Are USD really USD?

[Extholious]

I see what they are saying though. You could set that dock to deny people from docking to you but you still want to use your USD to dock to public docks, so it currently still lets you use your USD to do that. This appears to use that convenience against you. It runs the public dock into you and, I assume, relies on the auto docking that happens when a docker and a rail are close enough together. Now you've been force docked. There also appears to be a workaround that uses the pickup rails that would normally be used to guide ships into a carrier. Instead, they are used as a butterfly net that tries to catch the rail docker involuntarily and reel a hostage ship in.

It does seem like both of those can be foiled by sending a logic signal to the docker or the rail to undock. . . but maybe there is some logic trick or cheeze that foils that too. Pretty much anything designed for immersion or convenience can be weaponized without lots of effort to lock it down to just specific uses.

i dont think you can fool it since even if they have docks around it you cant redock for 4 seconds and that part of the game

Edit: unless perhaps if there was a massive web of the pickup docks

 

[Zekester81]

The only way to defeat the logic system, short of a bug or exploit, would be to either leave the activator exposed with no permission module(which is silly), or to physically destroy the activator.

 

[Benevolent27]

Standard USD is a useless standard. Use a modified USD that has rail covers, such as a docked entity that can move a cover over the exposed rail or uncover it with a button.

 

[mindlord0013]

As the original creator of the USD, part of the original suggestion was either partially hidden USD doors that fold nicely into a ship's hull or having a docking arm that you can attach to a ship. (Relevant link: )

In hindsight, the most effective way is to have the main USD faction locked, and than have a docking arm attachment with two different ends that extend out to be in line with the extremities of your ship: public and faction only USD docks

Holy schema, that was more than 2 years ago now...

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Standard USD is a useless standard. Use a modified USD that has rail covers, such as a docked entity that can move a cover over the exposed rail or uncover it with a button.

How well does that work against pickup rails? If effective, do you think a plex door/blast door covering the docker would work as well?

 

[kulbolen]

usd arent usd because most players use their own docking mechanisms, and either dont know about usd or dont care. thats it.

doesnt have much to do with theft, because the avg player never even considers their ships going to be stolen by its docking device. its worth understanding, but its not the reason.

 

[kiddan]

Define universal. The majority of the new default NPC entities are USD compatible, so the system is almost universal from the start, if you ask me.

 

[Valiant70]

Define universal. The majority of the new default NPC entities are USD compatible, so the system is almost universal from the start, if you ask me.

Once NPCs are relevant, their use of USD ports will be meaningful. Maybe then more people will use them. I already try to incorporate them into my designs if I can. It makes docking on my stations easier.

 

[Benevolent27]

How well does that work against pickup rails? If effective, do you think a plex door/blast door covering the docker would work as well?

So long as a person has a docker on their ship, there really isn't any way way to protect against reverse docking from pickup rails, so this standard is generally rendered too dangerous to use on any non-build server.

But basically, here are a few options players have with the standard, including the pros and cons.

Standard:

Pros:
- Simple

Cons:
- Has no protection against contact docking or pickup rails.


Covered:

Pros:
- Easy

Con:
- Does not stop pickup rail docking. Only stops contact docking.
- Disables docking with a docker beam. Any ship that wants to dock must contact dock while the plex doors are open.


Docked Rail covers that move:
(picture 1)


(picture 2):


(picture 3)


Pros:
- Has full compatibility with any docking method.

Cons:
- Complicated
- Only protects against contact docking. Does not protect against pickup rail docking.
- When your ship is getting attacked, these covers will cause bounding box lag as they come off their rails and start smacking into the main ship.
- Requires rail logic to work, which can be cumbersome if having a lot of docking ports.
- If your rails go buggy, it can stop working.


Anti-Docker with switch:



Pros:
- If someone reverse docks your ship to theirs, the anti-dock will kick in and undock your ship from theirs (if the switch is off).

Cons:
- Does not stop contact docking nor pickup rail docking. It only undocks your ship AFTER it has already docked.
- It takes a moment before the ship undocks. During this time, a quick enemy may be able to jump your ship away or get a design save if they are fast enough.
- Requires an activation block to be next to the rail docker.
- Will throw null pointer exceptions as the button undocks your ship.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

So long as a person has a docker on their ship, there really isn't any way way to protect against reverse docking from pickup rails, so this standard is generally rendered too dangerous to use on any non-build server.

But basically, here are a few options players have with the standard, including the pros and cons.

Standard:
View attachment 44337
Pros:
- Simple

Cons:
- Has no protection against contact docking or pickup rails.


Covered:
View attachment 44338
Pros:
- Easy

Con:
- Does not stop pickup rail docking. Only stops contact docking.
- Disables docking with a docker beam. Any ship that wants to dock must contact dock while the plex doors are open.


Docked Rail covers that move:
(picture 1)
View attachment 44346

(picture 2):
View attachment 44347

(picture 3)
View attachment 44348

Pros:
- Has full compatibility with any docking method.

Cons:
- Complicated
- Only protects against contact docking. Does not protect against pickup rail docking.
- When your ship is getting attacked, these covers will cause bounding box lag as they come off their rails and start smacking into the main ship.
- Requires rail logic to work, which can be cumbersome if having a lot of docking ports.
- If your rails go buggy, it can stop working.


Anti-Docker with switch:
View attachment 44351

View attachment 44350
Pros:
- If someone reverse docks your ship to theirs, the anti-dock will kick in and undock your ship from theirs (if the switch is off).

Cons:
- Does not stop contact docking nor pickup rail docking. It only undocks your ship AFTER it has already docked.
- It takes a moment before the ship undocks. During this time, a quick enemy may be able to jump your ship away or get a design save if they are fast enough.
- Requires an activation block to be next to the rail docker.
- Will throw null pointer exceptions as the button undocks your ship.

Thanks for the very detailed info. I think I know what I need to do now.

 

[Valiant70]

Pickup rail reverse-docking is an exploit that needs to be fixed.

 

[Valck]

Pickup rail reverse-docking is an exploit that needs to be fixed.

Disagree, I wouldn't call it an exploit per se.
I use it regularly in my automated container system. I agree that it could be used for nefarious reasons, but any "fixing" needs to be done with care and consideration. Guns kill, you can either regulate their use or accept the consequences.

 

[Nauvran]

Pickup rail reverse-docking is an exploit that needs to be fixed.

it's a tedious but good way to have boarding parties. Everyone hates pirates but we gotta give them a chance to actually be pirates.

 

[RealMcCloud]

For boarding there is grapple hook and blow torch.

I do include the USD on every ship I build that can fit it. Otherwise I simply use rail and dock in the same setup without logic.

It would be nice to have it so only entities of the same faction would be able to dock.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Pickup rail reverse-docking is an exploit that needs to be fixed.

Agreed. We can't have USD systems without losing a ship. This is a feature that seemed cool at first but in reality, it discourages creativity and certain aspects of cooperative play via the behavior of other players.

Disagree, I wouldn't call it an exploit per se.
I use it regularly in my automated container system. I agree that it could be used for nefarious reasons, but any "fixing" needs to be done with care and consideration. Guns kill, you can either regulate their use or accept the consequences.

It's an exploit so something needs to be done. The best way to responsibly fix this is to make it so that rail dockers only accept auto-docking from craft of the same faction. Just as with the other rails, use of public permission blocks on a docker can allow the craft to be picked up by craft of other factions.

it's a tedious but good way to have boarding parties. Everyone hates pirates but we gotta give them a chance to actually be pirates.

The stop effect, EMP effect, grapple, and torch are enough to allow for effective piracy. Auto-docking is the cheater's way to steal ships, since it does not trigger a war declaration or the activation of defense turrets.

I could understand if the target was unfactioned, or had no active AI on it. But as it stands now, auto-docking allows for the equivalent of using a tow truck to steal a Brinks armored car parked in front of a bank with the armed guards still in it.

Once again, we just can't have nice things...

 

[Valck]

Disagree, I wouldn't call it an exploit per se.
I use it regularly in my automated container system. I agree that it could be used for nefarious reasons, but any "fixing" needs to be done with care and consideration. Guns kill, you can either regulate their use or accept the consequences.

It's an exploit so something needs to be done. The best way to responsibly fix this is to make it so that rail dockers only accept auto-docking from craft of the same faction. Just as with the other rails, use of public permission blocks on a docker can allow the craft to be picked up by craft of other factions.

The problem with permission blocks is the way they need to be touching the system they control. Space around dockers is already cramped as one face definitely has to stay visible, and if you want to hide systems, that effectively leaves only the back face which is competing with docking detection logic.
If permission blocks could be placed anywhere and slaved, that might be a viable solution. I'm pretty certain Schema has spoken against that on multiple occasions.

Maybe this discussion would warrant its own thread though...

as it stands now, auto-docking allows for the equivalent of using a tow truck to steal a Brinks armored car parked in front of a bank with the armed guards still in it.

I'd actually be surprised if something like that hadn't already happened :)

 

[Dr. Whammy]

The problem with permission blocks is the way they need to be touching the system they control. Space around dockers is already cramped as one face definitely has to stay visible, and if you want to hide systems, that effectively leaves only the back face which is competing with docking detection logic.
If permission blocks could be placed anywhere and slaved, that might be a viable solution. I'm pretty certain Schema has spoken against that on multiple occasions.

Maybe this discussion would warrant its own thread though...


I'd actually be surprised if something like that hadn't already happened :)

To be honest, I'd put up with the back face placement or some other workaround if it meant I can build a ship with a functional airlock that won't be stolen so easily.

Regarding the armored car example, I'm getting a mental image of two lazy guards asleep at the wheel who get taken for a ride by someone like The Joker. Extreme but certainly not common.

 

[Valck]

Regarding the armored car example, I'm getting a mental image of two lazy guards asleep at the wheel who get taken for a ride by someone like The Joker. Extreme but certainly not common.

I was thinking of "They Came to Rob Las Vegas". Fiction as well, granted, but not entirely implausible.
The year before, SPECTRE stole space capsules by 'swallowing' them whole... just saying, it's a valid supervillain strategy and not an exploit in and of itself.

Come to think of it, it may actually be more desirable to have a ship kidnapped by pickup docking as opposed to having it swallowed and resulting in a collision lag fest. Only half kidding here.

 

[kiddan]

What if a form of bait dockers became popularized? When something is directly in front of the docker, an area trigger would open a blast door and jam a warhead stick through it, destroying the enemy's rail.

Edit: Doesn't have to be a would-be hallway door either. The door is best hidden to give the ship snatcher a false sense of security.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

What if a form of bait dockers became popularized? When something is directly in front of the docker, an area trigger would open a blast door and jam a warhead stick through it, destroying the enemy's rail.

Edit: Doesn't have to be a would-be hallway door either. The door is best hidden to give the ship snatcher a false sense of security.

I find that idea extremely hilarious. Unfortunately, area triggers and pickup docking are kinda janky.