The term “camper” was coined from the earliest days of Quake—referring to someone who found a particularly fine spot to kill people from and moved very little, if at all, after achieving said position. Once established thus, much hullaballoo was made, mostly referring to this person in any number of expletives whilst casting aspersions about their parentage. I still feel that this tactic is valid, but I can sort of see someone's point if the object is to have a fast paced free-for-all. (Which is Quake in a nutshell) However, with the advent of objective-based multiplayer (in this case Battlefield 3) this attitude has continued to prevail in certain circles. If you feel this way, I hate to break it to you—but you suck.
You are a terrible, terrible player who doesn't possess the requisite skill or basic problem solving ability to root me from said spot with the multitude of implements the designers have seen fit to bestow upon you. Even if you lack the desire or ability to engage in squad tactics, many options remain open to you. Some examples: grenades, mortars, rockets, tanks, jet fucking airplanes. When you complain, all you're really saying is that you're losing, you're frustrated, and you want to cry about it. In fact, it's not “camping” at all—it's defending, sort of like that word beside my team name.
I understand being frustrated with players who ignore mission objectives or don't defuse bombs so they can get a higher kill/death ratio. That's a valid complaint. Getting mad because they're defending an objective isn't.
Let me clarify that I am not referring to spawn camping or base raping which, while incredibly frustrating and cheap, can still be overcome with teamwork and a little perseverance. Even the dreaded dirtbag sniper who has blown my head off for the seventeenth time from 700 yards while I'm crossing the street gets a pass. The game was designed with a sniper class. It stands to reason that the studio intended for one to use that class as conceived. If you're wondering what that purpose is, I can assure you it's not to rush headlong into the fray and attempt to kill people thirty feet away with a 10 power scope.
The same can be said for hiding in tall grass, on top of boulders, in dark corners. These places exist to be taken advantage of to tip the scales of battle in your favor. Use of your environment to your advantage is as old as warfare itself. Killing and winning while using these isn't dishonorable, it's just common sense.
The paper, rock, scissors nature of the Battlefield model is what makes it so enjoyable. Figuring out how to creep up on that sniper and gut him like a fish is that much more enjoyable because it's a problem to solve. Shooting someone at ten feet is great as well, but nowhere near as satisfying as outmaneuvering and out-thinking them.
In my years of military service, I have never encountered anyone who espoused the theory of giving the other person a chance to shoot at you. In fact today's enemy doesn't even show his face the majority of the time. It's the hallmark of asymmetrical warfare. They can't win in a stand up fight so they resort to other tactics to win. Which is the point.
That's right—winning is the point in warfare, whether online or in real life. Not who did what, or how it happened, but winning. Breaking the German codes and feeding them false information in World War Two wasn't particularly sporting, but it was damned effective. Expecting someone to assume one strategy and then whining when they don't doesn't accomplish anything except mark you as a person of little skill or maturity. The next time you feel the need to spam the chat channel with cries of “OMGCAMPER!” remember this: any military's mantra is “adapt and overcome”. Go and do likewise people.
Or go play Call of Duty.