Alpha inclusion in new harvester recipes

Hi frens,

As we near the end of the harvester recipe revisions, one thing has been brought to light and that is the potential to include alpha in the costs. As everything is simply a ratio, including alpha into the newly proposed build costs wouldn’t change anything from the perspective of ROI, extraction, costs, etc.

Now, Alpha already has some lopsided use-case with lodges, but it still remains underpowered (hence the birth of Recipes - Make Alpha Great Again thread). Because of this, I would not propose to make the alpha costs equally-weighted to their counterparts.

We have the opportunity to bring alpha up to speed and this change would slide in easily with the finalised harvester recipes.

I want to take a vote. Should alpha be included into the new recipes? If the results are a resounding yes, then we can raise this as an addendum sigprop to the recipe changes.

  • Include alpha in the new recipes
  • No change with alpha

0 voters

1 Like

I don’t think the alchemica should be evenly distributed in each craft. Otherwise there is no point in having 4 different alchemica.

Let the players bet on future utility, let Pixelcraft surprise us with unique recipes to revitalize the market.

Perfect equality is boring and unattractive, we don’t want to see everyone with the same strategy having the same number of harvesters of each type on their parcel.


Alpha has been heavily used so far. But not for some upcoming installations. There definitely has much thought behind that. This should not be a public opinion. Please do not change game dynamics everywhere. These type of things could have deep impact as many other designs could be changed to accommodate the new tokenomics. coderdan already mentioned in yesterday hangout that there were reasons behind it (i could be hearing it incorrectly or interpreted incorrectly). Please consult PC on this.


I’m only bringing this to attention as it’s been brought forth by the community during this exploration.

I try to remain as neutral as possible in the direction of things but aim to help people’s voices be heard. Hence, the vote.

It seems the community is rather lukewarm about this idea so it won’t go further.

However, a caveat. I don’t think it’s safe to assume PC has bulletproof logic with everything. They get a lot right, but there are also many things which have been brought forward by the community which are largely off the mark.

As we are a DAO and in this 1.5 phase, it is on us to make sure things check out and raise awareness when we feel they are off. We are in a strange space of trusting PC’s vision of which we don’t have full insight into. We can only look at the data given and raise challenges when that data shows imbalance.

This breakdown of the tokens usage in the other thread by coderdan is tremendously helpful.

FUD – Building block of many things
FOMO – Mechanical impetus (used in many farming-related installations)
ALPHA – Social, Limited Edition mints
KEK – Rare Items, Limited Edition mints
GLTR – Tokenized time


I totally in agreement with what you are saying. And I truly appreciate your efforts. I wish I could contribute more as some of you have done.

To me, yes, we provide another pair of eyes (many pairs in reality) and a different perspective to look at things that might be too obvious and get slipped through the radar by the team.

Coderdan kind of answered to some degree the vision how alchemica are going to be used on a very high level. I feel that we look at future recipes or any significant usages of alchemica to check against this vision. We can leave the alpha unchanged in the correct recipes other than the changes already in the 3 recipes used in simulations.

1 Like

Added this to the board - I’m thinking I should be collecting “core values and intents of the dev team” and keeping those somewhere, to reference, as we go.

1 Like