Camping is killing gameplay

[Nowotny]

I think a lot of disagreement in this thread stems from different definitions of camping.

There is a definite difference between camping and defending. I have seen both playing RO2. Sitting in an tight and obscure corner with a PPsH and firing out of a window or doorway are completely different.

If people actually properly read what I wrote there would be a lot less confusion. What I wrote is not about camping, if I wanted to announce that I dislike camping I could have been done with 2 lines of text and it wouldn't have taken me 2 hours to write it down.

Instead people just see that I'm complaining about something, then see the word 'camping', and something in their head just snaps.

Not that I didn't expect that though. Reading is very hard.

 

[Dimmie]

This guy is probably a run and gun type of guy. Learn how to play tactically and you wont have any problems.

 

[Nowotny]

This guy is probably a run and gun type of guy. Learn how to play tactically and you wont have any problems.

I don't really consider sitting in a random window waiting for an unsuspecting victim to walk by a particularly impressive show of tactics or skill.

But it's good to know that people still lack any kind of reading skills.

 

[NoxNoctum]

To be fair a lot of people on the offense tend to sit back way too much. People thinking about their KDR makes it worse too... (as if there's someone looking around looking at their stats anyways... )

Hopefully it'll change somewhat once people figure out that being really agressive pays off. I play bolt mostly and I'm often leading the charge and do really well. When you outflank an entire team the kills add up... Sitting back taking potshots at dudes in cover they do not.

Thank goodness there's no death score though at least or it would be way worse for the attackers.

Defense on the other hand is supposed to "camp".

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I don't really consider sitting in a random window waiting for an unsuspecting victim to walk by a particularly impressive show of tactics or skill.

But it's good to know that people still lack any kind of reading skills.

Finding a spot that is a likely approach route for the enemy, then killing him or supressing him so he can't advance properly on the objective, especially is they repeatedly keep using that route, is in my opinion a rather good and smart tactic. That would be a rather good example of defense that some people like to call camping

 

[Waffel]

this is ro. Camping does not exist. Only tactical wining.:d

fyp

 

[YoDawg753]

Heh tactical waiting.
I think camping's fine for the defenders, attackers should attack (duh)

You don't know how many times people told me I'm a ****ing camper, when I'm actually waiting for a teammate to lend me a hand but without any success because they're too busy picking enemies off the 90% deserted street!

 

[Roztig死]

Realism Shooters always have tactical camping, you don't rush in like your John Rambo is these type of games, you take it slow and strategically. If you don't like that type of game play, either play fire fight or don't play at all that's my honest opinion, and don't bother with the Arma series you most likely will hate the "camping" in that game . Also to improve said gameplay seek out a clan that uses voice chat.

 

[Porta]

Finding a spot that is a likely approach route for the enemy, then killing him or supressing him so he can't advance properly on the objective, especially is they repeatedly keep using that route, is in my opinion a rather good and smart tactic. That would be a rather good example of defense that some people like to call camping

As I said earlier - the PROTECTED AREA covers the campers flanks. Thats one of the main problems. When germans got Zabs house on Pavlov then they can lay in their protected area and spawncamp the russians.

 

[Porta]

Realism Shooters always have tactical camping, you don't rush in like your John Rambo is these type of games, you take it slow and strategically. If you don't like that type of game play, either play fire fight or don't play at all that's my honest opinion, and don't bother with the Arma series you most likely will hate the "camping" in that game . Also to improve said gameplay seek out a clan that uses voice chat.

Good campers make sure they are covered by the protected area...

edit: for example, always camp from a building the enemy cant enter yet, or from a spot they cant enter until they have taken the area that you cover.

 

[Ro2007]

Hit the nail on the head right there, I say. Back in RO-Berezina and RO-Gorlitz, people were really fighting for their lives.

This brings back memories. Some of the most tactical and best fire fights/teamplay ive ever played was on berezina.

 

[Nenjin]

As I said earlier - the PROTECTED AREA covers the campers flanks. Thats one of the main problems. When germans got Zabs house on Pavlov then they can lay in their protected area and spawncamp the russians.

Yeah, the protected areas are ridiculously distributed on some maps. Literally the other side of street from Zab's is protected. I wouldn't care as much if I could see the protected areas, but half the time I only find out they're there when I'm fighting for my life.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

As I said earlier - the PROTECTED AREA covers the campers flanks. Thats one of the main problems. When germans got Zabs house on Pavlov then they can lay in their protected area and spawncamp the russians.

Well, spawn camping is not what I am talking about and I personally thing that is wrong. I was just talking about defending likely avenues of approach.

 

[Porta]

Yeah, the protected areas are ridiculously distributed on some maps. Literally the other side of street from Zab's is protected. I wouldn't care as much if I could see the protected areas, but half the time I only find out they're there when I'm fighting for my life.

Indeed. The maps havent been playtested seriously enough. And the only protected area (except main spawn) that should exist should affect BOTH sides.

Its pretty stupid that someone can snipe you from a building you cant enter. Then the only SOLUTION and ANSWER to a camper is....

... another camper!

 

[Porta]

Well, spawn camping is not what I am talking about and I personally thing that is wrong. I was just talking about defending likely avenues of approach.

Same thing on some maps though.

A very very likely avenue of approach the enemy leaving its spawn.

 

[Lutze]

The OP's premise is completely flawed. The game actually wouldn't work properly without "camping". Assaulting a fixed position was a part of WW2. With RO giving players relatively realistic representations of weapons and options a soldier might have had in the field then assaulting a fixed position is also therefore necessarily going to bea massive part of the gameplay and fun in RO.

Finding out where the enemy is hiding is most of the difficulty, but most servers have some kind of death cam anyway. Once you know where he is, its just a matter of finding a way to take him out. No hiding place is unassailable, you just need to think sometimes.

I don't agree that it's a fault with map design. Most of Spartanovka is open ground, only a few windows and you can take a pretty good guess which ones you need to check before you move. Red October and Fallen fighters also necessarily have a lot of movement involved for everyone who wants to help cap some points, which is a majority.

Windows are in general a good place to shoot people from - they give you a narrow slit of the world you can concentrate on. You said that you like to go and run in the Station and kill all the Russians hanging out at windows but then said that this doesn't feel right - I have to ask exactly what it is you're complaining about? You've answered your own problem - movement is the key. If people are in windows then flank the people in the windows or hammer them with rifle fire. Most walls are pretty thin, it's easy to get a kill if you know where someone is.

As for starting too far back, I also disagree. All that would happen if you spawned closer is that you would have less choice about the route to your objective, and you would die even faster. What, do you think a fight would "last" longer if you had to walk less to get there? Of course not, it's nonsense. I don't understand what you mean when you say that proportionately you spend more time walking than "fighting". Do you expect the enemy to miss a lot? Would you like ten crates of ammunition to carry around with you so you can fire your weapon non-stop for three minutes? A lot of the way you fight in this game is to do with the way you move across the battlefield - learn to use the cover effectively and the guys in the windows will kill you less. Staying alive is just as much a part of fighting as killing your enemy.

Fights are intense because they are at close quarters, this is representative of much of the fighting in Stalingrad and extremely exciting as far as gameplay is concerned. There will no doubt be mappers with intent to make larger maps with bigger open spaces, but seeing as you don't seem to like walking to your objective then I guess you won't like those either. I really don't see how you could possibly hope to suggest a solution to this "problem".

The game wouldn't work if people didn't conceal themselves in a dark corner to hold an objective. Even going forward a team will benefit from a (limited) number of people covering them from the rear. If you're on a team that must attack but everyone is "camping", then admittedly you may have an issue. But although some teams you play with whilst pubbing are always going to be better than others, a completely static fight is extremely rare.

 

[Nenjin]

On one hand, I get the point, the real point, to protected areas.

On Pavlov's around Zab's, it's intended to force a Russian advance up the street, or out the front of Zab's where you're totally exposed to snipers, toward the ruins.

The problem is, as a player, you know that's a terrible ****ing idea and your mind instantly tells you to go left, through the duplexes, to attack the building.

Yet you can't, based on some combination of which points are captured and which ones aren't. And you can't tell when the protected areas really change except through countless of hours of playing the map and remembering "ok, if zabs and the ruins are controlled, I can flank left. If not, I have to run up the street like a sucker."

To add insult to injury, it seems like the Germans can ALWAYS flank Zab's on the right through that same set of duplexes. It's why I almost never leave Zab's when playing Russian. All I have to do is look and see bunches of Germans either flanking the point or going straight into it. I know they're where they're going to be a minute before they get there, so why bother leaving? I'll probably get shot in teh back anyways if I try to.

The whole tactical situation could just be a whole lot clearer. Let us SEE the protected areas, so we can evaluate from that stand point whether things are balanced.

 

[CloakR]

A lot of people in this thread seem to be forgetting that RO2 is actually a videogame, and thus 'it was in WW2' is not a reason for gameplay to be changed or not changed. Sure there was camping in World War 2, you know what was also in WW2? Typhus, dysentery, starvation. I don't see people calling for these to be in.

 

[MikkOwl]

There is no 'camping'. There is movement, and there is non movement. Both are necessary at different times to achieve various goals. Occupying good ground (i.e. cover, concealment, lines of fire) is a major part of being a successful infantry soldier. And so on.

I don't think it is hurting gameplay at all. I do think the crazy run & gun without the slightest self-preservation instinct types with MP40's are more successful than they should be. No one would do that sort of thing in reality. And it works so well in this game because communication is severely restricted - it is almost impossible to warn someone of an MP40 guy that just ran into the building on the right or is hanging around in the back of our spawn. Those lone SMG guys running around the lines randomly killing are having a strong bad effect on communication & team work. Becomes chaotic, disorganized.

The second issue of people not moving when required (i.e. when performing assaults to take objectives) is real. I think it is a lack of understanding of the game mechanics, and a huge lack of communication. Communication is required for organization. Organization is required to assault difficult objectives properly. Defence is easier than offense since it does not need as much cooperation. People can find good positions and kill whatever appears. There's no need for a squad leader to pop smoke when defending an objective.

Summary of what is needed:

1. more communication
2. training in game mechanics
3. objectives and squad status made accessible
4. further away spawn points (in both directions)
5. longer times to cap objectives
6. longer lockdown timer.
7. individual limits on number of respawns (when someone cannot any longer rush around carelessly trying to take as many with him before he gets killed (and he knows he will, because it is extreme high risk behavior, he will be more inclined to stay alive and look for his team to support him. Everyone can understand that if they stick with the guy with the smoke, they are more likely to not get killed when attacking an objective).

 

[MrLebanon]

It's not so much camping that is a problem

Rather it is attacking teams who camp that are a problem
If your defending by all means, you should be entrenched and not ramboing off into superman land