Rethinking KSP's career mode

[Rombrecht]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

Human spaceflight is kind of boring right now.  We've put men on the Moon and we have a fantastic orbital station but we have progressed very little beyond that point; economics and general public disinterest are probably a large part of that but we're also very cautious with our lives.  Kerbals are, and should be, different.  No matter how much I enjoy the detail of realism and fully support mods like Realism Overhaul, I fully believe that Kerbals themselves should be treated as aliens with their own motives and path into space.

Human spaceflight is indeed boring at the moment. In my opinion it's even unnecessary as long as we don't have any long-term plan of colonisation of other worlds. I'm strongly in favor of an exclusively robotic space program, since the exploration of space now a is not about humans getting out there, but to study the solar system and getting to know our place in the universe, both literally and philosophically. the ISS is a waste of time and money as long as we don't have any plans or incentives for colonising and/or mining the Moon, Mars or even Venus.

But yeah, that was off topic. I can see why you like to see kerbals going out there personally, the crazy little idiots that the are.  I guess it's a matter of preference though. Perhaps my bias towards wanting to start unmanned is partially informed by my lack of interest in real-life manned spaceflight?

My main gripe with the career mode as it is now is just that I don't think gathering "science" in outer space should not directly translate into unlocking new parts and technologies.

[Perry Apsis]

With regard to un-crewed first, almost 60 years of atmospheric flight before our first human in space, and similar things, I have had the same thoughts on many occasions. But these are a species that will slap together stuff they picked up in a junkyard and gleefully (and hilariously) strap themselves into it and see if they can make it into space. I can believe they'd wait until they could get a crew capsule together before they bothered to start hurling stuff skyward. Brilliant engineers, but with a very different approach to risk.

I'm glad they have a planet with a weirdly high density, and a bewilderingly small solar system.* They deserve to be in space.

More seriously, you need to make the game rewarding enough for new players. I know seeing my happy (or otherwise) Kerbals in the lower right was a big motivation for me, about a billion game hours ago. Thanks to our amazing modding community and the Squad devs that make it possible, if they get the itch for a more serious challenge, it will be there waiting for them.

 

*And, presumably, a high birth rate. And the ability to photosynthesize. And the ability to survive a kilometers-long fall if they land on their heads. And immunity to radiation. And extended weightlessness. And boredom.

[tater]

A career with a randomized Kerbol system that only allows players to see/know what could be know by astronomy from Kerbin would have career be a true "discovery" mode. Science could be adjusted to determine useful information, and/or unlock game features instead of as a points system. (the features would be that atmospheric science from a probe might turn on the ability to turn on accurate flight path tracking in atmosphere for reentry, for example).

Nominally, career/campaign modes should be designed such that the player sometimes ends up with novel challenges. In KSP this is done via random, and 99% stupid, side quests. A real career mode would be such that the player sometimes has an "Apollo 13" moment to have to deal with, though being KSP, the solution might be to keep it in some sort of orbit (vs crashing), then send a rescue. I know they hate the idea of parts failures, but if there were ways to mitigate that, through testing, and parts with variant MTBFs, that creates interesting design choices---though again, without a foil, there is no reason not to always use the best parts.

I like the idea of career, it's just very "meh" in practice. I'm not saying that the solution is easy, either.

[Wjolcz]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've said in my thread. Except maybe less chaotic and easier to understand.

Nevertheless I agree with this. Science points and the tree itself is what keeps me away from completing my career save. Heck, I didn't even start a new one in 1.1!

[Rombrecht]

On 29-4-2016 at 0:45 AM, tater said:

A career with a randomized Kerbol system that only allows players to see/know what could be know by astronomy from Kerbin would have career be a true "discovery" mode. Science could be adjusted to determine useful information, and/or unlock game features instead of as a points system. (the features would be that atmospheric science from a probe might turn on the ability to turn on accurate flight path tracking in atmosphere for reentry, for example).

The idea of a randomised solar system is indeed interesting, and I've played with that thought a bit in the past. This way KSP would be a true journey of discovery. However, this would either require a huge database of pre-rendered celestial bodies, or the procedural generation of celestial bodies. Both options would require vast amounts of programming work to be done.

[Rombrecht]

Ideas on how "science" should work.

Obviously, the first thing I would propose is to disconnect the science gathering in KSP from the tech-tree. As stated before; It is very silly that studying craters on the mun would directly result in unlocking a more powerful rocket engine.

Perhaps an alternative way of bringing scientific research of outer space and the planets would be to switch science gathering from something one does to advance in the tech tree, to an activity that is require to fulfill contracts. This would not only more realistically reflect how real life operators of space boosters get their scientific contracts, but would also give more meaning to the contract system. Scientific modules would be issued with the contract with the mission to place this module into a specific orbit or land in a specific biome of some celestial body. How the spacecraft that carries this module to that orbit or biome, is then up to the player. one could even go as far as letting the player chose between a robotic or manned mission if a sample return is required in the contract.

Yet a different architecture for scientific research in KSP is along the lines of the science checklist. The science checklist currently in game only keeps track of the data gathered so far, but what if each scientific discovery would also give you a monetary and reputation reward? This would be more then enough incentive to go out and do science to develop one's space program. Also, making "science" a bucket list in stead of a more or less linear line up of contracts would be less restraining to the game experience, and would be closer to KSP's free sandbox spirit.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Rombrecht

[tater]

Pre-designed worlds would be best, but the could then all be slightly varied via scaling. Scale all worlds (and distances) between 1 and 3 for easy mode, 1 and 4 for normal, and 1-6 for hard.

[Pax Kerbana]

This is an important topic, I hope Squad pays attention to this. Career mode is my only real gripe of the game. Not to say the game isn't awesome, because it is. It just isn't quite finished.

Contracts:

1. Keep the current structure, its okay.

2. Reduce the amount of tourist contracts, especially for early game.

3. Reduce significantly the amount of rescue contracts. These are kinda foolish, especially in the amount offered.

4. I like that they added the "expand" contracts.

5. Keep the ridiculous descriptions, it's nicely Kerbal.

Tech:

1. Tech structure NEEDS to be revamped, that is I think, what people are really complaining about in regards to career.

2. Tech should be gained by experience using associated parts. For example: using solid boosters accumulate hidden points, the more a player uses them, the sooner "new tech" is developed.

3. Tech usage experience can be "bought" for a significant amount of money. Lets say the player doesn't want to mess around with Fleas to develop enough experience to research the Kickback. They could purchase a development program for say, 5-10 times the normal development cost.

4. Tech should be developed over time. Researching a part isn't instantaneous, it must be selected and funded over time.

5. I do like the ability to specialize down one path, this should be retained.

6. I suggest Squad play the excellent, excellent, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. The way that game does tech would work great for KSP. In the game, a player can research down a tree, but also force research if needed. They are also given tech that just suddenly "develops" based on existing tech and relative factors IIRC. Alpha Centauri, although ancient at this point, is still an excellent game.

Cost Structure:

1. All I'm gonna say on this is that cost needs to be seriously looked at. Kerbals cost WAY too much. This one thing alone has single-highhandedly killed career for me. Abusing rescue missions to get free slaves "Kerbals" is not an answer to an unbalanced cost structure.

2. Okay, maybe a second thing, a suggestion. Costs should be one-time AND time dependent. Down payment on a research program, then funded for 1 year before you can try a prototype part. Good Kerbals get a signing bonus and a yearly salary, for a 10-year contract. Death settlements perhaps. Also, loans are a thing.

[regex]

41 minutes ago, Pax Kerbana said:

Reduce the amount of tourist contracts, especially for early game.

Reject them.

Quote

Reduce significantly the amount of rescue contracts. These are kinda foolish, especially in the amount offered.

Reject them.

Quote

Keep the ridiculous descriptions, it's nicely Kerbal.

I find it hard to believe that a space-faring race would fail to construct a coherent language, but whatever floats your boat...  vOv

Quote

Tech should be developed over time. Researching a part isn't instantaneous, it must be selected and funded over time.

I agree with this at least, the rest of the suggestions ... well, tech tree could use a redesign but I'd suggest something like RP-0 where a large amount of parts are automatically unlocked at the beginning (not talking about "unmanned first").  The most fun I've had with career mode has been unlocking the entire first ttier of the R&D building (all <100 nodes) at the beginning, helped remove the "grindy" feeling career has.

Quote

yearly salary7

Just a good idea in general.

Edited May 2, 2016 by regex

[XrayLima]

I think there is something to this thread generally, but I just dont get the vibe that Squad are in the mood to embrace this.  That said, a mod that could change the focus of the tech/career interface would be pretty special.  Blank sheet of paper, what would I love to see?  This:

1. Overarching, time based goals.  The big idea type things.  These are your win/lose type events  "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a kerbal on the Mun and returning him safely to the Kerbin."  That sort of thing.  Budget given.  Once completed, you get a new harder one.
2. Side goals - Rescue missions, research, satelites.  These give you extra cash but eat up build time.  
3. Research missions.  These missions improve reliabilty of each part then unlock better versions.  For example 1st launch, 60% chance of failure, 2nd, 10%, 3rd new tech viewable but locked and tech 100% reliable, 4th, new tech 50% unlocked, 5th new tech 100% unlocked.  The cycle would then start over.  This would make it valuble to do ground tests.  You could skip them but that puts your launch at risk.  Or you test each at ground level, costing less in cash terms than a failed launch but this takes time.  This would apply to the parts meaing new ship design swith old parts keep reliabilty.
4. Time to build dependent on number of parts and tech level.  This means you need to balance time taken to test equipment, take on side missions and complete your overarching goals.  
5. Science could be used to improve initial reliabilty or shorten time to unlock next level tech by launches,

Just my 2p!

Edited May 2, 2016 by XrayLima
Clarity

[tater]

There are not many planets in the Kerbol system, so it should be possible to have a player-driven set of goals, with budgets/rewards given perhaps based upon the limits the PLAYER puts on the mission (I proposed this a while back in some thread).

So you have a mission planning place (which is what "mission control" should be renamed, anyway, as "Mission Control" should control missions in flight, because that is what mission control actually does in RL). There is a "create new program" button. You push it. It takes you to some drop-downs. (I'm using "Program" here, like Mercury Program, Viking Program, Apollo Program, etc)

Program type (manned/unmanned)

Return to Kerbin? (Y/N)

Target planet SoI (Moho/Eve/Kerbin/Duna/Dres/Jool/Eeloo)

Program target body (contextual, would depend on the choice directly above, so if you selected Kerbin above, there would be Kerbin/Mun/Minmus here).

Program flight goal (suborbital, orbit, land)

Program Primary goal (science from, EVA, etc (maybe stacked pull-downs based on mission type (landers get seismometer, etc))

Program X goals (add a + which keeps adding goals)

(so at this point if you picked unmanned, no return, Kerbin, Mun, orbital program, it would be a munar orbiter).

Program budget request (a slider here for funds)

Program tech request (tech/science points to buy stuff for the program)

Program time frame (a time frame to achieve flight goal)

The game would base Rep reward on what ou ask for vs budget. Rep would be how you "buy" Program requests, so there might be costs to the pull-downs for some of them to open.

[N_Molson]

Background. We need more facts about Kerbin and Kerbals to develop the Career Mode and make it more credible. Its nice to have modders fill the blanks, but up to a point. Its equally nice to have those "contractors" like Kerbodyne, Rockomax... but such interesting stuff should be put forward.

[XrayLima]

I agree with the need for background and for the game to be fleshed out a bit with detail, if not backstory (One of the joys of this game is the freedom to use your imagination).  The only fly in this is I just don't see Squad doing it.  The idea of a storyline mode or something like it came to an end a while back (Many of the easter eggs date from this apparently).  Once the game is both feature complete, (which I from my reading betwen the lines Squad think is not a millions miles away) and acceptably bug free, I'm not sure where squad will focus their energies, but I just don't see them expending energy on backstory or adding details like that.  I can see more things like the Asteroid day pack or similar every few months but backstory, I just cant see it happening.  Though I'd like to be proved wrong!!

 

[Nich]

On April 29, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Stoney3K said:

You're forgetting that an AI may have a totally different goal from the player. If the goal is "Get to the Mun first" as a contract, then such a contract would only become available once the player is (feasibly) within reach of doing so. It doesn't make sense to offer such a contract when the player only has the first tech node unlocked.

An AI would only do just as good as a player would if it gets offered "Test the Kickback booster on a sub-orbital trajectory near the Sun" contracts just as the player would. It gets bogged down in grinding all possible test and tourist contracts that would be achievable in any given time, not setting any long-term goals unless it is offered a contract. A player can already think ahead and predict that it may get a "Fly by the Mun" contract in the near future, and budget for it accordingly.

You can see the same behavior on Transport Tycoon's AI. Those will keep hunting for every possible subsidy which offers them a higher reward than regular, trying to get ahead by buliding microscopic networks with subsidised passenger runs, which pay almost nothing per completed run. When you play against those as a player, you can easily beat them by running heavy networks of bulk freight, which have a higher net payoff, but take more time and money to set up, but keep generating reward once they are running.

An AI may not be the best option here but we need a competitive element to keep the game challenging and rewarding. You may feel a sense of accomplishment once you get your first payload into LKO, but once you have flown 100 payloads into LKO, the task becomes repetitive and boring, so you would rather have something that automates it and enables you to focus on different tasks. If I have the tech to build a lifter that can haul 100t of payload into LKO, I can reasonably expect my crew to build that lifter, attach any payload up to that 100t, and drop that payload into a predefined parking orbit without my intervention.

Clearly ksp forums challenges section is the best AI you will ever find

[John FX]

At the core IMHO this thread is about the question of whether KSP stands for Kerbal Space Program or Kerbal Space Pilots.

Are we managing a space program or just being pilots?

At the moment, for a space program game, there isn't much managing of the space program needed...

[Panel]

I agree that career needs to be overhauled. One of the ways I can think of to help with the starting crewed or uncrewed is have multiple start nodes on the tech tree. You could choose the one that has the parts you want and unlock the rest later. 

I don't think that the way science is received needs to be changed, though. It encourages you move on to bigger goals with the incentive to unlock new parts. With those new parts, you can go more places, and so on. 

[tater]

The principal issue with the science/tree as a reward, is that KSP gets easier, not harder, as the game progresses. 

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Panel said:

I agree that career needs to be overhauled. One of the ways I can think of to help with the starting crewed or uncrewed is have multiple start nodes on the tech tree. You could choose the one that has the parts you want and unlock the rest later.

I don't think that the way science is received needs to be changed, though. It encourages you move on to bigger goals with the incentive to unlock new parts. With those new parts, you can go more places, and so on. 

The problem is that the science points are a bad system though. You should do specific experiments in order to progress. If you want to build better vacuum engines/radiators/whatever you should first run experiments in space to understand how does the environment influence your spacecraft.

For example: go out of the atmosphere -> run the thermometer experiment -> you are now able to build better cooling systems for your spacecraft (radiators).

The way it works now: go to the Mun -> harvest science -> unlock the tree.

And maybe that gives you freedom. Maybe you can do whatever you want to progress, but that's just not fun for me. It makes no sense to do a bunch of unreleated things to unlock jet engines, or bigger parts, or some other thing. The stock research system is just dumb.

[Pthigrivi]

I've thought a lot about this over the last few years. I agree with a lot of people that career mode has its issues and certainly could be improved, but I don't agree that the problems are so fundamental that they would require a total re-write (nor do I think that's in the cards even if they were). To address what ails things you have to understand what most people are struggling with. Here's a summary of the issues I see most commonly here: 

Contracts:

- Contracts are random and therefore feel like side-quests. However cleverly produced, they are not user driven and so players feel at the mercy of an arbitrary set of goals rather than being able to trek out and go where they wish.

- There's no over-arching sense of story. There's an advantage to letting players create their own stories, but this is difficult when there's no structure to hang it on. 

Science: 

- Science in general is very clicky and grindy. While science points do a nice job of giving players freedom and offering scaled rewards, the act of experimentation in-flight feels burdensome and underwhelming, and doesn't generate anything useful to the player besides generic science points.

- At the same time progression through the tech tree feels grindy for many players, it also forms the base reward system of the game, so without anything else to go on players feel as if completing the tech tree is "beating the game". For them the challenge of career mode ends there and seems to truncate the overall experience.

General:

- The step-ups for building upgrades feel very steep, locking out many essential tools in a way that hinders smooth career development.

- Strategies, while useful, don't seem to accomplish what they might--to let a player direct the style of play they wish. 

 

There's good news here I think, which is that the issues that are causing frustration at times are not central but ancillary, and can be solved without abandoning any major part of the game's structure. Here are the solutions I've come up with that I think would address these problems for most people without any kind of major re-write:

 

Incorporate an open-world main quest: What players seem to want most is a sense of control over where to go next. They want to look out at the tracking station and think "Okay lets go there!". They want that open sense of adventure. Whats great is because of world firsts they absolutely can, but when they go to Mission Control they don't see those missions automatically listed and can't receive advances for them. It seems obvious to me that the basic act of sending missions to planets is the main quest of KSP, and should be displayed up-front to players at Mission Control. My solution is two-fold:

- Organize contracts by body at mission control. The main screen would display a top-down map of the Kerbol system on which you could click the planet of your choice (or side tab) and be presented with the available missions for that body. This map could be limited to just Kerbin, the Mun and Minmus at tier zero to ease new players into things. 

- Once a tab is opened, the contracts for Flyby, Orbit, Land, and Plant Flag should always be up at the top with the generative contracts for things like rescues, satellites and resource collection listed below. While the main exploration contracts would always be available, their advances could be locked out until a high enough reputation was earned. This way players could see that they can go anywhere they like and what the reward would be, but would still have to work to build reputation in order to earn advances. Additionally players could easily understand "Beating the game" to mean planting a flag on each planet and moon in the Kerbol System, and wouldn't abandon their careers when the tech tree is complete. Whats nice is this 'main quest' can be completed in any order, letting players decide where they'd like to go next while still giving an achievable, but hard, goal for completion.

Make science more fun and feel like science: This I think is the hard part. A lot of people are feeling underwhelmed by the science system and my analysis is that the problem lies with the experiments themselves. They are each functionally identical and so you don't feel like they're really doing anything specific. They also each require repetitive clicking, which tends to distract from the experience of flying rather than aiding it. They also don't produce information valuable to the player outside the tech tree, and so you don't really feel like the data has any intrinsic value. 

- Make experiments unique and remove the need to right-click wherever possible. Scale the payouts to tasks and maneuvers unique to each instrument, and tie them to valuable flight information. For instance the Barometer might pay out for the swath of vertical air-column it passes through and the seismometer could become an impactor experiment. Including a thermometer might let a player see heat-bars, and the gravoli detector might produce biome-maps. This way data feels useful and not just generic, and experiments retain value even after the tech tree is complete. I wrote a big long post about this here.

- Include biome mapping and vary the value of different biomes on the same world with significant boosts for very small biomes around anomalies. This way players are incentivized to carefully scan and select landing sites, and to land precisely and bring rovers, planes, and probes to scout out the most valuable locations. This way the sense of exploration extends onto the surface of each planet and doesn't end the moment a flag is planted.

Add another building tier: This Im sure is on Squad's docket already. Redistributing building rewards over 4 tiers would make each upgrade feel more manageable. I do also like the idea of line-item upgrades.

Include mission type preference at the Administration Building: Arsonide has done some wonderful work programming contracts, and adapting to a players preference of contract types is a helpful move. However, it doesn't account for players that might want to change strategies mid-way through their development, nor does it give the player the feeling of being in control of their own destiny. A more direct move might be to simply include strategies like "Satellite Tycoon" and "Rescue Rangers" and and "If You Build It" and "All Mine" that might increase the probability of specific contract types coming up. This way players would feel like they had some direct control over the types of missions they were interested in and could change their minds and shift course whenever they wanted.

 

There are a ton of other ways to make things tighter and more interesting, but this is my best shot at fixing what's broke in the most minimally invasive way. People really love the core gameplay of KSP, so to me career should be as simple and straightforward as possible while still offering constraints and challenges so players can focus on building and flying. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Knaapie]

How can you write a post this long, without me disagreeing on a single word... !!!!  

Edited May 11, 2016 by Knaapie

[HebaruSan]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

<lots of well thought out ideas>

It's hard to tell how it would feel to play this in advance, but I'd at least like to try it.

One suggestion to go along with it: when you pick a body to see available contracts, I think it should spell out the game rationale for that body at a high level, like "An X planet with Y where you will have to deal with Z and learn to W". This would make the progression feel more coherent and easier to understand.

[Pthigrivi]

Thanks guys  And yeah that would be a great spot for a brief intro description for new players.

[Codraroll]

My little suggestion... a Media Center or something at the KSC. A place to tell the "Kerbal Public" what goals you are aiming for, which would influence the contracts you receive and the payout you get for them. Players could build something of a grand contract for themselves to follow, such as "We're going for the Mun". Contracts (like we know them today) would then appear like "Science temperature data from the Mun's East Crater" or "Plant flag on the Mun". After announcing your strategy, the first Mun landing would pay you a lot more than it otherwise would in terms of Science, Funds and Reputation, while other contracts paid comparably less. Failure to deliver on your promises would also be costly. The Media Center could also present grand strategies to you. For instance something like "After the blockbuster move The Dresian became a box office hit, public interest in Dres is soaring. Announcing a plan to send Kerbals to Dres would be very profitable right now." And so you'd be given a large upfront sum, and a set of Dres-related sub-contracts.

Just a little something to create "story arcs" in Career mode, with a goal to aim for.

As for making Contracts more compelling, perhaps they could offer more than just Funds, Science and Rep? Say... extra experience for Kerbonauts on mission, permanently making some parts cheaper, or unlocking special parts? How cool would it be if Rockomax offered you their RE-I5B "Skipper Mk II" engine if you planted their flag on the Mun? Or have Kerbodyne send you a counter-offer, promising you a better version of one of their parts? Mutually exclusive contracts could have some potential, I think.

I'd also like the career to involve a possibility of establishing Space Centers on other planets, but I guess that's a story for another thread...

[thereaverofdarkness2]

I don't see a problem with having Kerbals aboard your first craft. It makes sense with how it is easier for these people to get to space, and because they are a more daring and adventurous people with simpler minds. It makes sense that kerbals would fly in rockets before they have the technology to make robots.

I would like to see career mode balanced a bit better at the start, as it is difficult to get going not because the parts aren't good enough but because they don't match up with each other very well. It is very difficult to get a good center of mass and lift to keep your rocket stable, and it leaves little or no room for re-entry plans, especially with the starting vehicle mass and part count so low. The buildings also only get upgraded twice, which seems to move too fast. I wish they would be upgraded three or four times before you're done with them. Moving from 30 parts to 255 parts is just silly, you go from barely being able to get to orbit straight to being able to construct colony ships for long-term interplanetary space travel.

One thing always bothers me about science: by the time I have the technology, there is no drive to gather science. But when I have lots of science to gather, I can't make the craft I want because the parts aren't unlocked yet. So I wish there was more use for science after you unlock all the parts. It could be unlocking more part variations, improving the quality of parts, or special highly-advanced technology that you don't really need for most of the big missions. Or maybe there could be other creative uses for science outside of your spacecraft technology. A lot of it could be trophy-themed, wherein you collect it as an achievement and some part of the game proudly displays it for you. I know you can check which biomes you have researched, but it would be a lot more special if there was a decorated room showing your accomplishments with some artistic flair. What I'm trying to say is that there should be more to accomplish after I unlock all the tech. Without this stuff, I always end up quitting my space programs before I get out of the Kerbin system. I'll be ready to do an interplanetary mission, but there's nothing to gain from the mission--and I want to have a reason to do my first large-scale interplanetary mission.

You know what would really make me want to send kerbals to other planets? If I could set up a permanent base there from which I could build and launch new spacecraft, using facilities I place down to collect and process the necessary resources. Then I would play KSP so much more, and I would visit the planets a whole lot more!

Edited May 12, 2016 by thereaverofdarkness2

[Codraroll]

On 12.5.2016 at 2:21 PM, thereaverofdarkness2 said:

You know what would really make me want to send kerbals to other planets? If I could set up a permanent base there from which I could build and launch new spacecraft, using facilities I place down to collect and process the necessary resources. Then I would play KSP so much more, and I would visit the planets a whole lot more!

This. This so much.

It would be awesome if you could set up a little KSC on foreign bodies, after fulfilling certain conditions. I suggest the following:

1) Arriving at the site (could be predetermined and locked to certain locations on the various bodies) and planting a flag

2) Shipping certain parts there

3) Shipping Kerbals there

4) Paying a lot of Funds, and possibly Science.

Just a little shipyard and a launch pad would go a long way. And a Tracking Station too, so you don't have to return to Kerbin every time you just wanted to open the map. For balance, the shipyard could offer the same parts as the VAB on Kerbin, but at a vastly higher cost the further from Kerbin you went. What costs 100 Funds on Kerbin could cost 500 on the Mun and 4000 on Vall, for instance.

Not only would this make interplanetary exploration easier and less tedious (getting everything out of Kerbin's gravity well gets repetitive after a while), but it would also give players something to strive for in the long run.

 

I've heard, though, that certain technical restrictions mean that a full-fledged KSC on bodies other than Kerbin isn't possible at the moment. To be honest, I'd be happy if Squad just managed to get rid of those restrictions, as I'm sure modders could then make the rest come true. But if they decided to open up for colonization... oh boy, it'd revolutionize the game.