Now if you don't mind upsetting the status quo in low sec...

CCP could create some real fun from predatory antics at gates. That is CONCORD actions are what makes hi-sec instead of low sec. So logically Empire Navies and Police should be what make low sec into low sec instead of null.

Therefore any suspect acts committed on the same grid as a gate could have a low chance of generating an Empire NPC Factional "Incursion". After all gate space and activity is likely monitored from the gate structure. Suspect activity at gates could be interpreted as disruptive and interfering with the flow of local Empire faction commerce and economy. Whether NPC owned or not there are tax considerations,e tc. Such Empire Incursions if they occur would lack the surgical precision and certain immediate deadliness of CONCORD responses. They would certainly appear near gate and mobile portions then patrol planets and moon. Thus they might well stumble across suspect carriers at now suspect POS (extending shield aid to carrier) anywhere in system -- or not before suspect timer expires. Of course factional politics would not support factional Navy/Police Incursions lasting more than half an hour without additional suspect activity or NPC Faction kills (local grid escalation too).

Repeated suspect activity within a certain time frame (i.e. the moving average of suspect acts per minute) could gradually increase probability and possible size of response. There might even be a mechanism that causes a brief Empire Navy Incursion across the entire constellation.

The best data is supported by superior firepower
(as data can be faked and twisted & the legitimacy of authorities on citations is usually a bigger religious issue than the truth itself).

This issue should be decided by a duel between the sides. Name a place and time. Appoint leaders for a battle royale or appoint champions. (LOL probably a battle royale for each side to decide those issues too.)

I am protesting that CCP has no Popcorn BPO for my grandstand concession stand.

Words.

I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some of you.
Polite works far better then inarticulate swearing and insults. You are mad, we get that and do not need you to make any sexual references to prove that for you sex and anger are one and the same.
You don't like the changes? Some of you have done a fine job of suggesting alternatives or asking for lessening of the changes ot just voicing your concerns. Good.
Others, not so much.
Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason.
But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil.
If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly.

Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"?

Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable.

Forum rules

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

On the killmail, the Waiver of Untouchability is located just to the right of the Notice of Improper Logoff.

Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"?

So the changes to remove the ability to assign fighters I agree with, it can ruin PvP though it does give advantages to a defender which is sometimes needed. This will make it more difficult to rat in contested i.e. camped areas, but thats acceptable, hiding next to a POS shield is kinda meh and I never did it.
.

Because you do not have a Fleet which is able to kill a Carrier by a drive by? Either you avoid the battle or try to get in advantage by more logistics etc. It doesn-¦t ruin PvP, you just don't agree ti fight with your disadvantage.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, but there are too many people looking for fights with a carrier ready to assign fighters, that being said it was a mechanic that allowed the smaller group to take on bigger groups without risking too much, which is what I like about it.

Exactly the point :)

You could even fight with 3 Skiffs an incoming Gang or likely bait them until you friends from the neighbour hood arrives.

I think it is also funny to fight an incoming cruiser gang with some Assault frigates which using assigned fighter.
Here the attacker have the option to take the fight and may lose some ships but once you kill the assault frigates they also loose the Fighter. Also it would be possible to bring more people which just let you pop the frigates faster.

I have the feeling which the PvP Gangs are complaining of to much defense in the system they want to kill hulks and other shiny ships with a pve tank.

This is quite literally what every gang who comes roaming near us wants. you pop out a few defence ships and they run even if they out number you 3:1. and that's without fighters.

Some of your knowledge of this is 6 months behind the curve (atleast taking your post at face value) - people doing this are increasingly moving away from sitting at the edge of the FF towards other ways of using POS mechanics to be safe where they don't need to move back inside the FF to become perfectly safe.

Even a ship with interceptor speed and sig will struggle to kite off fighters unless with a head start let alone a cruiser from what I've seen - many of the original complaints were purely due to people scouting in inties, etc. getting initial tackle for a small gang then getting alpha'd trying to escape when fighters arrived.

The revenant that got killed while it had been involved with doing skynet stuff got caught on login 20-30km outside the POS FF possibly at the spot where he cyno'd in. (which IMO is a good example of why fighter assignment should follow cyno restrictions around a POS).