OpenArena Message Boards

In Praise of Camping.

---

Any regular CTF player will have witnessed all sorts of despicable camping accusations. "U fking camper", somebody shouts. I can not help but stopping for a second and think "a camper? JESUS, NO!". In the midst of the battle I often lose track of who said what and wonder "Who is this? Is the camper in my team? Perhaps in the opposite one...Or is it just me?". Invariably, I end up checking the console to identify the accusator, and from then on I invariably start fragging him/her harder than before. This obviously keeps me away from my duties with regards to my team, and has a negative net effect in our common enjoyment of the game.

A good number of FPS players show a visceral repulsion for the so called 'camping'. The reasons for this peculiar behaviour are unclear, but the consequences have numerous manifestations such as inflammatory forum threads, offensive chat lines, on-line accusations, creation of ad-hoc rules in amateur leagues, and even attempts at tampering with the code to provide anti-camping measures. I explored the nature of the 'camping' phenomena, as well as the origin of some of the most widely spread missunderstadings associated with it, in the hope of providing an objective, clear starting point to avoid some of the turmoil created in entire FPS communities. In my journey, I discovered the real nasty truth behind it.

Mostly through oral tradition--although not only--campers have been usually discriminated as lesser players, their frags perceived as carrying less weight than those of the others, and their aiming skills--while admired in regular players--overlooked. Verbal assaults to campers are common--the term itself being nowadays peyorative--and players accussed of camping are systematically kicked out of servers. Previous studies on camping share a conspicuous lack of a scientific definition. To the best of my knowledge, there is no single attempt in the literature at undertaking the matter with the rigour and seriousness I feel it deserves. In general lines, a camper is a player who is perceived to stay an unreasonable period of time in a certain position of undetermined extension or limits, making use of whatever resources are available in that area to pursue the objectives of the game. It is difficult to quantify the variables that would define more precisely a camping strategy. Depending on the author, we can count 3 to 20 seconds for the camping period and 10000 to 1000000 sq. units for the camping area. Furthermore, the particularities of camping vary greatly with map geometry and game type. It is therefore unsurprising to find that what consitutes a camper for an individual may perfectly be regarded as a tactical player for another, and vice versa.

I have taken a different and more foundamental approach to the question, asking what are the reasons for camping, and challenged the popular belief about their negative impact on FPS games. First and foremost, whenever I see a camper in action--let us forget about strict definitions for a moment--I contemplate with awe the workings of millions of years of evolution. Here it is: the result of a long chain of evolutionary steps that crystallize in a successful survival strategy. A chain that can be traced back to our primal ancestors fighting for their precarious lifes in an incredibly aggressive environment. The instincts and strategies that represented an advantage were transmitted to the next generations as invaluable assests survival depended on. A camper is no more than a player who found a working strategy to cope with the abrassive virtual environment of FPS games. Who would not be a camper in a real war? Who would be stupid enough to abandon the trench on the top of the hill and run towards the enemy hordes with a shotgun? Who doesn't value one's own life? As such, a camping strategy is not only free of any moral suspicion, but it is the most natural and readily available tactic to adopt. I firmly condemn, thus, the discrimination inflicted upon campers by self-righteous players who make a travesti of the real reasons of their behaviour by shouting "fair play!".

For one thing is obvious; if camping is not only morally neutral but also tightly embedded in our genetic code, what is pretended by fighting against it? What sort of game are anti-campers pushing for and what are their reasons? It seems that there is certain inverse correlation between player experience and camping aversion, but this analysis on its own would be short sighted. The political agenda behind anti-camping supporters certainly play a role in this issue. All anti-camping attitudes--even in their most apparently innocent forms--are associated to an authoritarian view of the world. When somebody is asked to stop camping, it is never just a question about abandoning certain position, but also the use of certain weapons, the accuracy one has with them, and even the spawn points one appears in! Consider the following scenario: I  respawn in oasago by the rail, and the opponent have just got the flag. If I feel confident enough about my aim I am surely going to wait there until the flag carrier is on the bridge to SHOOT. After which I would be crazy if I didn't wait for one of the minions in my team to pick it up before leaving my position. Basically, I'm going to be there for as long as needed, railing every single one of the opponents that want to take my precious bodily fluids. YOU, yes, YOU, are demanding from me that I don't do any of that, that I give up on my own understanding of the situation and start behaving like a brainless automaton shooting nonsense, doing what YOU want me to do instead of what I, rightly or wrongly, consider needs to be done. You are not asking for fairness, improved game play or parity of opportunities; you are advocating thought control and claiming for a repressive society, where what I or the guy next door think doesn't count, where the rules are decided by a panel of enlightened pricks that enforce them with iron hand, making use of an assortment of dirty tactics such as witch hunts, indiscriminate kicking and use of special mods, and all of this while perverting the real motives behind your plans.

This is not to say that under certain conditions overuse of camping can not be annoying. Sometimes the camping strategy can be so sucessful that the rest of the players, especially the less experienced ones, are overwhelmed by it and give up on the fight. But the camper players still have every right to do what they please, and the blame should be put on somebody else: the mappers. It could be said that the more successful the camper the worse the design of the map is. Clearly, the mapper has put little effort in creating an even playing field that rewards a range of tactics; instead, some spots are loaded with everything a player would ever need, and encourage to keep those positions at all costs. But in blaming the mappers we run the risk of bending the stick too far to the other side. More often than not, camping accusations are cast in perfectly valid situations and well designed maps. The social stigma campers have to endure is not to disappear overnight.

Perhaps you have never wondered why bots don't camp. Le me clear that one out for you: because they are incredibly stupid. And because they are not alive. Camping requires intelligence to gauge the situation and adapt to it, judging what is in one's own best interests. If you want to play against bots, please be my guest. But if you want me to behave like one you will have to take my brain from my cold, dead hands.

K.P.

You cannot compare real life with gaming. At least not openarena. In real life people don't respawn, don't pick up weapons at weapon spawn points, don't strafe jump, need food, more than walking to a yellow dot to recover, bleed after being shot, need to reload weapons, are deaf (and most likely dead) after being hit by a rocket, can't zoom in with any weapon, don't have a crosshair, no ammometer, no healthmeter, no quick weaponswitch, you can't carry all the weaps+ammo, you can't keep zoom so stable, can't.. well i think that was enough. So of course you wouldn't run in real life, but gaming is different from real life. That is actually the point why gaming exists, else people would buy some weaps and go play real life OA for fun after work.

Of course. That is why I often draw the line between camping and strategy between 'knowing who is coming' and 'just waiting at random'. Now there is a third category who is defending -and so waiting at random actually-, but I didn't put that much thought into it to find a better rule to draw the line.


Although I do not agree fully with everything, I think you deserve a +1 for the work you put in this big post and for motivating people to rationally think about it instead of just saying that camping sucks ;)

 Since we are on the subject of camping here are my thoughts on camping in CTF

Kernel Panic does have a point about some maps after playing for a while it seems some maps are just made for campers with all that they need close by and there trusty rail gun (camper’s favorite weapons) with ammo right by it or not far from it.
However campers for a minute put your self in the flag carrier’s shoes and you will see why camping is disliked. I myself usually am not the flag carrier because I am not the fastest however when I am I need certain things in order to get the job done. I have played CTF games where campers take all the weapons, armor and any power up and I am left with nothing and have to wait for it to respawn meanwhile I heard the “enemy has your flag” and they don’t even chase after the enemy flag carrier they just spam away while standing perfectly still of course. So I have to chase after them with my lame weak machine gun which if I’m lucky kills them and we get the flag back. Also when they do manage to actually leave 1 or 2 useful things I am forced to go and get the flag alone without any help it seems which is impossible at times because of an enemy camper with his trusty rail gun. And even if I do some how manage to get the flag I have to dodge my own team spamming me back into the enemies fire causing me to take even more damage and even if I drop the flag right where my team can see it do any of the campers come out  NO of course not why bother coming out and getting the flag it is only the whole point of the game instead they just spam away like morons. Also when I am lucky enough to get a really good person on my team it is usually just me and them out there while 4 or 5 of are team mates are back at base spamming away (which by the way helps no one). And when he gets the flag I have to try and defend him the best I can which is hard when you are down to 34 or so health hell sometimes as a last resort I even block the enemy fire with my own body so we can get at least 1 point. Not that it really matters because next round he usually leaves and most of the time so do I.
Also when the flag carrier brings back the enemy’s flag and our flag has been taken DON’T I repeat DON’T just camp and spam go and get our flag back dammit and leave at least some health and weapons ammo for the flag carrier or he will die because he needs to heal and he needs ammo after each attempt on his life. I hate it when stuff like this happens because I am either the flag carrier weak as hell or the one lone solider forced to try and get our flag back from the enemy flag carrier which has 4 o5 five guys guarding him each with the rocket launcher.
People need to understand that the whole team camping really helps no one and 1 or 2 people guarding the base making rounds like guards do in office buildings and not staying in one spot spamming like a moron is better. Also try and leave some weapons and armor for others instead of taking it all because they can’t be expected to go over there with nothing get the flag and get back.
My final thought it is called  capture the flag not “capture the frag” I say this because I hate hearding form camper teammates I am the best because they got a butt load of points meanwhile me or someone else was doing the heavy lifting on the team because we where the one capturing the flag.

Thanks! Except for a couple of exagerations and jokes here and there, I actually believe what I wrote! (which makes me question my sanity, yay)


Spot on. That's one of the things many players complaining about campers forget: the worst camper is the one in your team! It makes no sense to shout because somebody frags you a couple of times from the platform, it's actually doing a disservice to his/her team; you should actually be happy to have campers in the opposite team.

Grenade campers are one of the most annoying things in the game.  You don't need any skill to just throw grenades at spawn spots.  On some maps it is really bad, e.g. OA_RPG3DM2 with the launcher up high and close to the megahealth -- so I blame the map there.  Some (CTF) servers have this weapon and missionpack weapons disabled, which is great.

Apart from that, in CTF games I don't consider "camping" to be much different from just defending the base.  The real campers seem to be newbies who never move, apart from getting their weapon, and since they don't move they are easily attacked.

if camping is so effective it's most of the time due to maps being badly tuned. it can be hard to spot when mapping though - so feedback and new versions are the way to go.

There is clearly a difference between camping in competitive game modes like duel or CTF during competitive matches, and camping during a fun pickup game.

In this competitive case, it's a strategy which has advantages and disadvantages. Camping in a duel is generally worthless and easily dealt with if you overdo it.

But on public servers where people play for fun, camping is annoying because it takes all the fun out of the game. It's annoying in every mode, but it is especially annoying in FFA. FFA is not a balanced game mode. It's not really a test of skill, it's a gimmick for having some quick fun online. In FFA, camping has no disadvantages at all.  Add to this that most FFA servers are running on duel or CTF maps (which were not designed for FFA) and that many original FFA maps from Quake3 are designed to help camping, and you have the scenario where nobody is having any fun because there is a camper at every corner. I find the problem even worse in QuakeLive.

Camping is like pissing in the water reservoir and claiming that it shouldn't bother you. If you are so concerned about your frag count, go play a competitive mode in a competitive tournament, stop destroying every game on every public server. It's supposed to be fun FFS, and it's not fun to spam granades randomly for 5 minutes just to win a game that doesn't matter anyway.

But thumbs up for an entertaining writeup!

Camping?
A guy who just takes his favourite position and try to frag opponents.
No movement and less skills are needed.
And the opponents?
They always have to do the same moves to frag the camping guy. No surpises during the game because the camper is always on the same positions.
Campers just bring down the speed of the game.

And this should be fun?
rofl!

If you think so: go and play camper strike!

Alot of what was mentioned I can understand but I cannot agree to it. Bane made the points very clear (kudos to you, Bane). I agree that shouting out "camper!!" or other negative connotations is detrimental to your team because that person is being distracted and not focusing on the match which requires the attention of the entire team to win. But here's my take when it comes to camping.

My definition of Camping is pretty much similar to yours. When a person positions him/herself in one spot (or many spots) for an extended period of time fragging players for the sole purpose of racking up easy points. This definition can be used in FFA or CTF. The problem is that camping in FFA is not frowned upon because its every man for themselves but in CTF, a team based gametype, people dislike campers because they are not playing as a unit. They are being detrimental to their team and prohibiting the progress of winning the match: Not going for the flag, not assisting others, not pursuing the runaway enemy with the team flag, standing on item respawn, etc. This is not a winning strategy. Here is when it gets confusing: How does one know if someone is Camping or just Defending?

My definition of Defending is pretty close to camping but there is a slight difference. It is when a person positions him/herself in one spot (or many spots) for a period of time, fragging players for the purpose of preventing flag captures and providing coverage for teammates. They defend the middle, take enemy weaps/ammo/items, time item respawn, assist teammates, prevent flag captures and protect the flag carrier. To be a defender, you have to be everywhere. To the untrained eye, this would be considered Camping but it is not. Often, expert Defenders are demonized because their opponents cannot get by  them. So the say "Camper" or "aimbotter". So going back to the question, How does one know if someone is Camping or Defending? The answer is....you cannot tell directly. One must often play the game to develop the skill of discerning who is camping or defending.

Bottom line: Just play the game and don't worry about everyone else. If you don't like it, leave the match. Otherwise, don't cry. Life is not and never will be fair.

we are creating this game. if its not fair, its because of us. its not "life". "life" is not programming OA. fromhell is programming OA. (don't confuse the two)

with halfway good maps and good teamplay you can eliminate any so called camper in ctf. so what is needed are better maps.

better maps
better maps
better maps

plz :D

There are already some better maps. Kit89 and NeonKnight made a version of oa_dm1 where the grenade launcher was moved making grenade spamming harder, PsYthe made another version of ps37 with harder accessible railgun, hydronex was improved a lot too and cosmo's ctf maps are great, but not played at all. Those can be put on any servers, some of them won't come with 0.8.5 either, so the server admins should make some gathering work too.

You may be missing the point, HITMAN.

Most 'campers' are just noobs that don't know any better. It is not for you to decide how they should play the game and have their share of fun. You can't pretend from a noob to "defend the middle, take enemy weaps/ammo/items, time item respawn, assist teammates, prevent flag captures, protect the flag carrier [and] be everywhere", accusing them of camping if they don't (*). If they happen to be there with a lucky shot then fair enough, otherwise leave them playing the best they can. I support competitive game play, but at the same time I know that I can't join a public server and expect everybody to play as if we had trained team tactics for weeks. There will always be people who are learning and just do what they know. Getting angry at them doesn't make any sense, and not only because is rude: firstly because they are trying to have fun like everybody else, secondly because it actually makes perfect sense for them to play as they do.

Of course there were times when I got annoyed at some players in my team and told them to move on and help out with the flags. I was wrong. What do these players know? Do they even understand my language? Why should they care anyway? What if there are some 10 years old in the server playing with us? Should we kick them out because they don't perform? I witnessed attempts at kicking people right on the spot for no other particular reason than they were not moving much--and I always voted NO. If I want a serious game I ask my teammates whether there's something organized and join them, end of the story.

See, nobody is crying--well, I'm not. In this forum I enjoy the respectability reserved to sociopaths and ADHD children, which is cool because I can say whatever I feel like and nobody gives a damn. I have not written a wall of text to discuss cold blooded the physical limits of camping areas, but to have fun showing where this goes when pushed to the extreme. If you find it cool and share my light approach to this (non) issue, all the better. If you don't and insist on seeing life lessons in OA, all the better too, just don't count me in. As somebody mentioned, you would be nuts to compare a real war with a CTF match.

By the way, yes, I wait eagerly for those new maps to hit the servers--I saw the screenshots and they look nice...BUT NOBODY WILL PLAY THEM UNTIL THEY ARE RELEASED.

(*) Jeez, don't pretend it from me, I love doing all sorts of stupid things while playing.

Item placement is not the main point : gl in oa_rpg2 is not a problem IMHO because the eventual camper can spam only a single front , but other fronts remain at least and can be used to kill him/her .

The main problem is map design.

Campers have success when they can control all the resources/items access fronts or spawn points by a single position. This is still true in maps like oa_dm7 , oa_ctf2 , oa_ctf4 and also oasago2 ( there are only 3 effective ways to the enemy flag that all can be controlled staying quite near the flag ) .

Anyway I agree with kernel_panic : camping is a so immediate , expected and predictable strategy ( and I am generous defining that as a "strategy" ) implemented by noobs and pseudo-noobs that don't like to challenge or are unable to implement real strategies.

EDIT : btw , corkscrew , noghost and maybe some other mod have an anticamping system that makes campers exploding. The maximum allowed camping time and the camping radius can be both tuned.

@everyone blaming the maps; make better ones then.
Btw if you claim to have a better map, why doesn't everyone have it yet? Hmm maybe the map isn't good then.

What i want to say is that you can abuse almost anything if you want, including maps. But you shouldn't want it and so you shouldn't camp just 'because you can'.

Of course, I totally agree. These players are trying to learn the ropes by camping a bit which is tolerable but I believe that most people get annoyed by players who KNOW how to play and CHOOSE to camp. I dont see people on a large scale trying kick noobs because they camp so well. Thats ridiculous! And thats my point, people complain about experienced (whether low or high level) players camping or defend too well. So instead of complaining about it, you as a player have 2 options: bite the bullet and play and challenge yourself or leave the match (and/or server). As for the new players, they wont be such a threat since their camping skill is no where near the skill level of experienced campers. So Camping is never good to do...(but tolerable for new players to do).

As for the maps being blamed, its not the main reason...I actually blame the server admins for making server settings/rules geared toward making it about defense. Even the game itself rewards players for defensive frags which encourages campers to camp. I think the 2 point reward should go to offensive players going into the enemy terroritory, fragging people because its more harder to do. The point system just needs to be reevaluated and it is to be blamed really. The design of maps determines how far the scale is tipped, meaning is it going to be even more defensive like (hydronex) or less, like (oasago).

HIT

I've noticed few campers in OA. I had no problems with most campers, regardless if they were playing CTF (and camping for defensive purposes), or FFA (where mostly they're easy targets).

What I do hate are the people who have the nerve to camp when playing 1on1. You're supposed to go after them while they are trying to ambush you from some corner. No thanks. I guess I could camp too, but I don't want to waste my time waiting until one of us loses the patience and moves.

A map with great camping possibilities is wrackdm17. There are campers who try to hide behind the walls on the edges of the two opposing platforms, in hope no one will notice them while they try to pick other people off (it's hard to get there, as the ledges are really narrow). This happened a couple of times. Additionally, some people constantly go to the top platform, using the railgun to take easy targets. The person on the top platform has an advantage as all of us below are busy fragging and getting fragged by some 15 people. Looking up to check if there is anyone on the platform mostly means you're probably gonna get fragged by someone else, and if you miss the person on the platform you got their attention (btw, it's much more difficult to frag someone if you're below the platform as the platform obscures a large part of their bodies).

Now, this tactic is completely legit (it's not cheating), but highly annoying as it gives advantage to a single person over the 5 or more of us, and that is not fair (though, fairness is completely subjective). However, it can be solved, by constantly going to the top platform and fragging the person until that person decides not to go to the same spot again. This solution however involves a sacrifice, as you need to get to the top platform instead of engage in combat. You lose frags and get fragged more often. And that just kills the fun. The person on the platform is not using some smart strategy. The person has simply found an effective spot that gives it an advantage. Should one person be given an advantage over so many? I don't think so. I don't think that game and map developers are wasting their time improving the games or maps balance.

It's ok to go to the top platform, take the railgun and frag someone while you're at it. However, I think most players realize that doing it constantly is annoying for everyone else. I don't want to constantly have to check the top platform for that one player, while getting my ass fragged.

Unfortunately, games and maps can not be perfectly balanced to give everyone the same advantage. I agree with kernel panic for the most part. But, from my experience, not all campers are benevolent. Some of them are simply players who like to have advantage over others, and will use whatever 'legal' means available.

I don't hate or dislike most campers. Notice that I used the word 'person' or 'player' instead of 'camper'. I simply don't like players who camp excessively in a way that gives them a constant advantage over other players.

Count me as a confused noob. If, in a DM, in a map like Hydronex, someone sits near one of the few spawn spots and shoots every time a player spawns, that, as I understand it, is camping. I'm not a big fan.

If, in the same game, a player sits with a rail and pics off players as they run across the bridge or pick up the rail across the yard, is that camping? This doesn't bug me so much, because only people who don't look across the yard before picking up the rail will likely get hit. Or am I a tard?

Yes it is camping because the purpose of DM is to rack up the most kills but I dont think that camper should be kicked because of it. The camper is doing what he has to do to win...If he did this in CTF, i would vote to kick him. CTF is a team game and its about capture flags, not everyman for them self.

In FFA I know some campers names by heart and just often leave when they show up and others do as well. To me even in FFA camping is annoying because well it takes no skill all they do is wait and wait in one spot usually by a spawn point or item and kill anyone who tries and gets it to me it seems well boring because like quake this game is meant for movement  and speed not sitting maybe I feel this way because I am more of the aggressive type while playing this game(still working on knowing when to not be aggressive) However instead of getting mad now at campers I just leave because camping is especially boring when you are all alone :)

On oasago2 most of the time i try not to take the best spot  when i play in middle defense but this is due to the map being extremely open. I don't consider anything as camping, everything you do is fine if it works and everything is fair unless you're cheating http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1750989

In FFA games it's most likely different, although I never play it.

The word 'dm6' is not found in a thread about camping.



Why?

I can't disagree more.

First of all, he asked about Hydronex, which is a CTF map, so I won't consider DM. Second, I seem to remember that Hydronex has changed lately. I haven't seen the new version (if there is any), so I will just comment on the old one I know. Hydronex is the perfect example of a map that encourages camping; it's got a bloody bunker with a rail and health inside, with a perfect and protected view of the incoming opponents. Everybody going inside is invited to be there and rail whoever approaches in the distance, that's the purpose of those bunkers. If you don't like that map you should apply your own medicine and leave the server or propose a vote; kicking players because they are using the map as the mapper intended to is unfair. I myself hate that map (as I remember it) and almost never played there, but I don't go around telling others they're using it wrong. And third, CTF is not just about capturing flags: it's about capturing one more flag than the other team. It makes perfect sense to leave somebody behind to defend your own base. In that map, the perfect spot to do so is precisely in those bunkers; doing otherwise is artificially playing in a different way only to please you and others who don't like it.

In summary, you can't have great gameplay in a crap map by artificially imposing your rules.

With Hydronex you not only have to worry about the rail but the mines. But those are usually easy to get past as they are usually clustered together. As for getting to enemy railer it the first place I have to say I usually take one hit but just dive in the water and emerge on the other side. Now in the event mines are on that ramp I usually don’t rocket them but what for them to blow out because rocketing them gives away your location. I then go to the bunker and simply walk in and kill the railer by this time the flag carrier is usually getting the flag or has it and is making his way back. That to me seems like the best way to deal with this map if anyone has any other ways let me know.

http://6r-clan.org/index.php?ind=news&op=news_show_single&ide=20

oasago2 is one of the best maps in the default pool , but I really can't define it as "extremely open" while there are only 3 effective ways all converging over the flag.


oa_dm6 is not a real problem for me , because camping points have other accesses to be used to kill the camper. For example I'm used to spam grenades from the side hole of the MH room when a camper is there. I usually can't kill him , but a consistent damage can help players entering trough teleport or respawning to kill him , expecially if MH doesn't spawn. The ame for LG room.

The same for a camper on GL or over the platform on RA or behind/in front the teleport near YA with PG : once spotted he can be killed on the next respawn ( because you _NEVER_ respawn near your killer in FFA and 1v1 , at least in oa081 ).

dm6ish is a problem instead because the side hole in the MH room can be accessed _ONLY_ as an exit way from there.


I cant say the same thing in a better way : I am happy to not be the only one interpreting "the HITMAN parable of the good gaming" as a set of artificially imposed rules.

( in italian - and specifically roman dialect , in the dialect of the city of Rome , they say : "O te magni sta minestra o te butti da finestra" )

BTW , hydronex is a simple map encouraging campers because in the fact it's a single , long corridor and nothing else.

The middle of the map is extremely open and large. E.g. on pul1ctf you won't be able to see every spot of the middle when you're there.

I rather find pul1 extremely closed than sago extremely open

My answer was based on the fact that he was referring to Hydronex being used in a FFA gametype. Remember he knows that killing ppl at respawn point is camping but he is asking, is it camping when you pick off players in the rail tower in FFA match? The answer is yes cuz you have to consider the DeathMatch (DM).


As far as Hydronex is concerned, if we are playing it in CTF gametype and someone is standing back railing all day, Not going after the loose flags, not assisting other team players, sitting on the railgun respawn, shooting the any and every enemy he or she sees (instead doing smart frags)..I would vote to have that player to kick if it came up, assuming this player is not a Noob. Also, as a player, who has no idea what the map designer had in mind when making the map, you can't assume that the "rail bunker" is made for rail camping. Just because you have the option to rail camp, doesnt mean you should. I think the only reason to kick a player, in CTF, is if that player is being detrimental to your team (and of course, cheating). 


True indeed. But remember, theres a difference between Defending and Camping. Its okay to defend in my book but campers are detrimental. Thats what I was saying in an early post. Some people confuse Defending with Camping and vice versa. Camping doesnt help anyone but the camper. Defenders look to help the team. So, if you are in rail tower, helping no one but yourself then if someone ask to kick you...they would get my vote.

Fair enough. I guess I had CTF in mind from the very first post.


You don't have to know what the mapper actually had in mind when designing the map. You are right, perhaps the bunker serves some decorative purposes, and the mapper really wanted players to use it to pick rail up and leave it. But in practice you know players--especially unexperienced ones--will find that place perfect to get some easy targets. What's more, you can't deny that railing incoming players is actually a pretty good defense. So what if I decide that I want to defend from arguably the best spot of the map to do so? Why would I have to play the way others want me to (especially the opposite team)?


But again, I don't think having somebody railing from the tower is detrimental for the team. Actually, if you have somebody with a good aim you can just leave that guy there and attack the other base with the rest you have. But forgetting about this particular map--which is (was) pretty bad and no amount of good faith and fair play will improve it--there is a problem with your argument. I don't think you can tell between camping and defending. At the very least, you won't find agreement between different people, even between players who suposedly have played the game for a good while. We (RN) were accussed of camping in oasago in last year's league, and frankly, it was ridiculous. Obviously the opposite team had a different opinion.

So, I don't think there is any practical solution for camping. On the one hand, most of the times is just a problem some players have, who get all heated up after being railed a couple of times in a row. On the other, there simply isn't a single clear definition of camping (people posting in this thread is the living proof), so no amount of rules will satisfy everybody. As a corollary, technical anti-camping 'solutions' can't possibly work, like, ever. If we humans have problems arguing about this, some screw-up software solution won't do any better (actually much worse).

Maybe i do a mistake because of a translation issue, but:
you tell us, that there is no clear definition of "camping" and so we can´t decide if it is bad?
In which world do you live?
Show me any state of law with clean definitions of the laws and i will follow your arguments.
In all other cases: make a new try!

btw: hydronex seems to be a camper map (originaly it is a port of an ut map iirc) and this is the reason why nobody likes to play this map. as i wrote before: it is annoying to run and run and run just to be fragged by a player who sits in his corner. Next time you will frag him but you must always be careful if you run the way along, because there could be a camper again. this is not the way a quake-game should be played. q is a fast game and not a sneak one.

If you like to sneak you should play cs - in all other cases you should try to avoid camping.

Uhm ... anticamping of the NoGhost mod worked very well on the Nemesis 0.7.1 , also on bubctf1 ... at least unless someone discovered the screenshot hack for rocketjumping from the enemy base to the home base ... ;-)

I'm pretty sure it is a problem with language. All I said was that since there isn't (can't be) a clear definition of camping, you can't impose rules against it that wouldn't upset many players. I don't think I myself camp, but I don't want you to tell me or others how to play the game. Even less kicking players, of course.


I disagree. The anti-camping system I saw was a braindead timer that would frag you if you stayed within certain limits from the flag. That's terribly lame. I can't believe somebody was so pissed off about campers to the point of coding that 'feature'. They should spend their time making a better map if they were that concerned.

This is the scene I've seen recently in QuakeLive. In FFA, not defending the base or whatnot.

Two guys camping next to the teleport and the LG spawn. One on each side of the teleport. As soon as anyone comes through, they zap him together, then pick up the LG to reload. There's no way to kill either one of them, since they're teaming up and you need to either turn after leaving the teleport, or pass a long corridor where they see you coming. There's a health bubble nearby, and they two guys were racking up frags like there's no tomorrow.

If anyone out there thinks that this is the way the game should be played, there's no helping you.

If I may butt into your conversation, I'd like to recommend the classic essay by Sirlin: Introducing...the Scrub (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html).

Not that I'm casting any aspersions, mind you.

Great article, thanks for sharing. The essence is basically the same as kernel panic's post, but as for me I'm understanding the issue more now.

thx for clicking and reading udi.

haternet's post looked like a spam-bot entry, so I skipped it.
but its an actually interesting article from a real person and "playing to win" is not the name of a maleware ad-program ;)

Haha, tin foil hat too much? I didn't even think about it and went straight to read the articles. Pretty interesting indeed. I remember people having this stupid rule in Street Fighter II about not attacking the opponent if it was stunned...lame as hell, but it would gain you some bad reputation if you did.

This discussion will not bring much, because everyone is talking about different things.

I don't care about camping in competitive games, I hate camping in fun games on public servers. You're not supposed to be "playing to win" on there, you're supposed to play for fun and training. It's like "playing to win" in a pickup football game at your father's birthday party and then kicking your little sister in the teeth. What's the point?

People who need to win can play in tournaments and on servers that are designed for these kinds of games.

 This article brought up things like scrubs have this code of honor and made up rules they play by but after reading further down it seems these high level players that play to win have them too and an example was when he talked about people not using Akuma in a street fighter game because he was too strong and a boss level character to me this guy seems to be contradicting himself here because he like the scrubs is making up rules. Also he talks about glitches or bugs only one player can see, ones that freeze the game or remove the character from the playing field, or shut off the game a random are not allowed too me this seems like yet another contradicting because he is making up rules just like the scrubs. To me he plays not only to win but to crush and humiliate people because from the way he talks it seems he knows some people want do certain moves but he himself chose to do them not to simply win but to crush his opponent and those are the type of people that drive others away from a game and are the same morons on the message boards asking “hey where did everyone that I use to play go”. Also I bet if I entered that same game with him and picked that Akuma character and did moves that I only saw and he could not he, made the game freeze, removed certain character from the playing field and shut off the game  at random he would probably start whining when I am only playing to win like he said :)

Hehe, I was going to post too and I agree with Bane, he's contradicting himself (comment #2 points it too), and I don't like at all this article ;)
While reading him defending "play to win" tactics I felt like he was ridiculous and unskilled for playing in ways which do not put himself into risky situations. My version of a good player rather is a person who could use play to win tactics but doesn't, and rather use other possibilities within the game.
Every game may have its defects, maybe he didn't realize what he claims to be good games are ones in which we can't easily apply that play to win attitude.

That guy has put more thought writing that article than you reading it.

He counters those rebuttals in the comments, as he has done, repeatedly, ad nauseum, for several years now.

The distinction between game-breaking moves versus moves which are simply annoying (to some) seems clear enough to me. I'm completely oblivious to fighting games, but from Sirlin's description it sounds like Akuma is so ridiculous that to play him is akin to crashing the game. That's somewhat different from taking advantage of gameplay features in order to win.

I agree that there's a time for serious play and a time for less serious play. But nobody likes a tyrannical server admin, and that's what one would have to be in order to police a server for serious players on a less serious server. (I resist calling them non-serious, since I don't believe for a moment that players on those servers are not playing to win. Rather, I suspect that calling them non-serious is an attempt to brush off losses. "Meh, this isn't serious anyway." When of course they would have been quite pleased to have won.)

Anyway I'm happy to have introduced the essay to some new people. :-)

The Playing to Win article has a second (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html) and third part (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win.html), and also you can read his whole book online for free (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/) if you want to understand him better. He's actually saying that there will be always people who play games to the extreme, and community or personal rules to discourage these people are questionable and ineffective, but the rules of the game are absolute. The Akuma character was a counter-example, since it requires a long code to select that character it rather counts as an easter-egg than a bad game design decision. The most important of what he writes is that, if a game gets shallower and shallower as you are playing to win, then it is a bad game. If every cheap move has an effective counter-attack, and the counter-attacks also have effective counter-attacks etc., then it's a well designed game.

As for OpenArena we have a limited range of balancing the game (QL like weapon damages cannot be the default), but what we can do we will do it. There were two or three posts describing hydronex, while it already has another version in the SVN, and NeonKnight has already plans of another redesign. For example NeonKnight made a version of oasago2 with more routes which make camping at the flag harder (oasago2_god), it wasn't mentioned either. RMF was right about the popularity of the new maps, it's really bad that OA almost reached the state where if you want to get the latest and greatest don't play the old release, but check out the SVN, but until 0.8.5 arrives please test out the new maps and other stuff and comment there explaining what's wrong and why.

I didn't read it thoroughly, and I didn't want to do such a thing because It's a pain when I'm not comfortable enough with english, I also prefer to put my thoughts into other subjects.
I would agree with some structures he notices (the interesting points which may make you like this article), but I was judging the big lines. I already mentionned about how a game has standards (rules which are shared between every player), and what he calls a scrub is someone who uses a subset of these. He defines "play to win" as using the full set, so when people told him "Akuma is part of the set" he disagreed and he is wrong to do so. You know what ? Playing a game with an aimbot is part of the game, playing the game with some mechanical arms instead of you playing on the keyboard is part of the game, god mode cheat is part of the game, but they are refused because players play at a subset of a standard, my conclusion is everyone is a scrub but he can't admit it because the purpose of his writing is to avoid critics about how cheap his playing strategies are, thus permitting himself to use any mean.
Now what's that "play for win" mentality ? IIRC he legitimates this playing attitude by the fact the game only has two issues which are winning or loosing, earning the 1st place loot at tournament or loosing it. This is what actually would make me puke, how can this value be glorified. I hate competition and I hate winning. What's the sense of "being a winner", when due to a slight advantage in skill and a bit of luck. Should second place be devalorized to a point it means nothing ? should the third place be ? "The important is to participate" we say, "or not" I'd add, because it's not like competition was necessary to play and have fun.
I maintain his writing seems contradictory to me and doesn't make me want to read more of him.

No, it isn't, and in fact Sirlin addresses this subject as well, elsewhere on his site; but I can't be bothered looking for it if you can't be bothered reading it. Besides, I fear I've derailed your thread, which wasn't my intent. I'll bow out now, but I do encourage you to explore Sirlin's site if these topics interest you, as they appear to.

:)
Two other remakes of this map:
oaN http://allowdl.com/baseoa/oaN.pk3
HDsagoalpha <link removed>

Thanks for sharing, those are great too, especially the HD version is awesome. Why don't you post them in the maps section as Peter Silie mentioned the GoD version there. I guess the licenses are ok, at least the mp_nottingham skybox is GPLv2 (http://menczel.extra.hu/q3sky/mp_nottingham.zip) and both use stock OA textures.

Aimbot is an external program which modifies the game's intended behaviour, but IDDQD and IDKFA are parts of the game (doom), and people generally agree to play without this "strategy", just like they agree to play without Akuma. Or without noclip. Or without hacked drivers which let you see through walls.

Any game (not only computer games, but any game) will have people exploiting unforeseen tricks which fundamentally change the way a game is played. Some of them get accepted as strategy, some of them lead to a change of game rules to prevent this. Just look at the evolution of rules in soccer, basketball, and any sport out there. When soccer players discovered camping, the offside rule was introduced, and all was well.

Strafe jumping and rocket jumping got accepted by the community, whereas fragging people with connection problems and camping didn't. They are still seen as cheap shots.

Now, there is a difference between noclip or godmode and camping, but it is a rather philosophical one. If there were a solid technological way to remove camping using a technological solution, camping wouldn't exist anymore.

Negative !!! The anticamping system makes player exploding when he/she camps for more than a cvar-given number of seconds in a position delimited by a cvar-given radius ; for every position in which a camper actually camps , not only near flag. You've seen campers exploding near flag on bubctf1 simply because that place is the only effective position where players camp - with railgun or shotgun or plasmagun.

But anyway this is an indirect confirmation that also bubctf1 is a bad designed map, because it leads into camping near flag rather than going to capture enemy flag.

13_vast is the same map in which the rail was ported under the platform and the 2nd jumper ported back to forbid the lagging-rocketjumping with enemy flag directly to the homebase.



Playing with an aimbot is not part of the game : there's no any game cvar to set to have an aimbot. Playing with an aimbot is always like subverting the game :

1. by a technical point of view because it acts like a voluntary-not-designed feature
2. by a "moral" point of view because it's not like using steroids in physical sport games , it doesn't allow to formerly improve "your skill" : it's like someone/something else does a job you are not able to do or you don't want to do and your nick " fraudly certifies " that you are doing indeed that job. Just tell me only a single real-life working area in which this is accepted as a "strategy" or just tell me that someone else can pass an exam for you and the system let you sign/certify that you passed that exam.

I wasn't sure it was intended by map makers to include those maps in official OA release. E.g. psythe made his map specially for oaN.
I talked to HD on irc yesterday:


I think we still can convince him to finish it and release under gpl if needed :)

Although I will post them in maps section as you suggested, so at least more people will get to know about those maps.

Camping deserves no praise. When I play CTF I always try to play for the fun of everyone involved.

Having to sneak to the platform to put a rocket up the annoying enemy camper's class *again and again* is far from my definition of fun.

Sometimes I crater or kill the enemy and myself while carrying the flag, having removed the whole enemy team and recovered the flag only to see how my teammates watch how the enemy flag gets recovered and our flag stolen again from the damn platform. Guess what? That's not fun either.

Even if you are having fun pointing and clicking like an office drone, what do you think would happen if I stashed ammo and waited for you to come like you do? TK should be enabled on all servers, at least that way we could take care of our teammates without having to kick anybody.

You are still better than the people leaving as soon as someone starts playing well, though.

Friendly fire removes part of gameplay since you can boost your flag carrier with weapons.

boost them with rockets ;p

And you still will make damage. I don't see how can it be considered as workaround.

Better push out your "campers" from the platform.