New KSC Building Idea!

[TheJangleMan]

So, first of all its called the "Planning Center" here, you can set trajectories for orbit, or landing, and you can select along the orbit line where everything is for optimal trajectories. Now, for the Funding mode, you will get more funds the more precise you are on following the bold line and a bonus if in the administration building, you set it so that the line is thinner. (you can also set it thicker for less money on each plan) The building will be totally seperate from the tracking station. The amount you get will always be less than or equal to what you had on hand before the Plan! If you fail a plan, you can have a possibility of going bankrupt! There further the distance you plan, the more it costs to "research", meaning your money is the limit! There should be a set-up fee too... Hope you consider soon! Thanks to NightHog for saying we should be able to set up waypoints before launch! I did most of the technical thinking, but huge shoutout to NightHog for activating  my thinking process and spawning this idea!

Edited August 9, 2016 by TheJangleMan

[Garrett Kerman]

That would be very complicated. We already have AI cores. Also, some players like to play without a plan, so it wouldn't be fair if people who planned got more funds.

[TheJangleMan]

The amount it gives you will always be lower than the amount you have on hand when you begin the plan

 

 

and can go to negatives if you fail the Plan

[mattinoz]

39 minutes ago, Garrett Kramme said:

That would be very complicated. We already have AI cores. Also, some players like to play without a plan, so it wouldn't be fair if people who planned got more funds.

Games are about choosing one play style / strategy over another. A good game gives you many options and gives each a carrot and a stick. KSP just doesn't really provide any real distinction in style and adding that doesn't take away from your existing style.

Edited August 9, 2016 by mattinoz

[TheJangleMan]

1 minute ago, mattinoz said:

Games are about choosing one play style / strategy over another. A good game gives you many options and gives each a carrot and a stick. KSP just doesn't really provide any real distinction in style and adding that doesn't take away from your existing style.

Exactly!

[Alshain]

I don't understand why a new building would be required for this, I would see it as an extension of maneuver planning.  Maybe I don't understand the idea.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Alshain

[swjr-swis]

3 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Maybe I don't understand the idea.

Possible, there's a lot of technical thinking involved.

[XB-70A]

Many of us are using add-ons to compensate that. If a new building could be to much, for my part I would L-O-V-E to get the possibility to upgrade the tracking station and realize my flight-plans from here, it will be a point to, personally, say Ciao! to MechJeb after so much time of nice co-working together.

[Wjolcz]

Soooo, ummmm... Basically what Mission Control should have been able to do since the dawn of career + career based on funds instead of science and rep?

Lemme re-read the whole thing again.

[THX1138]

I don't see the logical reason that you'd lose money for deviating from this plan. Who would be giving and taking away money and why should they care what trajectory you take so long as you have fuel for it?

[razark]

The Administration building should be done away with.

Mission Control should be renamed Administration.

The Tracking Station should have maneuver nodes added and renamed to Mission Control.

Mission Planning should be a subset of the new Mission Control (ex-tracking Station).

[adsii1970]

Well, since this appears to be the "suggest a new building for the KSC" thread, the ONLY thing I would like to see added would be something along the lines of a KSC dock in the shallows off the northern coast of the KSC peninsula. I know that everyone says that Kerbal Konstructs could do this, but it really slows the game to a crawl for me...

 

[TheJangleMan]

17 hours ago, THX1138 said:

I don't see the logical reason that you'd lose money for deviating from this plan. Who would be giving and taking away money and why should they care what trajectory you take so long as you have fuel for it?

No no no, you can cancel it, but if you try it, and fail, THATS when you lose money, there's a 100% cash refund on the planning. They should care where you go because it's supposed to bring balance to the system so that you won't get money for no reason.

 

[Alshain]

We choose to go to the moon and do the other things, like land at this very specific place at this very specific trajectory and if we fail I'm going to pull all of NASA's funding - President Kennedy (in an alternate reality where he cared about how they got there rather than just getting there)

 

Seriously, there needs to be some sort of justification for this.  In the KSP context you have companies paying you to do things.  You have to ask, what reason would they care how you accomplished the goal, as long as you accomplish it?  I can't suspend disbelief enough to think a company would say, "send a man to space, but make sure he land at this trajectory and no other or you have to pay us".  It just doesn't make sense, how would you work this into the space agency management theme of the game?

Edited August 11, 2016 by Alshain