CCP rules discussion on ganking and CONCORD mechanics - 2021.11.06

Greetings fellow capsuleers, GM’s and developers,

It has come to my attention today, that there is an ongoing discussion about ganking, supposed CONCORD delaying, game rules and the enforcement of these rules.
Case and point: allegedly, one or several players have had a number of their accounts banned for exploiting game mechanics and delaying CONCORD, more precisely by docking in a station after a criminal flag action in high-sec and undocking in corvettes to attract CONCORD to the station grid.
I am aware of the 2015 ruling about delaying CONCORD and I am aware of the docking-after-a-gank-and-undocking-in-a-corvette method being widely used at least up until today. Furthermore, I believe that a clear communication between the CCP professional team (developers and GM’s) and the EVE player-base can only be healthy and productive for the game. So I would like for us to discuss this matter here, on the EVE Forums and I invite someone from CCP to address the matter here or more appropriately, publish a dev-blog clarifying it.
To help with the discussion, I propose the following instances:
Instance A:
Player John Smith has 5 ganking pilots: Ganker1, Ganker2, Ganker3, Ganker4 and Ganker5. Some time after down-time, for example an hour, he decides that he will likely do a gank in X system, for example Yulai. So he undocks Ganker1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in free corvettes provided by the NPC station he is docked in, warps to a customs office and shoots it, in effect attracting CONCORD and being destroyed. Then he docks his pods and logs off or searches or waits for a gank target.
Question: is this legal and permitted, or is this considered an exploit and in effect illegal and a banable offence?

Instance B:
Player Carl Smith has 5 ganking alts: Bill1, Bill2, Bill3, Bill4 and Bill5. He already has a gank victim in mined and all the ganking logistics preparations done. The system he is in didn’t have a gank performed in in the current EVE-day. The ganker undocks his 5 ganknig pilots, warps to the victim, ganks it, CONCORD arrives and destroys the ganker ships. Then the ganker warps all the pods to a station, docks, boards free corvettes, waits several minutes, then undocks all the corvettes as close to one another in time as possible. In effect, CONCORD warps from the grid with the gank to the corvettes and destroys them.
Question: is this legal and permitted, or is this considered an exploit and in effect illegal and a banable offence?

Instance C:
Exactly the same as instance B, except the ganker doesn’t board free corvettes, but he boards cheap and unfitted frigates that he brought beforehand and had prepared in the station. Again, CONCORD arrives, is destroys the frigates.
Question: is this legal and permitted, or is this considered an exploit and in effect illegal and a banable offence?

Please feel free to propose any other instance or situation if you feel necessary.

Useful links for the discussion:
The 2015 CCP Ruling:

Reddit post:

Adrian Vexier – “Stay safe and fly dangerous!”


Just get rid of concord outside 1.0 noob systems and have the player crime and punishment do the rest.

Alternatively have a laser from nowhere just zap the offender, no ships necessary.

1 Like

Perhaps the ganking community should not have petitioned an Abyssal runner for pulling in CONCORD. You cannot have it both ways, if indeed that is what happened.

In terms of removing this ambiguity on response time, gankers would of course like that as it would remove an uncertainty that can result in failed ganks and remove a task that many find irritating and boring.



Such a significant change in GM policy should be communicated better than by banning without updating the community on it.

Then, just adjust the response so there is no difference in the arrival of CONCORD whether they are first spawning, or located elsewhere in system.


Another well-written post by @Adrian_Vexier . I just love how your write. Are you a writer irl?

1 Like

So CCP is now suddenly out of nowhere banning players that for using mechanics they deliberately put into the game this way and they previously stated are not considered exploits?

Classic CCP move. God I’m glad I left this game behind me. Imagine paying for a game and playing it by the rules and still always having to fear a ban, just because they put a game mechanic in a new generation of GM are uncomfortable with and suddenly judge differently.

Actually we said for years that this mechanic is ■■■■■■■■. Spawning CONCORD to get the optimal gank time is a chore and why are you not simply make those response times the same. Problem solved. How ■■■■■■■ hard can it be?


Agree with that. but look who issued the bans. if you had any runins with the gm’s, that is one gm that… how should I put this politely? he could use some training with game mechanics.
it looks like this is just a case of wrongful undestanding of game mechanics and company policy, rather than a badly communicated policy change.

1 Like

And yet here you are.


More special rules. I called it back when CCP introduced special rules for event sites.

I would not go so far as to call it the death of ganking because gankers don’t really need to pull CONCORD anyway. However, the plot thickens and CCP is not interested in keeping EVE up for “another decade”. They want to keep TQ up, sure, but that’s not “EVE”.


1 Like

2. Specifically restricted content.

  • Discussion of Warnings & Bans
  • Discussion of Moderation
  • In-Game Bugs & Exploits

pfft! lol! GM… named after a certain scandinavian god of Light. yeah, I’ve had some runnins with him too. looks like someone should shed some light on him regarding game mechanics.

1 Like

I see you posting signatures on your posts all the time, is that allowed?

Yes, I check the forums and announcements from time to time in the hope they eventually turn it around. I played this game for 14 years, it was once dear to my heart and a big part of my life. But I don’t login anymore.


That’s not a signature. This is a mandatory icon that somehow appears under every post that I create. I have no control over this feature as it’s done by some other system outside my control.



oh, you some kind of triggered Karen? you gonna report him and petition to get this thread closed because you got aggravated by him having his own signature for his posts? lol! people like you probably pushed for this CONCORD policy change.


And yet here you are, logged in to post. You cannot post without logging in lol.

Tanks Karen. Your contributions to this thread seem invaluable.


I did suggest removing concord completely outside of 1.0 noob systems or a great laser from the sky.

there must be some time wasted since if concord is already inthe system, then the server must delete the already existing ones and spawn new ones on the gank grid. if you’ve seen concord warp in and out, they don’t actually wapr in and out, they disappear and appear.
also, thy couldn’t let old concord on grid and spawn new ones, since by doing so it would allow players to spawn hundreds of thousands of concord ships and crash the servers. so they must delete (time) and spawn (time) the needed concord ships. from here the extra 5 seconds or whatever it is.
the thing that i don’t get is - why all the fuss for 5 seconds? ccp basically killed high-sec ganking for 5 seconds! way to go!

Yeah it’s a very dumb suggestion. But thanks for the effort Karen