Making Low-Sec Gate-Camping A Concord-able Offence

The current Gate-Camping mechanics are pathetic, Low-Sec functions just like null. This setup brings no other content to the game other than kill farming, taking the opportunities for “real” PVP out of question, and drives new players out of the game.

Gate-Camps, short for referring to the one-sided tactic of ambush predation that virtually guarantees your success and or survival in PVP situations in EVE Online is just an excuse to let Multi-boxing subs solo camp a gate with bot programs and have little to no consequences incurred. That sounds like a kind of heaven for those who aren’t quite confident enough to engage in “normal” PVP, and indeed it is a heaven for those with the patience (and or coding skill to make a bot program) to be able to sit and wait, like a bored spider.

Low-Sec Gate-Guns do a combined grand total of 300dps… and that’s supposed to stop aggressive behaviour… how exactly? lol. Two Gate-Guns is just not enough, having the normal eight would actually be something to avoid. Even then that doesn’t prevent a Low-Sec gang of eleven cruisers from sitting there remote repping each other and tanking the damage, lets not even get into the idea of a Multi-Boxer and or bot accounts doing the same thing.

It doesn’t really look like CCP wants to crack down on bot accounts and obtuse game mechanics when this sort of thing is healthier than ever.

Look, I’m not trying to say PVP should be prevented, Null-Sec is great, W-Space is exhilarating and terrifying in all the right ways lol. Although ambush tactics that have no other counter other than superior numbers and or higher-classed mass jump fleets just seems to do anything but make the game fun.

In summation, add more gate guns and maybe even make a 50KM Concord-able (20 second response time) safety zone around the gate so that those who warp in aren’t just immediately deleted on sight by the Gate-Camper(s).


Just curious. What is “real” pvp if gate camping is not?


In hindsight, I’m realising that that’s a very nuance filled term. As someone who hasn’t engaged in much willing PVP I lack the insight to be able to give an example based in experience. However, having been warped in on while mining in Low and Null a few times (that gets expensive fast), I know that there’s a difference between being on grid and hearing someone else pop in (where-ever they do pop in), compared to jumping into a system and not knowing who is in it, where they are, and having to find where to warp to after jump. Now If someone wants to Camp a belt for people that decide to do some Ratting, I think that’s fine, because said Ratter has chosen to take the risks of not just commuting through Low-Sec.

So be it someone Ratting being prayed upon, someone being bumped out of a station and nuked, someone being warped in on while running combat sites, or someone intentionally looking for some low sec PVP, there are other more “real” forms of PVP interaction.

But what makes any of this “real” when gatecamping is not?


Would you like me to use a different word…?

No. I would like you to answer the question.


I wouldn’t mind a tougher gate response at only those gates that abute up with HS. Kind of self defeating to try and encourage noobies to try to branch out from HS and try other areas, only to have them blapped at the first gate in LS. There have been a ton of ideas presented already about the issue; who knows, now may be the time where CCP changes the games mechanics?


Honestly, while gate/hole/any other camping is as much PVP as any other form of PVP, it’s not satisfying. Nobody says “yay, I had fun jumping into a gang of 10 dudes that had me scrammed, webbed, and dead before I could even finish aligning.”

That said, it’s kind of impossible to force a fight in LS without a gate camp. There are no bubbles.

So, while I will say “meh, I wouldn’t miss gate camping”, I will also say “it’s kind of important”.


It isn’t any less “real” in a metaphysical sense, just that a bot program could easily be doing it, and its less incentive for people to try other parts of the game content CCP provides. Not only that but it doesn’t really function much different to that of Null gates. In an economic view point it lets people flood markets with salvage that lowers the price of said salvage.

So your definition of what is “real pvp” and what is not “real pvp” depends on whether or not a bot program could do it?


I really like the idea of added Gate-Guns on the gates to High-Sec systems although it would still give people the opportunity to just tank the damage and block all transit

In essence, yes, this is a game for humans unless I got that confused when I picked it up, lol

So would this extend to, say, using drones that automatically attacks a target?
And more importantly, what makes you think those other forms of “real” pvp can’t be done by bots?

There are multiple reasons for why I and other people are dissatisfied with the content that is “Gate-Camping”, I, in a weird way, appreciate the fact you’re hyper-focusing in on the semantics of one word that I chose to use, and it does help everyone here form a more informed view of the topic. However like I said before, if CCP is actually trying to crack down on botting then those other forms should be considered too, regardless if they’re subbed accounts.

Drones have an interface in game that allows you to turn them from aggressive to passive, as far as I know they don’t auto attack.

So now you are suggesting that these gatecampers are botting?

It seems like you may not know enough about the game to be able to make these statements, because drones do auto attack.

OP make better use of killboard.

You’re unlikely to be the first victim in a new pirate camp…if there are kills. Be wary

1 Like

This thread has Dracvlad written all over it…


The determination of whether someone is botting is for CCP to look into and should be decided on an individual basis.

As for the drones, I can link you to other forums and or the EVE UNI wiki, because drones do not auto attack unless set to aggressive, unless you are attacked by an aggressor first, which then does not incur the Concordoken lol

Other forum user I’m guessing?

I feel like then, the correct course of action is to report the players that you believe are botting.

The incorrect course of action is to demand that certain aspects of the game, like gatecamping, be changed because you think that someone might be botting.

The reason I’m trying to get you to specifically clarify your position is to make sure that we don’t accidentally remove a certain style of gameplay (gatecamping) because you are concerned with something unrelated (botting), because that may impact other aspects of the game unintentionally.

1 Like