8 hours ago, Sciencius said:

As they offer an alternative, gas cloud effects are pretty cool though.

With respectful tone, Not Really.

Autothrusters 1.0 was an alternative for modifications.

Twin Laser Turret 1.0 was an alternative for turrets.

The Official App is an alternative to YASB 2.0.

Non arc linked turret ships 1.0 were an alternative to ones without them.

It's important to remember that just because something is an option , doesn't make it " cool ."

It's that sort of mindset that got us needing a second edition---"Let's give them more OPTIONS!"----and it's important for viability of this edition to last us several years at least by pointing out now design elements that are weak for achieving game resolution. It's not good to have 90% of games going to 75 minute time. All current and future game elements should have an intent just beyond balance, they should also expedite the endgame more clearly, and quickly. And at the core, Gas Clouds prolong and exacerbate the most lengthy aspects-- unskilled damage mitigation.

Most skilled and true S Tier players hate unskilled damage mitigation in any form. It removes the earned benefit of " Fly Better ", and presumably it is why FFG ensured so little defensive mods in 2.0 overall as well as the change to how evade tokens work and scaling hit point mods (hull and shield upgrade) with agility. It's why regen is pretty much considered a blight.

Obstacles should not just loss of action---they should have the potential in and of themselves to DAMAGE. That furthers the game to endstate.

They do LOOK cool, I'll concede that, though.

26 minutes ago, Cloaker said:

Autothrusters 1.0 was an alternative for modifications.

Twin Laser Turret 1.0 was an alternative for turrets.

Non arc linked turret ships 1.0 were an alternative to ones without them.

Except that in those cases, the "alternatives" vastly overshadowed all other options. With gas clouds, they're popular, but I still see quite a few asteroids and debris fields, too.

28 minutes ago, Cloaker said:

The Official App is an alternative to YASB 2.0.

Are there still people incapable of figuring out the official app?

2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Except that in those cases, the "alternatives" vastly overshadowed all other options. With gas clouds, they're popular, but I still see quite a few asteroids and debris fields, too.

Are there still people incapable of figuring out the official app?

Pretty much people can figure it out---it's just not as an efficient option as YASB 2.0 for resolving the game more quickly.

Kinda like Gas Clouds

On 11/7/2019 at 3:24 PM, Cloaker said:

With respectful tone, Not Really.

With respectful tone, that is just your opinion.

On 11/7/2019 at 3:24 PM, Cloaker said:

Autothrusters 1.0 was an alternative for modifications.

Twin Laser Turret 1.0 was an alternative for turrets.

The Official App is an alternative to YASB 2.0.

Non arc linked turret ships 1.0 were an alternative to ones without them.

Well, strickly speaking they are not "alternatives"? Autothrusters in 1.0 is a modification, TLT is a secondary turret upgrade etc.

On 11/7/2019 at 3:24 PM, Cloaker said:

It's important to remember that just because something is an option , doesn't make it " cool ."

It's that sort of mindset that got us needing a second edition---"Let's give them more OPTIONS!"----and it's important for viability of this edition to last us several years at least by pointing out now design elements that are weak for achieving game resolution. It's not good to have 90% of games going to 75 minute time. All current and future game elements should have an intent just beyond balance, they should also expedite the endgame more clearly, and quickly. And at the core, Gas Clouds prolong and exacerbate the most lengthy aspects-- unskilled damage mitigation.

Most skilled and true S Tier players hate unskilled damage mitigation in any form. It removes the earned benefit of " Fly Better ", and presumably it is why FFG ensured so little defensive mods in 2.0 overall as well as the change to how evade tokens work and scaling hit point mods (hull and shield upgrade) with agility. It's why regen is pretty much considered a blight.

Let me stop you right there, because that is just plain wrong.

Autothrusters and the other "options" you mention were developed in 1.0 in an attempt to counter balance bad game design: Turrets, Fat Han in particular, were to powerfull, so autothrusters were developed to help aces, then aces became too powerfull so TLT were developed etc. The main problem being that in 1.0 there were no inherent way to alter the balance other than to FAQ stuff (like the cloacking) and to release "Counters".

In 2.0, points can be altered, and more importantly, there is an emphasis on "skill" (=the ability to fly good i.e. you only get the bonus if you position your self right), e.g. HLC is now bulls eye only, Torkil Mux requires arc on his target (and not just range), all turrets are mobile arcs, etc.

Likewise Gas Clouds only give you the 1.0 autothrusters ability if you place yourself with the Gas Cloud between you and your opponent, so it requires precisely what you are asking for "skill" - and by the way, (and this may come as a surprice to you) it now works both ways and is not just a buf to the ace.

In conclusion, Gas Clouds emphasized skill, making them a great option to have in the game, and therefor cool.

On 11/7/2019 at 3:24 PM, Cloaker said:

Obstacles should not just loss of action---they should have the potential in and of themselves to DAMAGE. That furthers the game to endstate.

Not a conclusion you can arrive to from your string of arguments, your are merely stating your opinion, sorry.

Slamming into an asteroid has a high chance of damaging your ship? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Flying through a debris cloud can potentially cause serious damage to your ship? This again makes perfect sense. But why would a gas cloud automatically be damaging your ship?

4 minutes ago, Faerie1979 said:

Slamming into an asteroid has a high chance of damaging your ship? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Flying through a debris cloud can potentially cause serious damage to your ship? This again makes perfect sense. But why would a gas cloud automatically be damaging your ship?

What type of gas is it? Could be flammable and explode when your eninge exhaust hits it you don't know, neither do I.

From the other effects, probably not flammable though. Otherwise wouldn't high intensity lasers and plasma torpedoes detonate it too?

11 hours ago, Sciencius said:

With respectful tone, that is just your opinion.

Well, strickly speaking they are not "alternatives"? Autothrusters in 1.0 is a modification, TLT is a secondary turret upgrade etc.

Let me stop you right there, because that is just plain wrong.
Autothrusters and the other "options" you mention were developed in 1.0 in an attempt to counter balance bad game design: Turrets, Fat Han in particular, were to powerfull, so autothrusters were developed to help aces, then aces became too powerfull so TLT were developed etc. The main problem being that in 1.0 there were no inherent way to alter the balance other than to FAQ stuff (like the cloacking) and to release "Counters".
In 2.0, points can be altered, and more importantly, there is an emphasis on "skill" (=the ability to fly good i.e. you only get the bonus if you position your self right), e.g. HLC is now bulls eye only, Torkil Mux requires arc on his target (and not just range), all turrets are mobile arcs, etc.

Likewise Gas Clouds only give you the 1.0 autothrusters ability if you place yourself with the Gas Cloud between you and your opponent, so it requires precisely what you are asking for "skill" - and by the way, (and this may come as a surprice to you) it now works both ways and is not just a buf to the ace.

In conclusion, Gas Clouds emphasized skill, making them a great option to have in the game, and therefor cool.

Not a conclusion you can arrive to from your string of arguments, your are merely stating your opinion, sorry.

"Let me stop you right there because..."

"And this may come as a surprise to you..."

Feeling condescendingly punchy huh?

Look brother, if you aren't seeing the forest for the trees, can't do much to help you. You think it takes skill to fly away over a gas cloud to get a free evade mod and are validating it with mutual damage mitigation benefit. I mean, that pretty much sums up the legitimacy of your thought process and the credibility of your counter arguments. Within that same context of skill you throw in bullseye arc mechanics as equitable in aptitude to runaway play. Did you even read what was written? Or was your zeal to try to prove a point higher than taking the crux of the issue into account? Sigh.

You're adorable, keep on being you. I'll move on, but I guarantee you won't be able to. Mark it.

11 hours ago, Faerie1979 said:

Slamming into an asteroid has a high chance of damaging your ship? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Flying through a debris cloud can potentially cause serious damage to your ship? This again makes perfect sense. But why would a gas cloud automatically be damaging your ship?

I'll preface this with I am not trying to dismiss your comments--they're great and fun to entertain within the fluff of the game

Maybe not all asteroids are made of the same stuff. What if some are made up of slightly animated space sponge? What if the debris was the leftover remnants of an Ewok Tibanna Gas inflated bounce house being dropped by a freighter desperate to avoid being held culpable for the smuggling of environmentally unsafe components?

I know, I am being silly. But stay with me on this as apparently one of our fellow posters cannot----The point here isn't trying to to apply the logic in how damage effects of these obstacles are resolved--- it's about ensuring that all obstacles provide a challenge that requires skill to circumvent, and they also serve a purpose of expediting the game to a conclusive endstate more quickly through damage potential . Gas clouds don't do this in 200/6 , and that's just not good game design. Anyone who argues otherwise should never play competitively otherwise---just fly around for hours and enjoy the game as you want, to no end.

11 minutes ago, Cloaker said:

Feeling condescendingly punchy huh?

Pot, meet Kettle.

2 minutes ago, Cloaker said:

it's about ensuring that all obstacles provide a challenge that requires skill to circumvent, and they also serve a purpose of expediting the game to a conclusive endstate more quickly .

I think this is the root of the disagreement. You state this premise as fact, but not everyone agrees that that's the purpose of obstacles.

32 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Pot, meet Kettle.

I think this is the root of the disagreement. You state this premise as fact, but not everyone agrees that that's the purpose of obstacles.

I suffer asinine obtusiveness poorly, admitted.

I respect your views often, so I'll posit some Game Creation 101 points and leave it be;

1) If a neutral facet of a game can exponentially prolong it or inhibits the chance for more conclusive resolution, it shouldn't be added, and even more so when length of game is already a factor.

2) If a neutral facet of a game encourages the very antithesis of its core design (in this case, point plastic ships at each other from a favorable position and pew pew) it should be reconsidered with strong discretion.

And to put in also in the perspective of "Cool"

1) Would we prefer to see our games, win or loss, decided more definitely?

2) Do we want impact of player skill to be lessened by charitably immutable effects that render the 1-3 turns of skilled player setup null and void?

Regen falls in this wheelhouse too, of course, free evade tokens for simply doing a maneuver, Force mods that allow benefit despite being outplayed etc. The issue isn't thematics, it's about achieving endstate. So in the interest of said consensus I'd like to think we'd all agree---if we could play 45min to an hour games, with a clear finish, instead of 75-minutes-buzzer-goes-off-you-couldn't-overcome-free-advantage-player-runs-away-play, we'd choose the former, everytime.

Then we need to ask, which type of game does Gas Clouds enable?

There's our answers, whether we want to accept it or not.

1 minute ago, Cloaker said:

2) If a neutral facet of a game encourages the very antithesis of its core design (in this case, point plastic ships at each other from a favorable position and pew pew) it should be reconsidered with strong discretion.

Except if you're shooting through a gas cloud, that's not a favorable position for you. And while flying through a gas cloud isn't going to damage your ship, you're still penalized for doing so by losing your action. Thus it's better to maneuver around it instead of just flying through. And it's better to maneuver so you aren't firing through a gas cloud so your target doesn't get extra defense dice. Flying into an asteroid is something to always try avoiding when possible because it's very likely to damage your ship. Landing on one is also to be avoided because you can damage your ship, and become a sitting duck. Even so, it *can* be a calculated risk to fly through one and come from an unexpected angle. Flying into or through a debris field isn't quite as risky as flying through an asteroid, but if your ship is damaged it's always a crit. Thus doing so is a calculated risk when done deliberately, and less penalizing if it was an accident. Gas clouds merely provide a different risk vs reward formula then debris and asteroids.

1 minute ago, Faerie1979 said:

Except if you're shooting through a gas cloud, that's not a favorable position for you. And while flying through a gas cloud isn't going to damage your ship, you're still penalized for doing so by losing your action. Thus it's better to maneuver around it instead of just flying through. And it's better to maneuver so you aren't firing through a gas cloud so your target doesn't get extra defense dice. Flying into an asteroid is something to always try avoiding when possible because it's very likely to damage your ship. Landing on one is also to be avoided because you can damage your ship, and become a sitting duck. Even so, it *can* be a calculated risk to fly through one and come from an unexpected angle. Flying into or through a debris field isn't quite as risky as flying through an asteroid, but if your ship is damaged it's always a crit. Thus doing so is a calculated risk when done deliberately, and less penalizing if it was an accident. Gas clouds merely provide a different risk vs reward formula then debris and asteroids.

without a doubt, what obstacles a player chooses to bring and how they choose to engage them is a core concept of game play---no argument there

but ultimately not about risk vs reward---the VAST majority of top players (watch the streamed games) aren't using gas clouds. There's a reason for that. Start there, and the rest of the answers become clear. I'd list them, but I've done enough here trying to make a point

I'm not saying gas clouds have the same risk vs reward dynamic. And yeah, they probably do get used by newbies who are still learning maneuvering more often then not due to being more forgiving. But wasn't that the OP's entire point? You know, that gas clouds are suppose to be more forgiving so newbie players can learn about positioning and maneuvering around such things without as harsh of a penalty if they mess up? As I understand things, how they work has been changed so they provide the defense bonus to both parties, just as other obstacles do. Thus if you try to get the extra defense from a gas cloud, you're giving your target the same level of extra defense. You're penalized for not maneuvering around it to get a clear shot. And if you fly through it, you're penalized by not being able to mod your dice rolls (unless you're Han Solo or have the force). Not as severe as "may take damage and are stressed", true. But still a penalty for not going around. Thus it's more forgiving for those learning how to fly their ships while still providing battlefield features you ideally should avoid. Once you have gotten use to how your ships fly, by all means switch to more punishing obstacles.

13 hours ago, Deffly said:

What type of gas is it? Could be flammable and explode when your eninge exhaust hits it you don't know, neither do I.

I think I must have answered this item more directly in another thread, but point of order here as well, the game does have a typing mechanic to obstacles now in the form of the Environments Expansion. So since the game is using those to tell you when it's dangerous, I believe it's obvious that at all other times the game's telling you they are only as dangerous as the base RRG says they are. I imagine this will also be applicable to the other obstacle types, like "booby trapped debris" and "mynock infested asteroids"and many more in the future.

I'd like to respond to @Cloaker here as well that Gas presents as much a skilled element as any other, in agreement with @Sciencius because of its duality in who it gives benefit to.

Also it's pure opinion that the length of a game compared to the timer had any intrinsic bad nature. There's simply no logic or reasoning to support a statement that a game must be accomplished in 75mins with a total destruction. The game only needs to determine a appropriate winner. It is afterall incredibly rare to have a battle where one side is completely wiped in a single engagement the scope of which a game of X-wing represents. I agree with the devs that the simple fact that games go to time this often is an indicator that the base line balances in the game are doing their job. And in contrast, it's an indicator of how bad 1st-ed had gotten that so many games ended in full tables back then.

Which also contradicts your assertion that second Ed came about as a result of too many options. It came about as a consequence of a bad design philosophy of not not correcting earlier designs and instead using "bandaid" responses. Eventually leading them to be stuck with their own bloated system that left them trying to dodge all their own previous mistakes while making new content. Second Ed by and large was a way for them to not just reset the balance, but a way for them to implement an entirely new design philosophy. And for the early stages, it's doing pretty good at that. It's still a new system so I'm pretty forgiving, but they've done okay with rapid repairs when needed.

Can I just take a moment to point out something really interesting here? This may be the only time I've ever seen the forum lit up by discussion about the play area not related to the size of the mats in epic. Now as I'm going to wager most folks here have at least a passing reading hobby of tactics/strategy, I just want to recall in y'all's minds a bit of Sun Tzu on types of terrain. And say how ridiculous it is to me that we're complaining about the battlefield itself. I'm just thinking out loud here, but shouldn't we as good pretend squad captains man-up a little? 🤔 Like, can you imagine how silly it would have been for Hannibal and the Romans to have complained about the mountains? 😕 Grab yourself an elephant, and get over it, is what Hannibal would likely say. 😆

China, c200BC: We got a wall! Free Evade WOOT WOOT! 🤗

Mongols: You can't have that! It's too strong! That slows down the war! 😯

China: Too bad. FFG said we could. 😝

Mongols: OMG FFG SO OP PLS NRF! 🥺

FFG: It's a wall. They exist. Get over it. 😐

Mongols: You right fam, you right. 🤔

China: ... Oh fuuuUUUU!!! 😳

3 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

I think I must have answered this item more directly in another thread, but point of order here as well, the game does have a typing mechanic to obstacles now in the form of the Environments Expansion. So since the game is using those to tell you when it's dangerous, I believe it's obvious that at all other times the game's telling you they are only as dangerous as the base RRG says they are. I imagine this will also be applicable to the other obstacle types, like "booby trapped debris" and "mynock infested asteroids"and many more in the future.

I'd like to respond to @Cloaker here as well that Gas presents as much a skilled element as any other, in agreement with @Sciencius because of its duality in who it gives benefit to.

Also it's pure opinion that the length of a game compared to the timer had any intrinsic bad nature. There's simply no logic or reasoning to support a statement that a game must be accomplished in 75mins with a total destruction. The game only needs to determine a appropriate winner. It is afterall incredibly rare to have a battle where one side is completely wiped in a single engagement the scope of which a game of X-wing represents. I agree with the devs that the simple fact that games go to time this often is an indicator that the base line balances in the game are doing their job. And in contrast, it's an indicator of how bad 1st-ed had gotten that so many games ended in full tables back then.

Which also contradicts your assertion that second Ed came about as a result of too many options. It came about as a consequence of a bad design philosophy of not not correcting earlier designs and instead using "bandaid" responses. Eventually leading them to be stuck with their own bloated system that left them trying to dodge all their own previous mistakes while making new content. Second Ed by and large was a way for them to not just reset the balance, but a way for them to implement an entirely new design philosophy. And for the early stages, it's doing pretty good at that. It's still a new system so I'm pretty forgiving, but they've done okay with rapid repairs when needed.

Can I just take a moment to point out something really interesting here? This may be the only time I've ever seen the forum lit up by discussion about the play area not related to the size of the mats in epic. Now as I'm going to wager most folks here have at least a passing reading hobby of tactics/strategy, I just want to recall in y'all's minds a bit of Sun Tzu on types of terrain. And say how ridiculous it is to me that we're complaining about the battlefield itself. I'm just thinking out loud here, but shouldn't we as good pretend squad captains man-up a little? 🤔 Like, can you imagine how silly it would have been for Hannibal and the Romans to have complained about the mountains? 😕 Grab yourself an elephant, and get over it, is what Hannibal would likely say. 😆

China, c200BC: We got a wall! Free Evade WOOT WOOT! 🤗

Mongols: You can't have that! It's too strong! That slows down the war! 😯

China: Too bad. FFG said we could. 😝

Mongols: OMG FFG SO OP PLS NRF! 🥺

FFG: It's a wall. They exist. Get over it. 😐

Mongols: You right fam, you right. 🤔

China: ... Oh fuuuUUUU!!! 😳

Funny stuff. Gas Clouds still encourage runaway play and reward less skill, but yeah, I hear ya.

On the other hand, they also help teach skilled play without the rage factor of 'My ship got blown up". And that's aside from the fact that if you don't have a 1st edition collection, you don't have any gas clouds yet since that neutral expansion pack hasn't been released yet. I'm gonna be buying it, of course. Actually, I plan to buy all four of them.