Campers

Post » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:14 am

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


Well reasoned for what its worth.


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


2-3 shots or kills then move because any decent players will be zeroing in on you.
User avatar
asako
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:16 am

Post » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:26 am

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


Well reasoned for what its worth.


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


2-3 shots or kills then move because any decent players will be zeroing in on you.
User avatar
Blessed DIVA
 
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:09 am

Post » Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:29 pm

It depends on how people are used to playing, if theyre used to camping on other games its only natural theyll try their "favourable" methods on BRINK. Depends on the inscentive given to do objectives and what not aswell, I hope camping doesnt work on this game but I have no idea what the health levels/bullet damage or aiming will be like (skillwise).
User avatar
RUby DIaz
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:18 am

Post » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:07 am

After reading all your responses i started thinking that camping for many is just staying in a favorable and hard to get to position that allows you easy kills. Then just as many call that either being helpful to their cause or going rouge. Hell the way I see it. As long as they don't have direct access to my spawn point to kill everyone or lob a grenade and do just the same. I don't really think it's a bad thing. Hell defending an area is camping in a sense. Doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. Hell why not just change the term? Because as more fps games come out there will ALWAYS be a way to easily get kills. Brink just makes it harder to do. So "campers"/"squatters"? will always make an appearance that's just something that is going to happen. But as I stated earlier. As long as they aren't "spawn camping" than what is everyone arguing about? a legitimate tactic that people call by all sorts of names?

Keep in mind I'm the type of player who runs around with the mini-gun cleaning all the ugly in the hallways. (Due to my lack of accuracy/patience)
Or the guy with the med kit doing much the same anyway.
User avatar
Jade MacSpade
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:53 pm

Post » Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:44 am

I'm surprised that this topic is still going. With SMART, the current damage system and XP system, camping will be easy to counter and pretty pointless unless it's near an objective. Guess what, camping near the objective is required in these kinds of games.
With that out of the way I will leave this topic, because imho further discussion is pointless.
User avatar
Tamika Jett
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:44 am

Post » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:25 am

Some reasons why camping won't be a really viable tactic:

- No OHK's and it takes more bullets to kill in general, compared to other games.
- Firing your weapon puts you on the radar, unless you counter it by using a silencer (which will probably have it's own disadvantages as well)
- An enemy pointing crosshairs at you puts you on the radar. - It's like spotting in BC2, but it's done automatically.
- no killstreaks
- if you're not near the objective, you get crappy xp for kills.
User avatar
Jessie Butterfield
 
Posts: 3453
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:59 pm

Post » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:12 am

for brink camping probably wont work due to the fast movement and if they tried to attack while camping they would fail


In my opinion it depends on how fast it takes to die and how powerful the weapons are. Not to mention the audio in the game, if I can pinpoint my opponent with footsteps sneaking will be very powerful. Lastly, the layout of the maps will play a big part as to whether camping is a viable option.
User avatar
Cameron Wood
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Post » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:29 pm

Some reasons why camping won't be a really viable tactic:

- No OHK's and it takes more bullets to kill in general, compared to other games.
- Firing your weapon puts you on the radar, unless you counter it by using a silencer (which will probably have it's own disadvantages as well)
- An enemy pointing crosshairs at you puts you on the radar. - It's like spotting in BC2, but it's done automatically.
- no killstreaks
- if you're not near the objective, you get crappy xp for kills.


So camp the objective. You can't defend if you are no where nearby.
User avatar
Ridhwan Hemsome
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 2:13 pm

Post » Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:41 pm

I can't believe the difference between "camping" and area denial hasn't been universally mitigated here yet. Even protecting command posts is going to be a legit tactical decision, not necessarily just some method for poor players to make themselves feel useful.
User avatar
John N
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Previous

Return to Othor Games