I would say Fighter Assist would be by Bandwidth on ship, but that would be unfair for some ships.
So i will say Fighter Assist would be by the size of ship:
1 frigate
2 destroyer
3 cruiser
4 battlecruiser
and 5 Battleship.

I am in favor of having fighters and bombers having the ability to warp. A lot of the comments in this thread seem to favor skynetting. This is pretty apparent as a lot of the replies are pressing for weak nerfs and solutions to the "problem" (skynetting) that do not place the carrier in any sort of risk. A lot of the very same comments indicate that the "risk" the carrier undergoes is a simple DD from a titan. Which DD'ing a skynetting carrier makes complete sense. This however only creates further problems. Small to medium groups typically have a harder time on isk income. With titans having such a large price tag it is unrealistic to think a small to medium group would be able to counter this mechanic how it exists now. Additional this would favor SOV holding alliances with large titan production options.

tl;dr nerf skynetting and assisting drones into the ground.

There are very few people who support skynetting from the pvp perspective

there is a not insignificant number of posters who use fighter assignment to make their isk either ratting in null or C4 wormholes (C5 upwards tend to take advantage of capital escalations) hence suggesting weaker nerfs.

There is a good way to nerf the worst elements of skynet into the ground with minimal knock on effect or feature removal but I'm beginning to think most people don't understand what I've been suggesting and others only care to see it gone completely whatever the consequences.

^^ C5 and upwards caps on field due to the escalation (C4s don't escalate) - C4 people "tend" (its not common but not completely uncommon either*) to sit the carrier outside the FF and assign fighters to a marauder (or tengu) in site to speed things up. Its unusual for people to build more than 1 maybe 2 capitals in a C4 due to being unable to extract them.
* People who do it don't generally make it known they do it so as not to draw attention to their capitals.

Wouldn't it work to have carriers anchor when they have fighters assigned and combine that with a minimum distance from a pos or station and if that isn't enough limit assigning fighters to cruisers and larger ships. The anchor feature could have a cool down time after the fighters return or are abandoned.

You mean something like the Fighter Delegation Module mentioned earlier? Same idea as Bastion / Triage / Siege.

I think that "skynetting", just like "hyperdunking" is a legitimate player-made tactic and should remain available to the players. Removing tactical options for people never seems like a good idea. Instead of removing this, a better option seems to lie in making the tactic a riskier practice. Examples of this include, making fighters scrammable, giving them a limited warp range, giving them a fuel time, increasing the distance that this can be done from POSes and stations, and/or decreasing or even removing any bonuses fighters receive from from carriers or supercarriers when not on grid with that carrier.

It's the way they are; triage requires all drones return to the ship.

how it's started a long, long time ago...
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/carriers-and-motherships-and-also-titans/

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.



*) *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal.

keeping the ability to warp is a good decision, its a unique point of fighters and makes them pretty handsome for having a carrier in PvE where you don't want to scoop drones every time.

So removing drone assignment entirely just because too small ships get too big DPS? Couldn't we just balance it? Make a fighter assignment use 10 Mbit/s of the receiving ship for each fighter. This would keep the availability for PvE use and limit the number of fighters a non drone boat can control.

2. Oh no, i want scoop my drones after each site, cause i will do only
60Mill ticks not 70Mill like i do atm... lol