Simplicity is key!

I'm sorry, but I do not agree. To me it is needlessly complicated and does not really add depth.

edit: I should clarify: I think that it adds micro, not enables important strategic choices.

Merging all of the fabricators as well as the bot and vehicle factories would be a mistake.

Bot factories and Vehicle Factories produce two very very different types of units. The only thing that makes them similar is that they move on the ground. They are as different as the air units are from the naval units. Bots and Vehicles have two drastically different playstyles along with polar opposite upsides and drawbacks.

The fabricator diversity adds quite a few important strategic decisions and add a number of different playstyles rather than pigeonholing everyone into one game style.

If you have issues finding a specific fabricator, then that's a 100% UI issue, not a gameplay balance issue. The UI will be improved in the future so you can better find fabricators.

The bot and vehicle fabber are identical in every except for what advanced factory they can create, so I can see the logic of reducing them to one 'Land' fabber. The bot/vehicle factory divide isn't that substantial either: It's mostly just a 600 metal premium if you want to build a different unit type. I don't see the distinction contributing any depth to the game.

Personally, I think managing the different production possibilities from a single land factory would be more interesting for players than building two grids of factories each with a subset of units of limited usefulness. It also means you wouldn't need redundant AA bots/tanks, making room for at least one more unique unit type.

I like having the different fabber types and factory types.

Also, keep in mind if we want to add more units over time that combining current units will make it harder to have areas to expand to.

Most of the other comments are polish items.

it is not simplicity that is key ... making people able to understand and execute gameplay as easy as neccesary is ... that doesn´t mean that games can´t be complex

Oh for the love of...

I'm sorry, but this argument really irks me.
In what insane universe is taking things directly out of one game and putting them in another being "a step ahead" or "innovative"?
That's the opposite of innovation.

According to the leading theories in physics; either none, or an infinite amount.

Can't really beat that.

I guess my only gripe left would be with the combat fabbers. I'd prefer seeing the normal fabbers do what the combat version are supposed to be specialized at- you know, eliminating some of the micro. But perhaps that's just because of their current implementation.

I have to say, though, that I love the area commands. Oh man, such an improvement. Thanks for doing what you're doing.

On the topic of interplanetary artillery: unit cannon + kamikaze bots = interplanetary artillery.

And no game yet was in GAMMA stage, that single invention should be nominated to Nobel prize. No more unfinished games released with beta quality!

@warand, play bit more before you complain about game, or rather before you want to redesign perfectly fine concept that is not finished yet. And PA has good reasons for all that stuff, just read forums more.

No game yet renamed their beta, more likely. Gamma is a PR move, nothing has changed.

Nothing has changed... except the giant list of game improvements.

Touché. That Gamma rebranding thing still has me up in arms, sorry. So unnecessary, given how very visibly the game has improved.
On that whole simplicity thing: PA's mechanics on their own are as simple as it can possibly get - putting all those gears together is what creates the behemoth that is PA.

Why does the new term get you up in arms?

It's another stage in the development process. A development process that very very very few other companies have used.

People had all sorts of misconceptions at what "beta" meant since they have played the Battlefield beta, or CoD beta, or Titanfall beta. Those games' "beta" aren't actual betas – they're more like game demos.

I find it a bit far-fetched to call the thing they dubbed 'Gamma' to be new: It is early access continuous delivery and that has lost its novelty with minecraft and isn't any different from their Beta, either. Calling it by another name might succeed in distinguishing it from all the other early access stuff out there but it is hardly revolutionary.
It also gives me the impression of them being fearful of using the term Beta any longer - as if that would signal stagnation in their development- which it most clearly doesn't.

I don't really think it's anything overly new either. It's just the codename, if you will, for this next stage in development where they focus on a different batch of features.

If you have issue with this style of game development, then don't buy games like it until they're released.

That's all it's supposed to be. I think you're the first person I've encountered that used the word "revolutionary" or conveyed anything that meant anything like that in regards towards Gamma.

It's just supposed to distinguish between other "beta-that-aren't-beta" games and help indicate how they're constantly developing the game.

Elite: Dangerous is also planning to have a "Gamma" phase, very similar to Minecraft. These are the times. Personally, as impatient as I am, I like it.

Don't get me wrong, I love it being part of the process. If you know what you are paying into it is great. I guess it is all a case of me being allergic to marketing. I will call it a day at this point.

Tissue?

Gamma is certainly a positioning/marketing thing. However, I do think it's important to get away from the beta phrasing because people already think they know what beta means, except nobody agrees exactly (not even industry people).