Depends on the situation. If you're against a team who all run in for the save or you see scratch marks by the hooked survivor the smart play is to camp or at least proxy camp.
Funny thing about a number of those saying it depends I've noticed.
The comment seems to go along the lines of there are situations depending on what the survivors do that killers have to camp.
Seems like another way to say it is necessary to camp if the survivors have progressed to a certain point, or they are doing good.
I'm really curious now as to why those same people who say that seem so uncomfortable admitting that they find camping neccesary
Mostly it's a bad play that's just BM and will lose you the trial unless survivors are potatoes. But sometimes it's not because you've got a lot of strategic things in one area that survivors are going to have to come to, so why leave?
Edit: Also, don't be childish with some binary, black-and-white, yes-or-no mentality. If you average out the games where camping someone loses Vs wins then the significant majority of the time it's going to be "loses."
I'd like to add that camping is viable when survivors make mistakes too. For example, when the rescuer isn't stealthy enough when approaching the hook - before I managed to leave the area, I don't think I should be expected to let it go. Or when they continue to lead a chase near the hook.
See this is the problem with your post/argument. Its biased.
" Seems like another way to say it is necessary to camp if the survivors have progressed to a certain point, or they are doing good. I'm really curious now as to why those same people who say that seem so uncomfortable admitting that they find camping necessary."
You are already under the presumption that camping is some magical instant-win button when it simply isn't. You're clearly refusing to acknowledge that camping is situational and just want to slander everyone who picks option 1 as a villain.
You can't label the option called "Necessary" as "Necessary in all situations, useful in all situations, or useful in some situations" and the other option, "Useless" as simply "Completely pointless in all situations." That's not offering 2 equal and opposite choices to a yes/no question, you're conflating many different viewpoints into one option and assigning only one to the other.
If you're not going to label the choices as they are then you might as well name them red choice and blue choice.
Make a third option next time.
You should check out my earlier post explaining why there are two options. The goal wasn't to find out how many pick option 1, it was to see if anyone picked 2. To see if anyone actually believed that there are no situations where camping is good. Seems there are quite a bit which surprised me.
Personally it does seem weird that so many people would say camping never works, if it didn't I doubt killers would use it as much as they do
endgame open gates no one is leaving? yes. Using it through the whole game not leaving a single person, it will guarentee you one kill but unless the survivors are super thirsty for the save or the hooked killed themselves you will most likely get only one kill and almost no bloodpoints.
Camping can be frustrating to deal with, but I'd be lying if I didn't say it was necessary sometimes. That said, it truly does depend on the match and the state of it, I know people like to preach camping is bad and all, but sometimes walking away from the hook is the absolute dumbest thing you can do.
Same goes for tunneling and such as well (E.G teammate hooksaves a survivor and hides leaving their teammate as the only thing the killer can see at that time to maintain pressure.). If survivors are playing dumb or you see something you can exploit, it's smart to take advantage of that as long as you aren't doing it at all times and ruining the fun just to win.
Make smart decisions, not fair decisions if you want to win. You can do both, but you will have those scenarios where you have a choice and it really just depends on what you the killer want and the state of the match.
I think we can all agree. That if you tunnel, camp, or face camp, you are bad at the game and the worst person ever. Having to camp or tunnel to win the game is embarassing. You have no friends and deserve to loose every game. Especially if you are playing an overpowered or very strong killer and/or along with overpowered or very strong perks.
From experience gens go off like crazy were you camp I don't camp in that tern I learn the map and get to them fast and if I'm nearby I hit the one that was just on hook
I'd specify. Facecamping is very unfun for both parties involved, but proxy camping can be advantageous in certain scenarios but also very risky. I know you said the answer must be black or white but really there's way more nuance to it then you're giving it credit for.
This poll is deeply flawed.
Sometimes camping is necessary. After gates are powered, what else is the Killer supposed to do? Gates can't be contested. Sometimes it isn't even always intentional, if a Killer spots a Survivor trying to stealth for the unhook... why would they leave?
Sometimes camping is useless. Either the survivors handle it by ignoring you and blasting through all the Generators, or in end game they manage to out maneuver you and get everybody out the gates despite your best efforts.
Camping is a strategy. No more, no less.
You seem fun. This isn't a right or wrong issue. There are variables to consider based on how the survivors are playing. I'm assuming you prefer to play Survivor, which is fine.
Camping is only usefull when you have one survivor on hook and its the only kill youll get all game. Camping can be easily countered by a group of survivors by each of them tackling a different gen. Camping only works when survivors are being overly altruistic and wont give up on getting their teammate off the hook. One hook state lasts for 60 seconds (i think) so if all other survivors are on a gen by themselves they can get three gens and three half gens finished by the time the player on hook dies. Then simply have the best survivor take chase to give the others time to finish the last 2 gens. Boom all gens are done. If the looping survivor lived you get 3 out easily if they got hooked you send the second best (hopefully with borrowed time) to get them out and escort them to the exit. The killer will get 2 kills at best but most likely only 1(i am a killer main)
I truly think it can be both - if the survivors are overly altruistic and allow you to camp and don't punish you for doing the gens, it's not the wrong strategy. If you're camping as a killer and you are being punished by the survivors slamming out those gens, then it's the wrong strategy.
If it's EGC or if you've hooked near a completed gen - leaving that area, if you don't know where other survivors are, is again probably the wrong strategy.
For the record I rarely camp, only if I've got someone hooked in EGC and a door is nearby. I do love chases in DbD so I spend my time in those and can't wait to get back into a chase when I've hooked someone so that's my main aim, not standing around the hook. But like everyone, I've had games where I've hooked someone and before I've had a chance to move the survivors are trying the unhook and low and behold 4 man slugged - it happens, doesn't mean I was ever going to camp in that match, just that the survivors played badly.
It's not a simple question, there are many factors that come into play as I've tried to describe here.
The answer you choose isn't right or wrong unless you try to choose both. Then you wrong. Maybe the problem is that it involves camping so it's too close an issue for you.
Here try this instead let's pretend my question was about if you should eat vanilla ice cream
If you think vanilla ice cream is something you should eat all the time for every meal you are in 1
If you think vanilla ice cream is something you should have some times theb your also in 1
If you think vanilla ice cream should never be eaten ever then you are in 2
You see you may like or dislike vanilla ice cream so choosing 1 or 2 is fine depending on your taste. But you can not think vanilla ice cream is something that should never be eaten and that its good to eat sometimes/all the time becuase those are contradictory.
Hope you can figure it out now
Your poll is biased and you're trying to force a binary answer to a multifaceted question.
When I play killer, I don’t camp and occasionally I’ll tunnel, but rarely. I’ve been able to get 3s and sometimes even 4k without camping.
From a survivor standpoint, camping is insanely difficult to play against because you’re unable to save people unless you’re willing to go down. I had this happen earlier. The doctor wasn’t using his ability and face camped the other survivor. I did go for the rescue, but got hooked in the process.
However, if you’re going against a bunch of toxic players, then camp all you want. All’s fair in love and war.
If you are good at camping, that means you can also end chases fast and defend the hook..then camping is almost always 3-4k even in red ranks.
How can you be bad at camping? You just stand and wait and occasionally grab a survivor who runs right up in front of you cause there trying to unhook
It's not that complicated, there are 2 choices one that says camping is always terrible and should never be used in any situation because it's terrible and you'll lose, the other option is the opposite it says that camping is a good strategy.
Not sure why your having trouble with it, it's an easy test. Do you think you should never camp? Then your option 2 otherwise option one. Did that clear it up
If you are bad at camping survivors can get the unhook and then loop the killer if the killer is bad in chases, don't understand how to avoid flashlights etc. If all you can do is stand and wait this strategy won't work very well you need to be good in your all around game.
Oh yah you need to be able to play the rest of the game to get to the camping part, I just meant the actually camping doesn't require skill. He'll if your bad at grabbing or hitting other survivors there's always Bubba for instadowns so you only need to hit once one he rescuer
Alright, now that was a very fun way to put it lol. I understand the point that you are trying to make. However, this is still not an option 1 or 2 conversation. If I was to choose an option, it would be whichever one says that camping is a great way to win. Despite however many Survivor mains on here pretending to be Killer mains say that it isnt good, it is. Its not a nice playstyle but it can be effective more often than not. Only because most survivors come to save each other. If they only try and fix gens and abandon the unfortunate first fella, than you'll probably get 1 kill.
Yah the reason it was made this way was a number of people has bassically claimed that camping didn't need to be addressed because it was such a terrible strat that could not be used effectively so why bother fixing it. I was expecting to see almost no one choose option 2 becuase of how good camping was but there are a surprising number who say it's useless.