes to ruin the game for others. If there's a corner worth hiding behind, someone will be. The parkour may make that difficult, but people will find ways around that. Face the facts, camping is in every game and unless your landscape is a 10 x 10 box, people will camp.

There will ALWAYS be campers.

All these people voting "No," that's just wishful thinking.

the question wasnt asking if people will camp it is asking if it will work

Camping is something which works per se.
Just like any other "tactic", it's effectiveness is soley measured by the skill of a player.

In that case the question really is whether or not Brink will be favorable to campers in terms of environments, kill times, etc. Personally, I say it will not. With S.M.A.R.T. players will have multiple routes they can take to get to the objectives. A camper hiding out in some obscure corner of the map is not likely to get any traffic at all. And while he might ruin the game for one unlucky player he is not helping his team at all and he will get very, very little exp.

But let's say he camps a high-traffic area. Perfectly feasible. In Brink teamwork is one of the major elements of the game. Unless you're an Operative sneaking around, you are likely to have your friends and allies nearby, if not right behind you. If a camper takes you out they'll know where he is, and can deal with him expediently.

Now there's kill times. Unlike CoD, killing people takes quite a few bullets in Brink. Unless the camper is using an automatic shotgun you will probably have enough time to realize where the camper is and begin to shoot back, or maybe even duck back behind cover and lob a grenade. You're still not all that likely to win the fight, but he won't be dropping you instantly either. Not to mention that if you look at him he will be marked on your team's radar.

So overall, while I'm sure people will try it, I don't think Brink will look too kindly upon that kind of "playing," if you can call camping playing. No, I don't think defending an area is camping. I think waiting in a corner ADS'ing at a doorway is camping.

It's so funny to me that people still complain about 'camping'. Sorry to ruin it for you, but there is NO such thing as camping. If you think about it logically, from a military-like tactics standpoint, it is a tactical lack of movement. If a person makes the decision to lock down a certain area to limit enemy traffic/movement in that area, that is tactical and can benefit their team. Regardless of where on the map a defender is, if someone is on defense 'camping' is a mute term. Defense/defending, that means I have some sort of objective that warrants my protection in order for me to win the round. No matter where I am on the map, if I am hindering the attacking force's ability to take my objective, I am preforming a tactical duty benefiting my teams.


Yes, I will acknowledge that some people who go rogue, in pretty much every shooter of all time, do not benefit their team much. I also agree that when they are on my team, and they are proving irrelevant to the game in terms of victory and/or objectives, it bothers me too. But if you are getting killed over and over by an enemy who is locking down an area, in some sort of hard to reach or dug in position, saying they are 'camping' makes no sense at all. If anything, how smart are you for going back towards them over and over getting killed? You change YOUR tactics, rethink YOUR strategy, and with your team, execute it to either bypass or flank them to remove them from the defensive position. As a defender, it is not my objective to stay mobile so I don't sink into imaginary quicksand. It is your objective to MAKE me move via death or fear (digital fear, but fear lol).


I also admit the semi-intense frustration felt when on an attacking force, the majority of a team will NOT go for an objective at all (generalized examples being RUSH in bfbc2, any game mode in cod). While sometimes useless to the objective/goal of TEAM victory rather than personal k/d ratio, staying back is also a tactical choice. Depending on the game being played, long range coverage of the objective can be useful (defending a planted OBJ with mortars/sniping in bfbc2, or providing a forward spawn point).


As pointed out by some other people, but I'll repeat it for argument's sake, a sniper is generally NOT meant to run and gun. They find a position that is hard to flank and has an effectively large area that he/she can scan and fire in. Objectives are TAILOR MADE for a sniper or shotgun user on defense. Doesn't really matter how long it takes, sooner or later the attacker HAS to come to one place, and guess where the cross-hairs/iron-sights are staring. Also, a shotgun has a clearly limited range. Why would a logical person using a shotgun start down a street sprinting at you (with lets say an assault rifle or grenade launcher). He positions himself so that, once again, it is difficult to flank his position, and if it can be helped, have a fatal funnel area to maximize the effectiveness of his weapon.


Of course this is just my opinion, so you can agree, disagree, or set it on fire :flamethrower: I just wanted to point out the glaring flaws of the 'camper' concept in video games.
Now that I've made my argument, now I'll continue :brokencomputer: problem solving :brokencomputer: trying to find a way into the BRINK closed beta ;p

Good luck, my friend, you will need it

Finally somebody who understands

hey if bringing logic into the discussion is wrong, I don't wanna be right :toughninja:
if you (being an enemy) run into my area and get killed 5 times in a row, doesn't that say more about the nub running into slaughter over and over again? don't try to label the guy winning to justify your fail i.m.h.o.
:gun: + :ahhh: = :rofl:

snipers aren't run and gun, but they're certainly shoot and scoot. Hiding behind some crates and waiting half the game for someone to appear in your sights to headshot them is called camping on PC. on consoles it seems to be called tactics

I only play shooters on PC, so I'm gonna disagree with you there. It is a slightly dated example, but wth I'll use it. You are saying that on de_dust2 on counterstrike/css a CT w/ a sniper rifle sitting behind a box at bombsite B waiting for an enemy to come around the tunnel to shoot him, staying at that objective for the majority of the round, is "camping"? He's locking down an area from the enemy. smoke grenade, flash-bang, and take him out ninja style :toughninja:
Personally, I wouldn't recommend sitting zoomed in at a door for a whole game, but some people are weird like that just waiting for any movement to twitch and shoot. Whether their smart enough to do it near an objective or in a random corner of the map, it is still a tactical choice. The fact that their position COULD be irrelevant to the objective just makes their tactic flawed. Once again...no such thing as camping :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: