# CCP rules discussion on ganking and CONCORD mechanics - 2021.11.06 **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Tags:** high-sec, low-sec, pvp\ **Created:** [November 6, 2021, 9:33am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527 "2021-11-06T09:33:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zhalyd\_Lyehin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zhalyd_lyehin/32/358574_2.png) [@Zhalyd\_Lyehin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zhalyd_Lyehin)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:12am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/21 "2021-11-06T10:12:29Z")
That’s a stupid suggestion and you know it. Concord is the only thing that makes High Sec High Sec. Without Concord punishment, any system would just be like low sec where you can engage freely without consequences. This idea is as stupid as CCP covertly declaring Concord pulling an exploit. ![REDNES](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/4/6/5/46546bd503d48e965b38598d40d9a3df4c837f5a.png) ---
**Author:** ![Zoiie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zoiie/32/292363_2.png) [@Zoiie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zoiie)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:13am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/22 "2021-11-06T10:13:01Z")
player crime and punishment… laser from sky to punish by system. Lasers are near instant, no delay and no ship grid spam. Gate guns are in LS too, worthless there so why even bother? ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_WaIker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wade_waiker/32/368248_2.png) [@Wade\_WaIker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wade_WaIker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:15am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/23 "2021-11-06T10:15:46Z")
you people forget that eve also has lore. anything must somehow fit into the lore. concord fits in. the laser from the sky? what? there is a death-star in each high-sec system? that would look and sound stupid lose-wise. concord wors just fine as it is. and concord pulling only gives an extra 5 seconds as someone mentioned already. i don’t think this is a policy change. I think this is just a case of a GM not understanding the game. it wouldn’t be the first time. ---
**Author:** ![Zoiie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zoiie/32/292363_2.png) [@Zoiie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zoiie)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:16am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/24 "2021-11-06T10:16:18Z")
Times change, technology evolves, it’s been nearly 20 years in real time, how about game time? Even longer progress? We’ve discovered Jove, Trigs, Drifters in that time… and whatever else going forward. ---
**Author:** ![Destiny\_Corrupted](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/destiny_corrupted/32/411527_2.png) [@Destiny\_Corrupted](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Destiny_Corrupted)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:16am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/25 "2021-11-06T10:16:48Z")
Just one more nerf. Please? We promise it will be the last one we ask for. Honest. ---
**Author:** ![Karak\_Terrel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/karak_terrel/32/373453_2.png) [@Karak\_Terrel](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Karak_Terrel)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:17am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/26 "2021-11-06T10:17:53Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > 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. It’s typical for you to just trow everyone in one pot again like they act as a cohesive group. An action of one player somewhere is no justification that others somewhere else suddenly get banned for a mechanic that was deemed not an exploit for a decade. This is on CCP alone and not the fault of any player. > [@Dracvlad](#): > > 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. Absolutely. It’s a stupid mechanic and we said it should get removed for years. I hope they do now and don’t just let it hang there as an “exploit” you can trigger just by regular game play. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Halescott](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jim_halescott/32/262960_2.png) [@Jim\_Halescott](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jim_Halescott)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:18am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/27 "2021-11-06T10:18:29Z")
Hello everyone I’ve also been made aware of the current situation brewing surrounding this unfortunate ruling by CCP’s GM team. As I am sure most of you know; the “pulling” of CONCORD from the location of a previous illegal action within Highsec has been going on within the ganking community by… well quite honestly, I don’t know any ganker that DOESN’T do this. I think THE WORDING needs to be clarified concerning “delaying CONCORD”. What specifically does “delay” mean? Pumping out drones, or cans, or ships from a cargohold, to delay CONCORD from targeting the perpetrators ship should be a bannable action, as that is delaying the ACTIONS of CONCORD to target the correct ship, and put it down. But when a ganker “primes” a system by shooting themselves, or a Customs Office, or something illegal first, and pre-spawning CONCORD in the target system, AND… when a ganker, after a successful, or failed gank, undocks in rookie ships to “pull” CONCORD away from the site of the last attack, so they can use that grid again for another attack (such as gate-camp ganking), are these instances both exploits? CCP is currently saying yes, because CONCORD after being spawned ONCE in that day, will be “delayed” because they’ve already spawned somewhere else in the system. Effectively this means that once a single illegal action has been done in that system, no one can make another illegal action in that system without breaking the rules, because the CONCORD response time will be “delayed” In my mind… CONCORD has 2 spawn times: 1. Fresh Spawn Time (IE – CONCORD has not spawned in system for that day) 2. Relocation Spawn Time (IE – The time it takes for the CONCORD ships in the previous site of illegal action, to de-spawn, and for a new set of CONCORD to spawn at the NEW site of the most recent illegal act) The second spawn time, takes a few seconds longer (for some reason) than the first spawn time. To fix this (if CCP so chooses), they need only make both spawn times take the same amount of time, and everyone’s happy Unfortunately, with the current situation, I believe the GM’s don’t seem to understand that CONCORD has 2 spawn times, depending on the daily history of illegal activity in the system in question. This is what has lead to bannings recently From what I’ve heard from people who know the banned players, they have NOT been delaying CONCORD But meerly: 1. Forcing CONCORD to use their “Re-location Spawn Timer” 2. Moving CONCORD away from the site of their previous gank, so they can gank at the same site as soon as their combat timers have elapsed. To me – They’re not delaying CONCORD at all Just moving them around the system to better suit their purposes for ganking With the current rulings however, it’s now “legal” for miners to do something illegal on an alt, and get CONCORD to spawn at the belt they are mining, and therefore have NPC protection, and the gankers can do nothing about it, because moving CONCORD would be “illegal” and “delaying” their response time… Which in my honest opinion is absolutely NOT what that ruling from CCP years ago was intended to do. Furthermore – It’s now illegal to gank or do anything illegal in a Highsec system more than once per day, because doing so will cause the CONCORD response time to be “delayed”, and therefore would be bannable Prove me wrong ---
**Author:** ![Zoiie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zoiie/32/292363_2.png) [@Zoiie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zoiie)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:18am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/29 "2021-11-06T10:18:50Z")
Make HS HS same response time for all, stop this stupid fractional sec levels. Make them more simplified and uniform. HS is HS LS is LS Null is Null W is W Simpler. ---
**Author:** ![Raiden\_Killjayden](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/raiden_killjayden/32/295330_2.png) [@Raiden\_Killjayden](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Raiden_Killjayden)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:21am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/30 "2021-11-06T10:21:23Z")
> [@Jim\_Halescott](#): > > Effectively this means that once a single illegal action has been done in that system, no one can make another illegal action in that system without breaking the rules, because the CONCORD response time will be “delayed” you try explaining that to GM Thick-Head… see how it goes. ---
**Author:** ![Zhalyd\_Lyehin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zhalyd_lyehin/32/358574_2.png) [@Zhalyd\_Lyehin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zhalyd_Lyehin)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:22am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/31 "2021-11-06T10:22:12Z")
> [@Jim\_Halescott](#): > > To fix this (if CCP so chooses), they need only make both spawn times take the same amount of time, and everyone’s happy Iirc it is already the same time, otherwise this would have been an actual exploit for many years. The only thing this does is it makes Concord actually take the full time it needs in a given system instead of being already there from a previous gank. This not delaying Concord. By the logic of this GM, ganking on one gate to create concord there and then ganking on another gate in the same system would also be a banable offense because the same people “pull/delay” concord with the previous gank and “have an advantage” on the other gate. It’s just dumb GM incompetence. ![REDNES](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/4/6/5/46546bd503d48e965b38598d40d9a3df4c837f5a.png) ---
**Author:** ![Raiden\_Killjayden](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/raiden_killjayden/32/295330_2.png) [@Raiden\_Killjayden](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Raiden_Killjayden)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:24am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/32 "2021-11-06T10:24:13Z")
> [@Zhalyd\_Lyehin](#): > > It’s just dumb GM incompetence. BINGO! ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:24am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/33 "2021-11-06T10:24:35Z")
Or perhaps we can just leave CONCORD spawned all over the place and they only leave two hours after the gank, that could work too. ---
**Author:** ![Zoiie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zoiie/32/292363_2.png) [@Zoiie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zoiie)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:24am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/34 "2021-11-06T10:24:35Z")
We taking bets on how long this thread lasts? ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Halescott](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jim_halescott/32/262960_2.png) [@Jim\_Halescott](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jim_Halescott)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:25am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/35 "2021-11-06T10:25:48Z")
Let’s try to show a little respect to the GM’s Many of them don’t play the game, and they’re just doing a job Myself and a few others have raised this with the CSM, and they’ve forwarded it to CCP CCP has confirmed they’ve received the complaint about the ruling(s), and now we simply need to wait The worst outcome is that CCP upholds the verdict(s), and ganking essentially dies as a profession, and I don’t really see them doing this tbh I think the best thing to do atm is to reverse the bans for the player(s) involved, and then change both timers for spawning and re-located CONCORD to be the same Then everyone’s happy, and we have black and white rules on the matter, rather than gray… ---
**Author:** ![Destiny\_Corrupted](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/destiny_corrupted/32/411527_2.png) [@Destiny\_Corrupted](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Destiny_Corrupted)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:25am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/36 "2021-11-06T10:25:56Z")
> [@Jim\_Halescott](#): > > Furthermore – It’s now illegal to gank or do anything illegal in a Highsec system more than once per day, because doing so will cause the CONCORD response time to be “delayed”, and therefore would be bannable > > Prove me wrong That’s not true at all. You can gank as many times as you want. It seems that they’re punishing _specifically_ for moving CONCORD without a genuine gank attempt. Which means that instead of undocking corvettes, just take all the gankers and have them shoot a random target that’s passing through the system. It can even be an alt, and the gank attempt doesn’t even have to be _successful_; the only requirement is _making a genuine gank attempt_. To put all of this another way, this is CCP’s way of getting players (in this case gankers) to buy more EVE accounts so that they can either make up for the 5-second deficit that comes from not being able to pull CONCORD (about a 20% increase in fielded firepower), or to have two distinct groups of shooters that effectively pull CONCORD away from each other during separate ganking attempts. **BUY MORE PLEX.** ---
**Author:** ![Zoiie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zoiie/32/292363_2.png) [@Zoiie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zoiie)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:26am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/37 "2021-11-06T10:26:16Z")
> [@Jim\_Halescott](#): > > they’re just doing a job Just following orders sir! ---
**Author:** ![Raiden\_Killjayden](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/raiden_killjayden/32/295330_2.png) [@Raiden\_Killjayden](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Raiden_Killjayden)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:26am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/38 "2021-11-06T10:26:31Z")
Uedama will constantly have 1000 CONCORD ships flying around, maybe more in prime hours. It would need it’s own super-node or it would be in constant TIDI. I have a better idea: have gm’s go through regular trainign courses and pass regular game mechanics tests so they don’t make fools of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/39 "2021-11-06T10:27:35Z")
Would it? Are you so sure. If we look at Uedama today if a single CONCORD spawn per ganker, there would be about 30 on the Juung gate with 15 about to de-spawn… thousands, lol And why hasn’t this been passed up to a more senior GM? ---
**Author:** ![Zoiie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zoiie/32/292363_2.png) [@Zoiie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zoiie)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/40 "2021-11-06T10:27:48Z")
Can’t we just replace GM’s with AI bots? Most major companies support use them all the time, and we love it. ---
**Author:** ![Zhalyd\_Lyehin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zhalyd_lyehin/32/358574_2.png) [@Zhalyd\_Lyehin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zhalyd_Lyehin)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 10:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527/41 "2021-11-06T10:28:38Z")
> [@Jim\_Halescott](#): > > Let’s try to show a little respect to the GM’s Why should someone show them respect? Thy are people with a brain who should be able to think for themselves. This GM clearly does not use their brain because it declared something an exploit without it being listed as exploit anywhere, and without considering other scenarios with verbatim circumstances (as I described above). This deserves no respect, this deserves stripping of their roles because they know neither the game nor the mechanics nor policies. If they don’t play or know the game and “just do a job”, they are the wrong people for this “job”. Simple. ![REDNES](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/4/6/5/46546bd503d48e965b38598d40d9a3df4c837f5a.png) [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-rules-discussion-on-ganking-and-concord-mechanics-2021-11-06/335527.md?page=3)