Page 1 of 1
[SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 12:13 pm
by Hares

Fulgora's gimmiks are:
- Harnessing power of ligning to power your base by placing lighning collectors
- Everything is a scrap, everything comes out of scrap
- Limited territory
I see most of people completely ignore the second part of a challenge by building bot-only or mostly-bot bases, and sometimes even the 3rd if the islands are close enough. Though bots are necessary for different tasks (like supplying rockets, mall, etc.) they invalidate the challenge. So I'm making a proposal to make protection zones from Lightning collectors not protecting flying entites (robots & player in mech armor) because they fly too high. Fulgoran native lightning attractor and late-game lighning collectors provide completely-safe zones.
Pros:
This change surves multiple purposes:
- Makes player value the existing lightning attractors, currently they serve no purposes besides the earliest game
- Makes player use big lightning collectors, becuase in the current game they are mostly not needed. See also: 125328: Lightning Collector vs. Lightning Rod
- Severely reduces ability to invalidate the challenges of Fulgora though leaving space for creating usage of the environment by keeping lightning attractors
Cons:
- Probably requires additional layer of implementation
- Partially breaks existing builds
- Deconstructed lightning attractors cannot be placed back once undeployed
Thus, even though I would love to see some Space Age rebalance, I don't recommend implementing this before v2.1
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 8:33 pm
by CyberCider
Genius idea, it hits two birds with one stone. Love it, +1. Honestly, I would even remove the natural collector element. Make them act like the small rods, no special effects.
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2025 2:02 pm
by Stargateur
well, first I was hell no, then I understand it was only for small rods so... I don't know
But in theory, robot should not even take any damage from lighting, energy would pass around them like plane IRL (if design correctly).
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2025 3:44 pm
by eugenekay
Stargateur wrote: Sun Apr 27, 2025 2:02 pmBut in theory, robot should not even take any damage from lighting, energy would pass around them like plane IRL (if design correctly).
Commercial Airplanes are struck by lightning about once per year on average. Crashes are comparatively rare compared to “the wing fell off” type of structural failures,
but it does happen. More commonly the plane will lose one of the redundant radio systems, or a set of circuit breakers will trip. A full maintenance inspection is required after each event to look for burnt spots on the aircraft structure, even if there is no damage apparent to the pilots in-flight.
Further reading direct from Airbus. I personally don’t “worry” about this when I step onto a plane, there is a lot of Engineering Redundancy for this type of event, and there are two expert pilots in the front seat - so everything will be fine.
Unpiloted drone swarms randomly flying through an intense lightning storm on a distant planet? Yeah, I can totally see those lil robots getting cooked by passing lightning storms. So this suggestion makes total sense flavor wise.
Implementation wise, this is probably a non-starter. Having two separate classes of Lightning Protection would mean having to check each Entity/Tile’s protection status TWICE per lightning strike - and who know how many “protection layers” could be added in Mods? What about the surprise factor of “my expensive robots are being destroyed by lightning!? But I put up protection rods!!!” Users would hate the Nerf change.
I think it is better to keep this as a simple Safe/NotSafe system.
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2025 5:31 am
by SirSmuggler
How does robots invalidate "Everything is a scrap, everything comes out of scrap"?
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2025 8:41 pm
by Hares
SirSmuggler wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 5:31 am
How does robots invalidate "Everything is a scrap, everything comes out of scrap"?
Because they turn this

- 04-28-2025, 23-38-16.png (4.23 MiB) Viewed 1386 times
into that

- 04-28-2025, 23-40-09.png (979.09 KiB) Viewed 1386 times
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 4:54 am
by Stargateur
I would say that up to player choice, no robot on fulgora and gleba is hard mode.
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:02 pm
by crimsonarmy
Pros:
This change surves multiple purposes:
1. Makes player value the existing lightning attractors, currently they serve no purposes besides the earliest game
2. Makes player use big lightning collectors, becuase in the current game they are mostly not needed. See also: 125328: Lightning Collector vs. Lightning Rod
3. Severely reduces ability to invalidate the challenges of Fulgora though leaving space for creating usage of the environment by keeping lightning attractors
For point one: they don't need to; they are another piece of Fulgoran ruin that helps out at the very start.
For point two: They are twice as efficient as lightning rods and cover a larger area. Why not use them?
For point three: it doesn't invalidate the challenge; it replaces one challenge with another: now you need to deal with a huge power demand.
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2025 3:53 pm
by Hares
crimsonarmy wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:02 pm
For point two: They are twice as efficient as lightning rods and cover a larger area. Why not use them?
1. They are 2x2 instead of 1x1, cost a lot and are unlocked when your base is already covered
2. Lightning efficiency is never a limiting factor, you are always capped by the accumulators
3. The only real advantage is higher reach range, but see argument 1.
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2025 6:58 pm
by crimsonarmy
Hares wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 3:53 pm
crimsonarmy wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:02 pm
For point two: They are twice as efficient as lightning rods and cover a larger area. Why not use them?
1. They are 2x2 instead of 1x1, cost a lot and are unlocked when your base is already covered
2. Lightning efficiency is never a limiting factor, you are always capped by the accumulators
3. The only real advantage is higher reach range, but see argument 1.
1.
a. Fair, but I never rarely them inside my builds (and I haven't seen anyone else do that either) so it doesn't really matter.
b. I see them kind of like substations: don't bother rewiring things, but use them in the future. They are quite helpful in city block designs.
2. A few niche cases exist where it does matter, though in general I agree.
3. see 1 b
Another point: Why does it matter? It is kind of like forcing the player to use iron and copper bacteria / biolabs / fusion. This is just taking an optional part of the game and making it mandatory for no real reason.
Re: [SA] Make small lightning rods not protecting flying robots.
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2025 6:44 pm
by MeduSalem
No. Even if it would only be the small lightning rods and not affect the large ones, I have to say no.
If you want to self-impose more belt challenge, go ahead.
If people want to use bots to deal with it from the start, let them.
It is a sandbox game and not everything needs to be challenging for the sake of challenge.
There is already enough forced spaghetthi for the sake of it with the space platforms where you cannot get around it.
And no, I am not saying that because I purely throw bots at Fulgora. Like on other planets, I usually use a hybrid system where bulk stuff I move with belts to cut down on the bot madness because it draws energy like no tomorrow. But small quantities I sure do move around with bots because it is pointless to route a belt for it.