It should be common sense that controlling 95% of the map is more advantageous than controlling 65% of it. It should be obvious that it is easier to deal with the enemies when they can only approach from one place than when they have multiple approach routes. It should go without saying that keeping the enemy far, far away from the contentious middle part of the map is better than holding them back just outside of it.
In fact, even what you yourself have said acknowledges that spawn camping gives a team a more advantageous position!
Overall, unlike some viewpoints on the topic that are purely spiteful against perceived complaining about their wins, and/or defense of dominant behavior, your posts at least focus on tactics and gameplay elements, so you're definitely focusing on it from a better perspective than some people. I like that! However I do take exception to the levels of spin worthy of professional politics in some of these specific points which I'll address below.
But I reiterate it is indeed unnecessary. You seem to be sticking to the argument that if you don't box the enemy into the bubble shield of their spawnpoint, they are ferocious villains who will steal your victory. It's not enough to beat them, but they must be immobilized too! Atop that, you're talking about Turf War, for which there are absolutely no stakes whatsoever. This bloodthirst for victory, and mitigating even the most outside risk of defeat from the most surprise comeback from opponents somewhat validates the people who complain about it. It's not a simple defeat, it's defeat at the hands of an all too serious, win at all costs, victory is life and death mentality opponent. Who WOULD want to play a friendly game of Turf War with someone like that? I could be a little more understanding of that position if we were talking about ranked, when points are on the line, but, then, as we already discussed, it's a strategy that is a lot less likely to work in ranked, because you're a lot less likely to be facing opponents so below you in skill they can't fight back, and because the objectives prevent it. In most cases, against a team that CAN be spawncamped, it is indeed unnecessary to win. And in TW, winning itself is unnecessary as there is nothing but an ego stroking gained from it. It is simply unnecessary.
Here, you are trying to make out spawn camping to be some kind of unfair, underhanded tactic that lets bad players win matches they shouldn't. But I'm not going to go over what I've already covered--how spawn camping is actually a difficult feat that you have to earn. What is important is that in saying this, you're admitting that spawn camping is a beneficial tactic.
No, I'm saying it can be a beneficial tactic when a generally underperforming player determines they can manage to defeat opponents more easily at or below their own actual ability by effectively cheaply exploiting the unskilled/unsuspecting. It is not a tactic that demonstrates any real skill on their part, and it is not a tactic that will be in any way beneficial for them against opponents who are skilled at fighting back. I doubt anyone here will claim spawncamping can carry you to the S's. Or even the A's. It's questionable you could even get to B+ on it, honestly. It is something you use against weak opponents, and specifically something you use against opponents that are inaccurate shots. Against opponents that can shoot well, or for the higher tiers, someone who can shoot as well as yourself, it's not going to work so well. I'm also saying this tactic tends to ONLY work for them if their team consists of another player that IS a more skilled player than the rest of the lobby, including themselves whom they can rely on as a crutch to box in the better players or set up the situation to begin with. It's "cheap" because it is not achieved through their skill, it relies on someone ELSE'S skill.
Spawncamping is not "difficult" or "earned" in most cases, which is the point. The "difficult" or "earned" spawncamps aren't spawncamps, those are just the ones where natural progression and map control lead to the spawn by the end. Most spawncamps are "easy" because one team massively outmatched the other, or the camper was set up by a teammate that massively outmatched the other. It's "difficult" because against most opponents it won't work, and therefore doesn't happen most rounds for those that favor spawncamping. For the type of spawncamp where a player comes guns blazing into the base early on, it's a tactic involving sacrificial "testing" of the enemy. A gambit to see if it will work or not. They rush in. If they outgun the enemy they occupy the spawn, if they don't they know it won't work. They spawncamp only if the enemy is weak enough to be victim to it. That's not a difficult victory. It's "difficult" if the probing proves it will not work and then the battle must be fought conventionally.
And now that we've established that fact, your supposedly "noble" action of refusing to take an opportunity to spawn camp starts to take on a rather different character. Despite knowing that spawn camping would allow you to win more easily, you refuse to do it, telling yourself that you can win without it. I am not going to mince words here. That behavior is not noble; it is arrogant and disrespectful. Yes, that's right--in doing this, you are yourself guilty of being the very things you are accusing spawn campers of being.
If you decline an opportunity to spawn camp because you believe you can win without it, you are deciding that the enemy team is not worthy of playing against you at your best.
This kind of disrespect is different from squidbagging and other such overt behavior. You are not taunting your opponents; in fact, they will probably never know that you were being overconfident that match. However, on a personal, hidden level, you are, in fact, showing a lack of respect for your opponents. And I think that underlying arrogance has already shown itself a bit in a few of the statements you've made, such as this one:
Going back to the nature of spawncamping and the nature that it only works against a weaker opponent to begin with, it's not "arrogance and disrespect" to determine that an opponent that was able to be spawncamped is indeed the weaker team, and victory should be possible with or without spawncamping. It's an understanding that the matchmaker throws teams together that are not always balanced, and this is one of those times. Holding the enemy into their spawn denies them the opportunity of playing against you at your best. It holds them fixed into a predictable position with only pre-determined means of escape, denies them map strategy and the element of surprise, and denies them the ability to use their weapon's optimum range. It is you taking an early lead against them whether by superior overall shooting ability or through the element of surprise, and denying them any attempt at facing you a second time. If you're so afraid of their potential for comeback that you feel you need to box them in in order to win then that can't be changed, but convincing yourself that you're letting them play against you at your best as you stand 8 feet away from their guaranteed point of spawn isn't respectful of anyone. If you want them to play you at your best, take a defensive position in mid, or even better in your own base, and see if they can rout you. There's a test of their skill.
To spin hopping around pelting your opponents spawn shield as a sign of respect and humility is a pretty bold extreme. Even among others that defend the practice, this is the first I've heard a declaration that doing so is a sign of respect!
If you like exhibiting displays of dominance, no one can stop you. But trying to couch it behind statements that your actions that some have voiced offense to are the noble ones, and the actions no one voices offense to are ignoble takes the cake. Your prior statements in your previous post absolutely had serious merit to them on the virtues of spawncamping, but this places those statements in a very different far less favorable light.
If we were discussing real military strategies for real world warfare, I would more than likely entirely agree with the majority of your assertions! The goal is to rout the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible with whatever collateral damage that accrues. This is not real world warfare, and no populace or philosophy is on the verge of eradication or subjugation. It's an unranked game of what amounts to vitual paintball in what is supposed to be a friendly competition!
Again, you're declining the opportunity to spawn camp because you think that the other team is weak. You don't think they could possibly make a comeback, so you get complacent, lazily hanging back instead of pushing them back as far as possible. I'm telling you right now: You're setting yourself up for failure. One of these times, the enemy team is going to surprise you and turn the tables on you, and then you're going to feel like a fool for not taking advantage of the opportunities given to you.
Good for them! Your concepts are toggling back and forth between "the enemy needs to get better and learn not to make mistakes" and "the enemy must be routed and denied any and all chance to win!" Which do you want? Victory at all costs an an unscored game, or the edification of players less skilled than you? It's a passive-aggressive stance between two incompatible goals. As you pointed out, in ranked, the "camp" only lasts briefly and ends in a knockout - there is no comeback. There are comebacks in ranked of course, but not in the context of spawncamps. So again, we're talking Turf War. What possible reason to feel foolish is there for losing an irrelevant game from a surprise comeback from opponents you thought wouldn't? That's something you congratulate them on, not feel foolish for.
People complain about spawncampers due to the arrogant display, and the appearance that these people are taking the game far too seriously. Much of this discussion is lending credence to those complaints. Spawncampers ARE taking the game far too seriously which is very much why the sense of fun is removed by them.
If a team is making errors that are grave enough to allow their enemies to spawn camp them, I would think that they should focus on correcting those mistakes first. That is not going to happen if the enemy team doesn't punish them for those mistakes. To go easy on them is to leave those key errors uncorrected, and that most definitely will not help them to learn.
So indeed, the spawn camp is to PUNISH them for their errors? It's a form of judgement, then? A display to make example of them for their failure? Their place is to be punished, yours is to administer the punishment as their superior? The strong must punish the weak! And they can learn, while being pelted on their spawn, what errors they made in other parts of the map by ineffective use of cover or failure to effectively flank?
Ever lost a match but you had so much fun playing it that you hardly even noticed?
Award is, I feel, mostly just arguing in favor of an eventful, unpredictable and exhilarating Splatoon experience, which spawn camping effectively cripples.
Exactly this. There have been many losses where I was grinning the whole time. Outsniped by a better sniper, surprised by an ever unpredictable brush, roller, or sploosh from the strangest places. Those were fun losses, because I remained surprised the whole time. There was lots of competition, lots of opportunities, but I was creatively outplayed. Spawncamping is trying to shoot fish in a barrel while the fish try to shoot back. Spawncampers that know their weapon range better than their opponents will win. Spawncamped that know their weapon range better than their captors might win. Usually they just shoot at each other and the splatted spawncampers just superjump back. there's no game there. Like I said earlier in the thread, if the base quarter of the map denied superjumping, I'm not sure I would object to spawncamping so much. It would give a much more practical and competitive chance to break the camp. It's the idea that if you can't get all 4 it doesn't matter if you get 1 that makes it so anti-competitive and denies any practical chance of a comeback from an opponent that's not overtly superior (or lucky.)
