Is camping a viable strategy?
Just got into an argument with a survivor for 30 min on the topic of camping (specifically end game camping) and wanted to hear yalls thoughts (=
Comments
-
In general, not really. In the endgame it's pretty much necessary.
10 -
It is viable so long as there are survivors who want to unhook their teammate. You could face camp the first survivor you down with 5 gens undone and its still viable. It's not great for points and they'll hate you for it, but ultimately YOU are the killer and can what you please with whomever you catch, within the TOS.
9 -
Endgame? Feel free to camp.
Other than that, it's viable against very well coordinated swfs.
8 -
Depends on the scenario. I would say end game camping is understandable, too. You don't really have any other objectives, so-to-speak.
4 -
Endgame? 100% Yes. Camping is a viable strategy. You need to camp that hooked survivor, or you lose your kill, and you MAY lose it anyway.
During normal game time? That depends on the group you're playing against. If you know it's a 4 man SWF, they are USUALLY overly altruistic. You can camp and guarantee at least one other hook to come out of your camping. Then repeat. However; IF the survivors are smart enough to avoid the camped person and do gens, then it becomes a much less viable strategy.
5 -
Like pretty much everything it varies
Hell sometimes you don't want to complete a gen you otherwise could because it would 3 gen you.Or you don't take the time to kill someone as killer because it would cost you a critical objective.
Those are the primary objectives of the game and sometimes you want to ignore them, so I'd just disregard someone if they say something is ALWAYS a bad stratagy.
1 -
Depends on the survivors. If the one you're camping gives up or the other survivors throw themselves at the hook to save their friend, then camping is a good strategy.
If the survivors see that their friend is getting camped and work on generators instead (which they should tbh) then it's not a valid strategy.
I prefer to not camp at all, since I like points more than pips.
1 -
If survivors feed, sure. Which they do, often.
1 -
Camping can really upset survivors. For instance, you wait however long to get a game (some times of the day it can take ages), you load in, the killer finds you within the first 30 seconds of the game, manages to catch and hook you, then camps you. The other survivors now have a decision to make - do they attempt a rescue, risking being downed and left to bleed as the killer knows that players will try to rescue regardless, or doe they leave their team mate to die and rush the generators? This sucks either way for that first player.
I play both survivor and killer so see the issue from both sides. As a survivor, I have been camped early game so many times that I've lost count - I hate it, it's frustrating and you feel guilty when leaving the survivor to die. I can understand it once the gates are open, but early game surely you'd be better off hooking and leaving them while you patrol the gens and slow the survivor's progress. The longer the game, the more chances to earn BP and the better chance you have at pipping up.
When I play killer, I don't camp and try not to tunnel, unless survivors are being stupid and forcing my hand. It is tempting sometimes though, when survivors are doing everything they can to be toxic. If you are camping, you are going to get salty survivors as they feel its not fair and some I play with in SWF will get quite shirty and contact the survivors to complain - they feel that camping should be banned. It doesn't help when they get a response from the killer saying "yeah I camped because it (insert expletive) players off.
Ultimately, camping is not against the rules but you will lose a small percentage of your score (against the associated emblem) for staying within close proximity, but are likely to guarantee the sacrifice. You have to make the decision whether it's the right tactic or not, for you.
0 -
Nope, camping/tunnel = zero skills
To me its just weak people whos not trust theirs abilities and choose the easy way out.
As killer im making 4kills or 3 without it just fine. Plus you have points and more fun than just waiting stupidly. And when im 1kill or even zero, well, i prefer to play fair for everyone than kills everybody with no pride lul.
People needs to Stop trying to make this a strategy, its just the laziest and dumbest way to play
1 -
I think it can be a wonderful strategy if you're playing against overly altruistic survivors.
Also, looking at your comment history you said you almost never play killer :0 im guessing you always 3/4 k in lower tiers, in higher tiers if you get bad maps (cornfield nurse, institute billy, ect) it can get pretty crappy. I typically do it late game if i need it to pip or if they're waaay over altruistic
If it works, why not do it?
3 -
Yes it is.
I don`t care if doesn`t allow me to have 4k if survivors do genrush. I don`t care if it is considered to be "toxic" or else. I don`t care if it ruins someones experience.
I want to play the game how I want, not how some braindead idiots, who can`t adapt and are unnable to accept minor and major defeats, want.
5 -
I mean if the gates are opened and you have one guy on hook, leaving him would be a dumb move. I understand the end game camping, but when someone camps the first guy they down while 5 gens are left, that's just sad.
1 -
First, camping is boring and frustrating for the guy who is on the hook in most cases.
Second, no it is not effective at all, unless you know the Survivor are very alturistic.
0 -
if you have 1 on the hook then what else are you to do if the gates are opened? they will just run up get them off the hook and that's that. I don't get why they cry all the time.
0 -
Of course it is a good strategy. It gets a lot easier when only 3 survivors are in the game. Often you can have more people on the ground because they really want to help. It is especially funny if you hang people like Anna who are upset xd
1 -
It can be a viable strategy, but the use cases are specific. It is frowned upon as it feeds into low skill or bad gameplay experience. Though some situations require a certain amount of hard or soft camping. Endgame is the most noticeable along with hook rushes. You have to gauge when to just let the hook go though. Stay too long and lose pressure everywhere else and cripple your chaser emblem. Which is a big deal if you're concerned about ranking up. Sometimes its best to proxy at a distance to maintain a soft camping scenario. You can get to the hook quick if need be, but you've given enough breathing room for the gameplay to happen.
Things break down though when you get into the scenario of what happens after someone's been unhooked. Efficiency says go for who ever is easiest/weaker to take down. "Fair" play says you always choose someone other than the person who got unhooked/kobe'd.
0 -
If you considere Trading 1 guy for at least 3 Gens, then yea, good strategy. You might even get 1 more Kill until the game is over with that (against a potent team ofc).
Should be an easy 2K with 10K Bloodpoints and a - pip for your 2 hook 2 Kill round. GG wp ;)
0 -
It is a great tactic against survivors that come to try to save at the same time and just wait there for you to leave instead of doing generators. The frustration the hooked player feels it is just a bonus for me.
0 -
Why does it make you happy when someone is getting frustrated by your hand? Fix your RL issues before you ruin someones afternoon.
2 -
I don't know, It just does ;-) I don't deny it. See you on the hook
0 -
Is it viable to camp when gens are done?: yes
Is it ethical to do so?: Arguably, I say yes
Is it viable to camp other times?: depends what you define camp. If you are deterring survivors you know are in the area, I don't consider that camping. I've also bee accused of camping for passing by when that's the quickest route from point A to point B, and looking at the hook from like 30m away because it's in my line of sight. If you define camping as "staying near enough to the hook at all times that a rescue is impossible" it's not viable unless you wanna do a Bubba's Basement (Cannibal + insidious)
Is it ethical to do so?: No. You are throwing one random other player under the bus by giving them no chance, *while* crippling your own score. You're throwing a rock into a room and murder-suiciding whoever it hits. It's unfun for both parties, usually.
1 -
Viable, not usually. Endgame? Yes, camp them. A strategy? Yes, just an annoying strategy.
0 -
Your mistake was trying to argue with survivors. Their objectives and views are diametrically opposed to killers. If you're even on the same map as them, you're camping. Never mind that it slows games to give you the win when you might not have.
0 -
Who cares if it's frustrating to the other guy? Do they give you hooks and kills?
1 -
Only in endgame its viable. camping soemone with 5 gens still on is just toxic and should be punished, cause this is a game, and being camped is not fun at all.
0 -
It punishes Altruism-hungry Survivors pretty hard.
Especially Cannibal with multi-hits & Wraith and Insidious to ignore Borrowed Time.
1 -
For all these folks in here who say it's only okay during endgame and such.
From the devs own mouths.
2 -
Well yes, but actually no.
1 -
Over altruistic survivors says hi~
0 -
The only exception is if you have the blood warden perk. In that case sometimes it's a good idea to rush over to one of the gates right after hooking someone to catch some survivors getting ready to leave and then hilariously pissing their pants when they find out they can't. I've gotten so many last minute sacrifices this way.
0 -
Sometimes, sometimes not.
0
