[QUOTE=iwound;411670]can we stop using the word campers in a derogatory way. we all do it so stop using it as a way to get your paticular thang introduced.
if people want to run, let 'em and become a nice big juicy target.[/QUOTE]
I like your point of view.
Initial Gut Feedback
Dragonji
(Dragonji)
#101
tokamak
(tokamak)
#102
Yes! It’s especially stupid when spoken of in the context of a game where one team is supposed to hold and defend positions.
Thundermuffin
(Thundermuffin)
#104
[QUOTE=iwound;411670]can we stop using the word campers in a derogatory way. we all do it so stop using it as a way to get your paticular thang introduced.
if people want to run, let 'em and become a nice big juicy target.[/QUOTE]
We all do camp to a certain degree in objective games, yes. I can even admit I did it in ETQW/BRINK and I’ll probably even find times where I do it in DB; however, if the game encourages camping by limiting your ability to move swiftly across the battlefield, then the camping that results from that is not good. While camping shouldn’t be a death sentence, it shouldn’t end up as one of the most viable options for almost every objective; instead, it should be good on certain ones, but I feel like games should make you be aggressive.
You should have to work for the kill, not sit behind a box; and if you are to sit behind a box, the other player should be able to use his movement and aiming to be able to beat you.
To be honest, in DB you are a nice big juicy target right now when you run; you can’t really jump to dodge, nor can you strafejump. Every time I see someone sprinting I automatically know as long as they don’t see me first (and my ping doesn’t hate me at that moment), I have the kill. SD doesn’t need to make you anymore of a target, they need to make you less of one and limiting sprint does the exact opposite of that.
Holding and defending positions does not mean the players have to be completely static all the time; if the game will actually encourage that, then please count me out. Even in Counter-Strike if you stay static long enough or through enough rounds, you will be one-deagled and that spot will be denied to you for the rest of the game by someone who is faster than you getting to it (notice how movement comes up here again?).
Camping doesn’t equate to long term success in any good game; by limiting sprinting you are telling the player he or she should play passively and that if someone is sprinting then they are either trying to escape from a duel, an objective class, or setting up a plan. That’s a lot of information to gather based on someone sprinting near an objective, when in reality everyone should be sprinting. If this game is to be made for the PC crowd and by the people who made such great games like ETQW and ET, the game has to be fast paced and limiting sprint cannot accomplish that.
If you want an example of how much sprinting can affect a game, please look at the difference between ETQW and Bad Company 2’s Rush mode; both games have defend objectives, but BC2 moves at a snails pace the entire time. ETQW always felt like you were going fast and were able to react to surprises by sprinting and strafejumping away. You were rarely caught in a situation where you had no control over your death, because you had that freedom of movement (and not in a BRINK sort of way); in stark contrast to that, sprinting in BC2 was almost a certain death and besides getting somewhere faster there wasn’t really an upside to it as I always felt so punished for doing it. ETQW made me feel empowered and like I could handle a 2v1 situation, but BC2 always made me feel like I was punished and the defense had the upperhand because I was either too immobile or a sprinting hulk-sized war hero who couldn’t react because sprinting demolished accuracy too much.
tokamak
(tokamak)
#105
I have this ridiculous notion that defenders should have an advantage to compensate for the initiative that attackers get. Attackers get to decide when or where to attack and defenders will have to respond. If a defender anticipates properly and has an ambush ready then I believe he deserves an edge on the moving incoming target.
Games where moving and firing is tantamount are fun but the problem with that is that well, they already do it so perfectly that there’s no way any game will every substantially improve on that any more.
Thundermuffin
(Thundermuffin)
#107
[QUOTE=tokamak;411754]I have this ridiculous notion that defenders should have an advantage to compensate for the initiative that attackers get. Attackers get to decide when or where to attack and defenders will have to respond. If a defender anticipates properly and has an ambush ready then I believe he deserves an edge on the moving incoming target.
Games where moving and firing is tantamount are fun but the problem with that is that well, they already do it so perfectly that there’s no way any game will every substantially improve on that any more.[/QUOTE]
The defenders already do have an advantage, but they have to be willing to utilize it.
The entire defense should not sit back at the objective, but instead they should be pushing forward and backing the offense up; in doing so, they are then able to decide when and where attacks happen, because they control the clock, the available routes and the best positions.
This creates a tug of war type of gameplay where the offense has to also be defensive and the defense has to be offensive; one team cannot focus solely on one or the other and continuously attack/defend. If they do put all their attention to one method and somehow they mess it up, they should be punished for it–not by the game, but the other team.
I’m really starting to digress here, but, in the end, offense and defense should be able to play their opposite role and either team should feel as if they are able to control the battle because if they play an aggressive playstyle they do have that ability. If you’d like an example of what I mean, I thought of a good one, but then my post becomes almost a novel. 
iwound
(iwound)
#108
camping has too broard a definition to be used in describing gameplay. better to explain the context as well.
is it takin cover or sitting in cover for 5 mins or 10 mins+
if someone is using cover to stop your progres then you must flank them. if the level doesnt allow it then its a bug
as a level must allow progress.
a person can only camp for as long as you allow it. after you weigh up the decision to go for them or risk going direct to objective.
tbh i havnt seen much defencive cover lasting that long. trickier to kill a sniper on attack that sits behind front lines in saftey as the levels are so tight and restrictve that trying to take him/her out is just not worth it.
atm i die mostly coming out of spawn on defence, bottom on my list of issues is any form of camping.
Thundermuffin
(Thundermuffin)
#109
As the game stands right now, there isn’t a lot of camping (however, I have found completely legit spots where if I had a field ops I would be set to rack up kills upon kills, so just wait for the actual game when bunches of comp teams arrive, lol); however, if you actually read what I said it is the limiting of sprint that will cause an increase in camping, because teams won’t want to push out and no one wants to make any aggressive plays besides the offense.
Humate
(Humate)
#110
camping has too broard a definition to be used in describing gameplay. better to explain the context as well.
is it takin cover or sitting in cover for 5 mins or 10 mins+
Damage model/movement determines whether camping or flanking is seen in a negative context.
In a 3hs system where the rate of fire is pretty slow and lateral movement is quick, camping/flanking dont really play a massive part in the kill itself, as the player which is attacked has the opportunity to fight back. Youre not given that opportunity in many games.
Now in DB theres 3 things happening - one is movement slowdown on hits [which sd are planning to remove], there is rate of fire/dps and then theres a relatively slowish lateral movement and duck speed. If you flank or camp an area and you get first shot, you generally win most fights.
One more thing. If you take hits and youre not a medic and you run away… if the next fight happens to be vs a full hp player, you will lose. Even if a camper or flanker doesnt kill you outright, it will inevitably be a frag for his team.
Obviously the game is still a work in progress, so I dont expect it to play out that way by release.
zenstar
(zenstar)
#112
Unless you attack from a point of surprise, hitting them from an unexpected angle. Their health depletes so quickly that by the time they’ve found where you are and have engaged they’re on equal or lower footing. That actually encourages you to hide away and wait for an unaware target (if you can’t get back to a medic).
IMO: camping (the bad kind) is where someone kills you from an unknown position and you have little or no chance of discovering them. Either because the range is so great that you can’t see where it came from or because they’re hidden in some glitch spot that shouldn’t allow a player to hide there. It’s an even worse camping spot if the player can hold it alone (ie: difficult to sneak up on them).
Defensive bunker positions are not camping especially when they can be flanked and overrun. When you’re killed from one of these positions you generally know where the killing blow came from and you can work to ferret them out.
Defending the flag in CTF isn’t camping (for example), it’s defending (unless you’re defending with a sniper rifle from inside a wall glitch).
Humate
(Humate)
#113
Unless you attack from a point of surprise, hitting them from an unexpected angle.
Yes, but I suggest you read the part you opted not to quote.
Both back-raging, and camping when seen in a negative context are the same thing.
Both dont give the player being hit the opportunity to fight back.
That actually encourages you to hide away and wait for an unaware target
You cant rely on this in a game that requires you to complete an objective or complete the objective in the quickest time. It is far more efficient, to /kill and start all over again than hunt on lower hp.
Defensive bunker positions are not camping especially when they can be flanked and overrun.
Still camping. What determines whether its the negative kind, is the degree in which the game rewards positioning, and whether or not the attacked player can fight back.
zenstar
(zenstar)
#114
[QUOTE=Humate;411905]Yes, but I suggest you read the part you opted not to quote.
Both back-raging, and camping when seen in a negative context are the same thing.
Both dont give the player being hit the opportunity to fight back.
[/QUOTE]
Yes. I’m agreeing with your point of view. I’m not saying that back-raging is good at all =P I’m trying to say that health situation makes it worse, encourages back-raging and bad-style camping.
You cant rely on this in a game that requires you to complete an objective or complete the objective in the quickest time. It is far more efficient, to /kill and start all over again than hunt on lower hp.
Yeah. Agree with that to a point. But that’ll damage your k/d which means you’ll have people who refuse to suicide for the good of the team. The same sort of person who will camp somewhere for 2 minutes without moving just to kill someone. Besides: suiciding for health is kinda lame (which is why I agree with the other point you’ve made somewhere: that they need to fix the root - get the fighting balance at the point where you can fight back even with lower health).
Still camping. What determines whether its the negative kind, is the degree in which the game rewards positioning, and whether or not the attacked player can fight back.
Yeah… semantics of wording / description now. I’d say “positive” camping isn’t really camping - it’s defending.
But if we’re going to get super technical then stopping at any point with the intent of killing the enemy is camping (likely from a hidden position), whether you’re defending an objective or not, whether the game rewards you for doing so or not.
I think it’s more helpful to the discussion to separate valid, positive defensive bunkering and bad, negative camping so that we don’t need to continually re-describe our position when we’re trying to point something out. We can just say “you can camp at this position and that should be fixed” and mean the bad camping instead of saying “you can camp at this point in a negative manner ie: the game will reward you but you’re really hard to blah blah blah and unfair to blah blah blah and should be fixed”.
Humate
(Humate)
#115
Can we stop using the word campers in a derogatory way.
camping has too broard a definition to be used in describing gameplay.
That is what I responded to. I decided to define it properly. 
But if we’re going to get super technical then stopping at any point with the intent of killing the enemy is camping (likely from a hidden position), whether you’re defending an objective or not, whether the game rewards you for doing so or not.
You can camp and backrage in etqw all you like, its not going to determine whether you get the kill or not. Skill needs to be there. This is why in etqw, camping/flanking arent perceived to be negative.
The camped and the flanked have the opportunity to fight back and win.
H0RSE
(H0RSE)
#116
[QUOTE=Humate;411917]
You can camp and backrage in etqw all you like, its not going to determine whether you get the kill or not. Skill needs to be there. This is why in etqw, camping/flanking arent perceived to be negative.
The camped and the flanked have the opportunity to fight back and win.[/QUOTE]
This is something that needs to be pointed out - camping itself isn’t bad - it’s how it’s implemented. In a game like COD, the damage scales and pace of the game encourages camping. It is not only viable on defensive, but also an effective offensive tactic. You can camp and win matches in tat series. In ET games, camping is primarily a defensive tactic, and even then, it is not one that is usually going to rack you up kills.
tokamak
(tokamak)
#117
W:ET especially had those filthy campers with mortars. All they did was sit still all match and make those annoying thumping noises.
tokamak
(tokamak)
#119
I used to love hopping back and forth between the stairs and the courtyard fighting and keeping the mortar guy’s ammo up.
stealth6
(stealth6)
#120
I think the amount of camping also depends on the game mode, in TDM you’re going to see more camping since moving increases your chance of dying which is bad for your team.
Anyway I think we’re going off on a tangent here since everybody knows camping is viable bla bla bla defensive tactic bla…