Camping is a legitimate strategy that works well.
And the onus is on either the survivors to punish it and/or the devs to balance the game so that it no longer works. Frankly, that honestly means that the devs will have to do further balance changes if they really want to stop camping; because we all know survivors aren't really going to ever punish it.
The entire goal of the killer is to sacrifice the survivors. The primary way to achieve this is to slow the game down as much as possible so that you have as much time as possible to do your job. When successful, camping occupies the time of at least two survivors left in the game. Camping is considered successful whenever one survivor is on the hook, at least one survivor is sitting nearby doing nothing of much value for their team, and either the camped survivor progresses at least one hook state or you manage to down someone else (trading hooks counts). Camping is no longer successful when the remaining unhooked survivors all go do generators and/or when you completely lose your bait.
When you play killer long enough; you can sometimes get a feel for how certain survivors will act in a match. And sometimes you can tell that at least one or more survivors is overly altruistic for one reason or another. You are sometimes able to make an educated judgment call that one or more survivors will reward camping and that it might be a viable strategy in some games. Furthermore, you sometimes are heavily encouraged to try camping as a strategy because you get this feeling in a game where you would otherwise obviously lose due to how the game has been progressing. In this situation, you are making an educated gamble that camping will pay off and that you will be able to sacrifice more survivors by camping than you will by abandoning the hook. These educated gambles, especially against SWF and high rank survivors, will often turn 1K-2K games into 3Ks and even 4Ks, because survivors often will refuse to leave a hook alone even when it is clearly in their best interest to just do generators. This is often due to a mix of empathy for the hooked "teammate", boredom, greed for blood points, etc. In fact camping is particularly viable if the survivors have a "farmer" on their team; and you might even want to let a particularly bad farmer "escape" so that they'll keep farming their teammates. Finally, on rare occassions camping can be an educated gamble that you are definitely going to lose if the person to be camped ever gets off the hook; so you really do need to secure that kill and nothing is "lost" if the survivors "punish" you.
Please also note, I am not just talking about camping straight away. All of this can and does apply to situations where only 2 or 3 survivors are left in the game and/or situations where you've already progressed hook states "fairly" but no one is dead yet.
Now is camping a fun strategy? Well that is up for debate. It's definitely not fun for the survivors, and I personally do not find it that fun as killer, but some other killers seem to enjoy it a whole lot, and the devs seem to consider it a legitimate strategy whose counter is "just doing gens" (lol like survivors are going to do that). But the point of this post was/is to say that, from at least a strict number of sacrifices perspective, camping can be and often is a good strategy for getting kills. If it was a bad strategy, people wouldn't rank up at mid-high ranks by doing it. So please stop spreading the myths that this doesn't work and/or that people should stop complaining about it just because survivors can "punish" it. I can't force my random teammates to do anything lol.
Comments
Indeed it's a good strategy just not a fun one on both ends.
Irrelevant. If you're feeding the camper, you don't get to complain about camping. Regardless of the bloodpoints.