Stop Camping.....arghhh!

[Infam0us 10]

This is no offense to all those who fought in WWI ... but I suppose all those trench's in France where from people camping ... Come on, just get ove the fact that some people do it already!

[4 IN 1 0]

i see no problem in using every tactic that could be use to kill your enemy, but problem is that ppl seems to forgot that inorder the win the battle, they need to finish some of the objective being given/ appear over time when playing

[memnoch 0]

I agree with Aussie on this to a point. I don't agree with base raping at all but have no problem with camping. Look at it this way, if you are repeatedly being killed by someone sitting in one spot pretty much all the time then you are doing something wrong! Change your tactics, flank him and blow his arse to kingdom come! And now for my meds....

He's not blaming " camping " on people from the US

He's blaming " omgz, stop camping nub " on people from the US

Yeah, you can normally tell where people are from by their use of language. That fits the stereotype to a tee. Mind you, is it still fair to call them stereotypes if they are absolutely true?  

He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.

Sun Tzu

I like this SomethingAwful take on Sun Tzu:

"Master Sun said:

All warfare is based

On deception;

Have your army dress themselves

In the enemy's clothing

And sneak into their camp before dawn;

Then, when they least expect it,

Have your men disembowel themselves

Your enemy will think a large number

Of their own men have died

Score one for

Team awesome"

[wamingo 1]

No, here's when camping is actually a problem

When the game is round based and all from one team needs to die or a lengthy timer needs to reach zero. Then camping is a real pain as everyone has to wait because one guy, or worse, one from each team, is waiting in each their end of the map.

Coop without respawn is nortorious for this in very similar way actually. Everyone has to wait for the last guy to die - who just happens to be crawling around for 2 miles going "watch me stay alive like a pro, noobs". Of course that same guy is going to die first in the next mission. But anyway.

ArmA is not so much different than other games in one respect which is the first one to spot is usually the one who scores the kill. Perhaps less so than other games because of the precision needed and variety of weapons, but still very much so. So when the maps forces you to run across long stretches of land with no cover the map is obviously camper friendly. Most ctf and other pvp maps are very camper friendly because the goals are too defined. Capture THE flag, not a flag or some flag of many, but 1 static flag.

It's the mission design altogether that is the problem. CTF maps are being churned out by the dozen and they're almost all the same in the same limitedness.

[Lor 0]

Gentlemen, spawn camping may be -annoying-, but please remember that it is not the fault of the person who is DOING the spawn camping - it's the fault of the mission designer who put a spawn point out in the open somewhere. I mean, really, it's like having a triage station set up right on the runway in the open. No wonder people are getting gunned down.

If that happened in real life, you'd blame the guy who picked the base position, and the guy who built the base defenses, you wouldn't blame the enemy who were killing you! So blame the mission designers, and refuse to play on their badly designed maps.

Furthermore, if you have more than once spawn point to choose from, and one gets 'overrun' by spawn campers - just choose another one. Sure, you spawn far away, but you FAILED in defending the overrun spawn point adequately. You FAILED to anticipate, and prevent spawn camping strategies. And so, because of this, you've given up a strategic location to the enemy, and must re-take it from another place.

So, yes, spawn camping may be annoying, and perhaps a little unrealistic, but it's not the fault of the players. They aren't exploiting a bug in the game, or using a hack - they are overrunning a badly designed base, and a badly located spawn point. Blame the mission designers, and refuse to play their missions.

[memnoch 0]

The problem is the mission designers aren't there to moan at. The spawn camper is perceived to be getting some kind of free ride to a high score. That in turn is then observed as somehow cheating. Remember other FPS games where people would moan about "wall hacks" etc. When asked to present proof those people would suddenly go silent.

[Lor 0]

No, here's when camping is actually a problem

When the game is round based and all from one team needs to die or a lengthy timer needs to reach zero. Then camping is a real pain as everyone has to wait because one guy, or worse, one from each team, is waiting in each their end of the map.

Coop without respawn is nortorious for this in very similar way actually. Everyone has to wait for the last guy to die - who just happens to be crawling around for 2 miles going "watch me stay alive like a pro, noobs". Of course that same guy is going to die first in the next mission. But anyway.

COOP without respawn is great if the mission is well designed - and also, it really depends on the people you play with, and their attitudes.

I personally don't mind waiting 45 minutes for one guy to crawl around the map, trying to escape the enemy/complete the objective. That is mainly because I'm on teamspeak at the same time chatting with the rest of the squad who were killed. It's like watching a movie =D Not everyone will enjoy doing that, but then they shouldn't play coop without respawn.

But I do totally agree with your second point, the design of the missions is critical to the enjoyment and flow of the game.

[whisper 0]

So, yes, spawn camping may be annoying, and perhaps a little unrealistic, but it's not the fault of the players. They aren't exploiting a bug in the game, or using a hack - they are exploiting a badly designed base, and a badly located spawn point. Blame the mission designers, and refuse to play their missions.

I beg to differ : it's not a badly designed mission per se, it is done on purpose by the mission designer.

In such missions, you can spawn at a base to get into defensive position and take advantage of the available resources there (tanks, APC, helicopters, planes) as long as you keep the area clean. The attacker have to put the base itself in danger to clean the area and move in. It's the way it works. Once the defense is "overrun" (ie, camped), the best move is to step back on another base, get gear and vehicles, and come saving the base under attack. This system is used to give the attackers a way to clean the base free of ennemy, because the spawns are at the same location than the target base itself

Other game types work differently. See CTF : the spawn are not in flag position, but are defended against spawn camping (when mission is designed correctly). You, as attacker, can clean the area by stopping the defenders between their spawn point and their flag. different logic here.

Ofc, there can be some design issues. Typically, I think the "parachute respawn" option in Berzerk maps gives too much ease for remote base camping : you can kill defensless respawners from the safety of your own base while the are in their parachute, a bit too easy if you ask me.

A bit like the example given above of these hills east of the airfield in Airfield map which are easy camp points for West M1A1s, with a lil difference : M1s here are in the open, undefended, not too hard to dislodge. I've been able to stop them from going in position for a lengthy time with a unique BMP and its missile.

On another berzerk map with parachute respawn, a tank behind the hill at The Water can kill anyone respawning in the southern base without anyone able to target him if not at the Water itself. This is way more of a problem.

[Lor 0]

So, yes, spawn camping may be annoying, and perhaps a little unrealistic, but it's not the fault of the players. They aren't exploiting a bug in the game, or using a hack - they are exploiting a badly designed base, and a badly located spawn point. Blame the mission designers, and refuse to play their missions.

I beg to differ : it's not a badly designed mission per se, it is done on purpose by the mission designer.

In such missions, you can spawn at a base to get into defensive position and take advantage of the available resources there (tanks, APC, helicopters, planes) as long as you keep the area clean. The attacker have to put the base itself in danger to clean the area and move in. It's the way it works. Once the defense is "overrun" (ie, camped), the best move is to step back on another base, get gear and vehicles, and come saving the base under attack. This system is used to give the attackers a way to clean the base free of ennemy, because the spawns are at the same location than the target base itself

Other game types work differently. See CTF : the spawn are not in flag position, but are defended against spawn camping (when mission is designed correctly). You, as attacker, can clean the area by stopping the defenders between their spawn point and their flag. different logic here.

Ofc, there can be some design issues. Typically, I think the "parachute respawn" option in Berzerk maps gives too much ease for remote base camping : you can kill defensless respawners from the safety of your own base while the are in their parachute, a bit too easy if you ask me.

A bit like the example given above of these hills east of the airfield in Airfield map which are easy camp points for West M1A1s, with a lil difference : M1s here are in the open, undefended, not too hard to dislodge. I've been able to stop them from going in position for a lengthy time with a unique BMP and its missile.

On another berzerk map with parachute respawn, a tank behind the hill at The Water can kill anyone respawning in the southern base without anyone able to target him if not at the Water itself. This is way more of a problem.

Ahh, I see. Well, if it's done on purpose by the mission designer, there shouldn't be any problem! If people still complain, then that clearly means they just don't like the way the mission is designed, and once again, shouldn't play that mission.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Quote[/b] ]Stop Camping.....arghhh!, BF2 pussies

Grow up ArmA is suposed to be a pretty realistic game. And it's kinda realistic to use tactics like ambushing and sniping...

[4 IN 1 0]

i think whisper post sum it up pretty good

[BadBone 0]

Quote[/b] ]Stop Camping.....arghhh!, BF2 pussies

Grow up ArmA is suposed to be a pretty realistic game. And it's kinda realistic to use tactics like ambushing and sniping...

wow, you managed to read the header, now read the post ffs

I cannot believe someone would read the thread header and jump in with two feet posting a reply without reading the OP

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Reading the title "BF2 pussies" was enough for me.

[lockie1976 0]

yeah we had a guy that use to whine about us camping in tanks, then one game he decided to get behind us camping, creep up and lay satchels got me twice till I worked out what was going on... point is spend the time to rout us out instead of typing about how campers suck...

[whisper 0]

Reading the title "BF2 pussies" was enough for me.

But obviously not enough to understand the thread content

[Hit_Sqd_Ack 0]

What no "bunny hopping", or "dolphine diving"?

[BadBone 0]

Quote[/b] ]What no "bunny hopping", or "dolphine diving"?

[Major Fubar 0]

Too many OT replies, in a topic that has questionable worth to begin with = closure.