The Instigator
MrMicrochip
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
noah364
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Camping is Cheating

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
noah364
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,586 times Debate No: 35521
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

MrMicrochip

Con

I am really sick of and annoyed with gamers all around complaining that "camping" is cheating. There are multiple reasons why it is not cheating. Here is the Urban Dictionary definition of "camping"

Camping: The act of staying in one spot in a map in a first person shooter video game to gain a tactical advantage over an enemy or group of enemies.

There is literally nothing whatsoever wrong with this. Video games don't exactly have "rules". If there are rules, the developers have systems implemented in the games to make certain actions impossible. I think that people who complain about camping are just simply annoyed, rather then feel like rules are being broken.

In a real war situation, snipers sit there for 14 hours, give or take a little to assassinate their target. Video games (fps's) try to represent real life war situations as best as possible. If you're playing paintball or laser tag, you want to sit in a good spot and shoot; and there's nothing wrong with that.

It actually is a better option then blindly running around the map getting killed over and over. You have to find a good spot, and stay hidden.
noah364

Pro

If one thing's for certain, it's that fps's don't try to imitate war as best as possible. If they did imitate war as realistically as they could, no one would play the game. War is scary, and, contrary to the belief of many Call of Duty players, war is definitely not something you want to participate in. The point of a video game is to have fun. To be entertained to interact in friendly competition with people all over the world.

A camping spot can be compared to a tax loophole. It exists, and you can get ahead by utilizing it, but doing so is morally wrong as it contradicts the original intentions of the creator of the tax law/game. There are no developers that say, "Go, go! Camp right here! If you want to win, just hang out in this spot and never come out!" Devs try their best to minimize camping spots while encouraging a match that is based on equal competition and skill.

It's hard to have fun in a game when there are people camping. And the players that are camping are proving nothing. In a competition such as a video game, the entire point is to demonstrate skill and finely-tuned hand-eye coordination. When someone camps, all that they prove is that they can stand in one place and hide. They can't shoot or aim or move particularly well, but they sure can hide!

People who camp are bad sports. They are so obsessed with winning that they forget that everyone's just trying to have fun, and that losing a CoD or Halo match is in no way a personal failure or a reflection on your person. If you lose, all that it means is that the other person is better at pressing buttons than you are.

In addition, it's impossible to compare (the majority) of fps's to paintball. In paintball, not only are you out in one hit, but getting hit stings. It's not too bad when you just get hit once, but getting hit three or four times starts to be uncomfortable. Paintball maps are designed for camping. It's an integral part of the game, unlike a "tax loophole" camping spot within an fps. With laser-tag,a similar rule applies. Everyone is glow-y and bright, which makes it kinda difficult to hide. Not to mention that everyone's much more aware of their environment than in a game. You might be able to pull off one sneaky kill, but it's nearly impossible to get a game-esque chain.
Debate Round No. 1
MrMicrochip

Con

"If one thing's for certain, it's that fps's don't try to imitate war as best as possible. If they did imitate war as realistically as they could, no one would play the game. War is scary, and, contrary to the belief of many Call of Duty players, war is definitely not something you want to participate in. The point of a video game is to have fun. To be entertained to interact in friendly competition with people all over the world."

I think the Battlefield series would have something to say about that. Keep in mind camping isn't only possible in Call of Duty. It's possible in almost every first person shooter out there. Battlefield is a realistic war combat simulator, whereas Call of Duty is an arcade shooter. I realize they don't make it how actual war completely is, but they put some aspect of it into the games.

"A camping spot can be compared to a tax loophole. It exists, and you can get ahead by utilizing it, but doing so is morally wrong as it contradicts the original intentions of the creator of the tax law/game. There are no developers that say, "Go, go! Camp right here! If you want to win, just hang out in this spot and never come out!" Devs try their best to minimize camping spots while encouraging a match that is based on equal competition and skill."

This is true, however there are no developers that rid camping completely. Again, in a real war situation, or anywhere really, people fight to survive, whether it's video games or not. And the logic thing to do in a situation where you want to get as many kills as possible, and not die, is simply to hide out and shoot passerbys. Video games are virutally made without any rules whatsoever. Nothing is "cheating" unless one is hacking or modding. Video games are free to be played however one would choose, without penalty.

" People who camp are bad sports. They are so obsessed with winning that they forget that everyone's just trying to have fun, and that losing a CoD or Halo match is in no way a personal failure or a reflection on your person. If you lose, all that it means is that the other person is better at pressing buttons than you are."

I think everybody who plays video games are obssessed with winning. Not a single person is "willing" to fail. People who are trying to keep a respectable KD ratio want to keep it as well as possible, without much flaw. The skillfull, realistic thing, any normal clever thinking person would think of doing to survive, is to hide and cover ground from an advantage point. It makes no sense whatsoever to run out in the map blindly, spraying and praying (which is also criticized as much as camping). Every player (first time or not) always camps, it literally always happens. Why? Because it makes perfect sense.

Also, camping makes it tougher for opponents, but just to test their ability. It's always an awesome moment when you take out a camper.
noah364

Pro

IF there's any game that is "realistic" to war, it's either Arma or Mass Effect. Both games capture the unpleasant sides. Arma, the boring,uneventful stints between adrenaline-filled battles, and Mass Effect, the trauma and overwhelming feeling of helplessness you get when a comrade is gunned down in front of your eyes. Spec Ops: The Line also does a fair job by making hard to end a person's life. This is war. Battlefield is not war. In Battlefield, the guns look real. The feel real. But when a comrade dies before you, you feel nothing because you know they feel no pain and will come right back. I'd just like to get that out of the way. There is no way in heaven or hell that any piece of interactive entertainment could ever come close to the horrors of real war (not even the titles I mentioned).

Now, to the actual argument.

You said that, in real war, people camp all the time. I'll tell you what. If my life depended on it, and if the well being of my country depended on it, I would camp like crazy. However, people play games not because they want to know what real war is like (see above paragraph), but because they want to have fun. Killing a camper is satisfying only because you feel that you're bringing justice to someone who was so competitive that they'd sacrifice your enjoyment for the bragging rights of high numbers on a digital screen.

By saying that games are made without rules, you'd also be saying that's its perfectly fine and dandy for anyone to hack a game whenever they want and make themselves invincible. How are you distinguishing between the two? They both take advantage of the game in ways that the game is not meant to be. One messes with code, the other with careless developer oversight.

Also, I completely disagree when you say that people play games to win. If they do play games only to win, then they need to get out and do something with their lives. Winning a game means nothing. Sure, it's satisfying, but it's no excuse to camp. Finding advantage points is okay. It would be stupid not to try to gain the tactical upper hand. Hide behind a corner, get to the high ground, I don't care. Most of these "tactical" locations were purposefully included by the developer as miniature war zones, places for meaningful encounters with opponents. These locations, however, always have a weak spot, so that the other team isn't automatically screwed when they're pushed away. When the developer accidentally creates one of these locations without a weak spot, that's where people usually camp, and that's when the game becomes unfair.

There's a difference between a tactical position and a camp spot. Tactical positions are meant to give you a slight edge, just enough so that the opponent has a chance of taking the position back and has incentive to. But when a position become un-infiltrateable and gives one team or person an unfairly large advantage over the other that has nothing to do with skill, than it becomes a camp spot. It's okay to use them every once in a while. Maybe grab a single kill to even the odds in a badly matched game. But generally, players should use their morality and sense of fair sport to control their greed for XP and points, and try to win the game legitimately.
Debate Round No. 2
MrMicrochip

Con

"By saying that games are made without rules, you'd also be saying that's its perfectly fine and dandy for anyone to hack a game whenever they want and make themselves invincible. How are you distinguishing between the two? They both take advantage of the game in ways that the game is not meant to be. One messes with code, the other with careless developer oversight."

I said that games are made with virtually no rules, within the game. Meaning that there is nothing stopping you from running a certain amount of time, nothing stopping you from knifing certain people, etc... If there ARE things stopping you, it's built into the game, such as the developers making certain people invincible, invisble barriers, etc...
Hacking has many forces against it in video games, and it's pretty hard to do actually. And when I said "No rules" I meant within the game, on multiplayer. There's nobody watching over you to make sure you don't do a certain thing. (There are admins, but if the rule is broken you're instantly out. Rule being changing to a certain gun, etc.) Other then admins, nobody can tell what to or what not to do.

"Also, I completely disagree when you say that people play games to win. If they do play games only to win, then they need to get out and do something with their lives. Winning a game means nothing. Sure, it's satisfying, but it's no excuse to camp. Finding advantage points is okay. It would be stupid not to try to gain the tactical upper hand. Hide behind a corner, get to the high ground, I don't care. Most of these "tactical" locations were purposefully included by the developer as miniature war zones, places for meaningful encounters with opponents. These locations, however, always have a weak spot, so that the other team isn't automatically screwed when they're pushed away. When the developer accidentally creates one of these locations without a weak spot, that's where people usually camp, and that's when the game becomes unfair."

I don't care if it's in video games, sports, or throwing eggs at a pole and trying to see how many you can get vs the other person, humans are born with a competitive spirit. That's simply how it is. I don't know one person who doesn't do anything to try to be good at it. If you're not competing to win, there's no point to compete. You push yourself and try your best to win all the time. As I said before, if you aren't trying to win, don't try. That then renders your part of the competition pointless. Winning a game DOES mean something, especially to an MLG player. Winning a game means money. If you're not playing for money either, it still records your skill level.

noah364

Pro

I'm not arguing that humans are not born without competitive spirit, or that people shouldn't compete. All I'm saying is that people should learn to control their competitiveness to avoid prioritizing it over the enjoyment of other people. Camping is being a bad sport, and that point remains. It's fine to win a game of basketball, but it's not fine to rub your victory in the opponent's face. It's bad sportsmanship, just like camping is. Everyone should push themselves. No one should purposefully do less than their best. But if you camp, than you're not doing your best. Your finding a loophole to try to make yourself look better than you really are. True, in the MLG, victory does mean money, but not all of the over 10 million people who bought Battlefield 3 are in the MLG or are ever going to be. And I understand that a game records your skill level. But that's like saying "Hey guys, look at this fantastic Oscar on my shelf. You want to know how I got it? I bribed the Academy." Having a high skill level in-game doesn't mean anything if your actual skill level is still low. If you gain skill by camping (which requires little to no skill at all), than you rig the whole system. How can you know how good someone is if there's no way to know whether or not their rank is an actual reflection of their ability in game? Gamers should agree not to camp to keep the skill system legitimate, just as gamers generally agree not to purposefully betray teammates. It's not a written thing, just a respect thing that everyone should recognize. Something along the lines of "We're all here to have fun. Please don't ruin that for us."
Debate Round No. 3
MrMicrochip

Con

For my closing argument, I'd like to say all in all that camping is NOT cheating, just maybe a rather poor way of dealing with opponents, but a way that many people instinctively think of doing. Humans are born with competitive spirits, and will do about anything to win. Also, the opposite and one alternative to camping is to "spray and pray" which is also widely looked down upon. Spraying and praying (to run the map blindly firing at whatever moves) is a bad option as well. And if you're a competitor in the middle of this (doing neither camping or spraying), you're going to have a hard time and get frustrated quite easily. Video games are free for all, do what you please, cheating can't exactly happen activities. Once on the field, it's your choice without consequence where you go and how you do it.

Thank you for the debate, all luck your way.
noah364

Pro

For my closing argument, I would like to reiterate that people should control their competitive instincts and play the game for the fun of the game. They shouldn't try to artificially boost their scores by using a method that is cheap, unskillful, and a simple result of developer oversight. There are many other methods to go about dealing with one's foes. 'Spray and Prey" is one, but, for all of the same points given in my previous arguments, it should also be avoided in the interest of fair sport and in the spirit of the game. Further, players should avoid camping to keep games' skill/ level-up systems a legitimate reflection of skill, and not of ability to stand in one place.

It is indeed the choice of the player where to go and what to do when on the battlefield, so players should use their freedom to prove their adeptness at the game by beating their opponents fairly and equally, without using cheap digital loopholes.

I thank the opposition for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
I'll tell you hwat! There is only one acceptable time to camp, and that is when the bong's on you.
Posted by LCDebater 3 years ago
LCDebater
Although camping is vert annoying, I don't think it is cheating; there isn't a specific rule that prevents you or informs you that you are not aloud to camp. However, it is very frustrating. What do you even achieve by camping? It shows neither skill nor expertise or good tactics. As well as the fact that it doesn't make you good at the game, it must be really boring and it just spoils the fun of the game - because after all the game is intended to be fun otherwise nobody would buy it!
Posted by alextangfastic 3 years ago
alextangfastic
I never blame a failure on the mechanisms of the game because if your that good you should be able to learn away past it. There begin to be spots and areas where 'campers' stay, and over time there where abouts are predictable. Good mechanic never blames his tools
Posted by Coinsruledude 3 years ago
Coinsruledude
Wait, there's a discussion about camping in video games happening right now, and no ten-year-old 'Microsoft employees' have threatened to console-ban me yet...something's wrong.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
@JustinAMoffatt lol I do what I can ;)
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
When I think of camping, it's not watching an area that comes to mind. Sit in one spot and do that all you want, as having your teams flanks covered is good strategy. Campers I hate are the ones who sit in a corner and watch a doorway. While technically it is a strategy, it's a pathetic one.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
It can be annoying, and it is often combined with map exploit cheats. However the act of camping itself is not a cheat.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
@aramer1919 I love you. XD
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
I'd be willing to defend it as being "cheap", or as "reducing the overall fun"; those who call it "cheating" are, of course, not speaking literally (it's clearly not against the rules, although back in the day I recollect a mod or two for shooters that strongly discouraged it through things like subtracting health).
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Well... This is hard to debate... It is more of an opinion than a reasonably debatable truth.

I'd say it's not as much cheating, as it is simply terrible gameplay. We should all try to win, but never at the cost of each other's fun. It's Childhood Lessons 101.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
MrMicrochipnoah364Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I buy Pro's argument that the purpose of a game is to have fun more than I buy Con's argument that it's fair game so long as it's possible.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MrMicrochipnoah364Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB Mikal: Only defined argument, yet by virtue of such voted on everything else; even when neither side used a single source. He also pulled in an argument for con, which con himself did not present (a dictionary definition of cheating). I favor con's arguments, yet will not let such a bad votebomb stand.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
MrMicrochipnoah364Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: cheating present participle of cheat (Verb) Verb Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: "she cheats at cards". By defintion, Pro looses this argument from the start. To cheat you have to act unfairly or dishonestly. Since standing in one place cannot be defined as dishonest, or unfair because it is within the rules of every game. The only way camping could be cheating is if the game specified that not moving was against the rules. As that is the not the context of this debate Con sweeps it without even having to present much of an argument.