Are the maps or the players CAMPY???

[thunder]

Hey!

Are the maps or the player the CAMPY???

This is an interesting question. It is a kind of dilemma. I always hear this two sentences: "he just camped like s..." or "no i wont play on that campy map".
Well i have to say for me just Campers are there. If a player decided to he will play only camp, then he can do that on all maps. Yes on all maps and all locations. Not counting how much wide are the location's entrances he decided to...and yes he/she will camp. NO moving out from the base just little scout with one -one units. This is playing with the other players's nervous system. I think to the camp is part of the game. Camp is like part of the KaM style.
Why have i heard this about nearly all maps"campy map"?? Because players or because Maps??:)

Is that possible there are reason for a camp?
Yes, of course. Some players will choose campy strat. For example there are an average player who knows some legends. Once he can play one of them. He knows that he isnt on that level. He know he can produce 20-30units less than the lengend player (under PT, and after 5-10units less/10mins). He didnt has any chance on the opened battlefield because he has less units , so there is an easy decision next to the camp.

Camp because unfinished villages, or developement of the village?
Under the PT averybody is focusing only on the building and on the producing. But after the PT there are more issues. Scouting, defending, fighting, developing city, controll your city. An average player possible cant focus 100% on battle field and 100% on his village together. So decid at first collecting an army and after go...
Okay but the opponent is waitning on battlefield and feel that his enemy just camp like s... If he doesnt see the camper base inside until he canT decide what should to do. Attacking and possible he got a huge army from the base and lose, or just he also camp like s... i think this is gg, and this is why this game like a chess game.

I think to if the players are on the same level, and producing the units are on the same rythm, there will be great match, with waves, battle, developing, battle, developing...

Camp because the maps are, or locs?
I think rather the locs than the maps. Most of the times if players play one campy game on a map, after for him the map wll be campy.
OKay some location has less and narrow entrances, but these are hard if there are tons of towers. And here is the other definition the TOWER ABUser.(maybe talking abuot them later)
There are lot of opened and really wide locations and Still possible to defend them, but hard to defend everywhere in time. is there less campy games?
Or is it depend of the players again?

So how do you think guys? Please campers write also:)
XD
Maps or players?


ps:Do we really need to fear from the towers?;)

[Bence791]

TL;DR
Seriously now. I think players are campy. A map is called "campy" because they are likely to be camped on by certain players (mostly by randoms). Take Border Rivers for example. Not that huge battling area, but still, in the games we played, did we camp? I guess not. We were gathering forces after the battles, but that doesn't count as camping imo since the opponents don't attack either. Or take Cursed Ravine (already like 3,8k games played on... why? because you can defend forever, so you are willing to play it )... There is a shoutcast of it, can you see anyone camping? Nope. Or if you consider that style of gameplay camping, compare it to going behind a thousand of towers and waiting for the enemy to attack. Not the same, right?

So I guess a map being campy or not is player-dependant.

[dicsoupcan]

players are campy, maps can only provide tools to make it easier or harder.

[Jeronimo]

You also have to consider WHO is talking... there are many players who consider campy 90% of maps.

In my opinion, camping is about the locations + the player's decision.
Sometimes you get a campy location but you decide to rush...

In my case, whenever I camp is for lack of army (not a personal tactic).
If I have "something" I usually place my troops outside my base, so they don't interfere with woodcutters space.

I don't like players with big armies that sit on their bases: I consider that is lack of initiative.

TOWERS: They are finely balanced... if he builds many towers, then try to take them 1 by 1, or rush them with at least 15 militia.
Once the stones are emptied, is about persuing his archers and placing your archers forward (to kill as many serfs as you can).

[Ben]

Of course camping is a player's decision. How can you say that the map is calling the decisions for the player? However, some maps strongly encourage camping. Cursed Ravine, for example, encourages camping by making map control totally irrelevant, especially if you are playing 2v2v2v2.

As for towers, I've said it a hundred times: if a player decides to spam mass towers in the long game, it becomes a problem because it could take hours to finish the game. Most people don't have time for four-hour gaming (not to mention it is a bad game design).

[Mixons]

In my opionion its not about number of towers but defending skills of camper. If he is a good defender(or camper) he will not mass rows of towers, but he will build them intelligently, so he can place between them bowmans in good positions and outshoot attacker, dont let him push with archers or militia. For me camping depends too on number of players in game, because camping in team game is for me totally different think than in 1v1 game. The map have importance in camping too, because if the map have only for example one small entrance or many entrances but very small then its way more easy to defend than attack.

[Ben]

For me camping depends too on number of players in game, because camping in team game is for me totally different think than in 1v1 game. The map have importance in camping too, because if the map have only for example one small entrance or many entrances but very small then its way more easy to defend than attack.

This, though said many times, is a good point. Since stretching out very far out of your base isn't really effective in KaM, troop movement in the map is where it map control is important. For example, Back in the Desert's bottom locations have a much better position because they can move soldiers across the control of the map much easier than the top can.
Small entrances to bases are less of a problem in team games imo. Take Golden cliffs: several locations have very small entrances (less than 10 tiles). The importance in not camping is to help your allies (because if an ally falls, you'll lose in a 2v3 situation). Golden Cliff's design is very good for this reason. If played top vs bottom, say the bottom team is camping in location 6. The top team can easily move their armies to the top of the map before the bottom can. Lesson: don't camp.

[thunder]

Yesterday I saw replay about a 55mins camping with 5 minutes figtinhg(+60PT).
I think to I have to rewrite the question:

Are the maps or the players or the game mechanism CAMPY???

I hear that usually the campers always win, the defender has advantage etc.
Of course need good position for defending. Most of the maps has possibility. Are the towers stronger then before? in the nightly release nobody use the militirush for making empty towers? The game is changing, a small thing can destroy the previous basic tactics,strtegies etc...


At this moment I think about the CAMPING: 15% map -70% player -15% gamemechanism.