Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: In Praise of Camping  (Read 33171 times)
MIOW
Lesser Nub


Cakes 5
Posts: 141


I play to win.


« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2010, 08:32:36 PM »

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.
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.
Logged
RMF
Member


Cakes 12
Posts: 694



« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2010, 09:56:19 AM »

I rather find pul1 extremely closed than sago extremely open
Logged
HITMAN
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 245


The doctor is in the house!


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2010, 11:11:26 AM »

First of all, he asked about Hydronex, which is a CTF map, so I won't consider DM.

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).

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.

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). 

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.

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.
Logged

h!+m@n * d/hit/p + kozak6 / CloudStrife - (Orochi + {C}easar) = a whole buncha screenames
kernel panic
Lesser Nub


Cakes 6
Posts: 114


« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2010, 12:06:44 PM »

First of all, he asked about Hydronex, which is a CTF map, so I won't consider DM.

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).

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

Quote
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).

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)?

Quote
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.

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).
Logged
Peter Silie
Member


Cakes 2008
Posts: 610



« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2010, 12:50:59 PM »

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.
Logged
Falkland
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 590


« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2010, 01:20:03 PM »

[...] I don't think there is any practical solution for 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 ... ;-)
Logged
kernel panic
Lesser Nub


Cakes 6
Posts: 114


« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2010, 01:31:39 PM »

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!

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.

Quote from: Falkland
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 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.
Logged
HelloKitty!
Lesser Nub


Cakes 12
Posts: 115



« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2010, 01:41:07 PM »

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.
Logged
haternet
Nub


Cakes 1
Posts: 3


« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2010, 10:51:40 PM »

If I may butt into your conversation, I'd like to recommend the classic essay by Sirlin: Introducing...the Scrub.

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


Cakes 25
Posts: 536


i do my own stunts


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2010, 01:13:53 AM »

If I may butt into your conversation, I'd like to recommend the classic essay by Sirlin: Introducing...the Scrub.

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.
Logged

http://udionline.hu/en/projektek/openarena/
Todo list: 1. q3dm17 textures replacement (95% done)
PopeJo
Lesser Nub


Cakes 12
Posts: 105



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2010, 04:57:26 AM »

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 Wink
Logged

kernel panic
Lesser Nub


Cakes 6
Posts: 114


« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2010, 05:17:57 AM »

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 Wink

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.
Logged
HelloKitty!
Lesser Nub


Cakes 12
Posts: 115



« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2010, 06:08:43 AM »

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.
Logged
Bane
Member


Cakes 5
Posts: 225



« Reply #38 on: February 02, 2010, 07:46:50 AM »

 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 Smiley
Logged
Cacatoes
Banned for leasing own account
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 73
Posts: 1427


also banned for baiting another to violate rules


« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2010, 08:18:14 AM »

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 Wink
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.
Logged

Todo: Walk the cat.
kernel panic
Lesser Nub


Cakes 6
Posts: 114


« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2010, 08:31:44 AM »

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


Cakes 1
Posts: 3


« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2010, 08:49:46 AM »

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. :-)
Logged
Udi
Member


Cakes 25
Posts: 536


i do my own stunts


WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2010, 09:14:20 AM »

The Playing to Win article has a second and third part, and also you can read his whole book online for free 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.
Logged

http://udionline.hu/en/projektek/openarena/
Todo list: 1. q3dm17 textures replacement (95% done)
Cacatoes
Banned for leasing own account
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 73
Posts: 1427


also banned for baiting another to violate rules


« Reply #43 on: February 02, 2010, 12:58:16 PM »

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

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.
Logged

Todo: Walk the cat.
haternet
Nub


Cakes 1
Posts: 3


« Reply #44 on: February 03, 2010, 12:14:09 AM »

You know what ? Playing a game with an aimbot is part of the game....

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.
Logged
MIOW
Lesser Nub


Cakes 5
Posts: 141


I play to win.


« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2010, 01:27:10 AM »

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.
Smiley
Two other remakes of this map:
oaN http://allowdl.com/baseoa/oaN.pk3
HDsagoalpha <link removed>
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 08:58:27 AM by MIOW » Logged
Udi
Member


Cakes 25
Posts: 536


i do my own stunts


WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2010, 07:28:46 AM »

Two other remakes of this map:

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 and both use stock OA textures.
Logged

http://udionline.hu/en/projektek/openarena/
Todo list: 1. q3dm17 textures replacement (95% done)
HelloKitty!
Lesser Nub


Cakes 12
Posts: 115



« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2010, 07:46:02 AM »

You know what ? Playing a game with an aimbot is part of the game....

No, it isn't
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.
Logged
Falkland
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 590


« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2010, 06:18:27 PM »

Quote from: Falkland
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 disagree. The anti-camping system I saw was a braindead timer that would frag you if you stayed within certain limits from the flag. [...] They should spend their time making a better map [...]

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.


You know what ? Playing a game with an aimbot is part of the game....

No, it isn't
Aimbot is an external program which modifies the game's intended behaviour

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.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 06:35:52 PM by Falkland » Logged
MIOW
Lesser Nub


Cakes 5
Posts: 141


I play to win.


« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2010, 08:43:58 PM »

Two other remakes of this map:

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 and both use stock OA textures.

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:

Quote
<Marco`da> miow: as far as i know, my oasago version never finished ;-)
<Marco`da> i could do some little things to finish it - but truly, i didnt liked it by myself
<Marco`da> was my first map

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

Although I will post them in maps section as you suggested, so at least more people will get to know about those maps.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to: