Here's my 2 cents.

After reading through the comments, I somewhat agree with statements from both sides of the debate.

I personally own a carrier, but the use for me has been fairly limited as I am still training. I understand people who got abused by fighters assisted in pvp scenarios, with little to no risk involved for the carriers/supercarriers. Fighters assisted to interceptors is definitely the result of a broken mechanic.

I do however see the use of fighter assistance in PVE scenarios and structure grinding and what-not, where the fighter DPS helps with killing NPCs, structures.

In my opinion, the complete removal of the fighter delegation is just a blow to the versatility of the carrier/supercarrier and the versatility of EVE gameplay in general.

I am pretty sure that some balance in term of risk vs reward can be achieved.

Some players have already suggested limiting the size of the assisted hull to cruiser or battleship, or giving the carrier/super aggression timer and forbidding them to enter stations/POS shields while fighters are delegated, or a mix of those.

Fighters also cost money, and making them more vulnerable might be another perspective to look at.

The thing with PvE exceptions is, the same aargument against PvP skynet applies perfectly fine. Why should you be able yo use a Nyx to increase your ratting speed without having to risk that ship in the combat site itself?

It's the projection of dps off grid that was the problem, the ways it was used and abused just symptoms.

Well then, why would you be able to boost off grid to increase your combat capabilities without having to risk that ship itself.
Applied DPS off grid increases your combat capabilities just as well. Why not tune the projection itself instead of gimping a mechanic?

I mean why own a capital if it suddenly is just another ship in space like all the rest. With the huge training times, HUGE isk cost and everything else. Capitals should have a bit of power to them.

Yeah, but then, God forbid they might sit in a safe spot! Goodness gracious I might even have to scan them down with probes! No way! Just remove any form of assistance! I should not have to do anything to get juicy cap kills that people invest huge time and ISK to build and fly!

OK, say you do have a carrier in a safe aligned to a POS. You know where the POS is, and you know the general direction the carrier is. You can bring in a cloaky ship, drop a bubble on the POS, wait for the carrier to panic-warp, then drop a super on it. Ta-da! Instant carrier killmail!

As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.

This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.

This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want, while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.

A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?

Look forward to your feedback.

You removed content, you removed a play style.....please focus on adding content.

As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.

This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.

This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want, while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.

A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?

Look forward to your feedback.

Isn't the obvious answer to "skynet" just to remove the bonuses from the carrier (in the case of the thanatos) and modules when the fighters are assigned to someone? Few pilots used fighter assignment till the skills/module changes were introduced since fighters really are not ideal against small targets without them. You just made fighters viable after years of near uselessness, now you want to nerf them?

I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.

HTFU

Assigning Fighters:
Only allow fighters to be assigned to ships that are on grid with the carrier. If they leave the grid then control will be returned to the carrier.

You have to be completely out of the shields to be able to assign fighters. It's been that way for a while now. There was a time when they could stick their nose out and assign. That time is no longer..

I would suggest maybe slowing carriers down more, lowering aggility, so it takes longer for them to return to shields rather than have to be a minimum distance from pos shields as there is already a min distance -you have to be out of the shields.