29 replies to this topic

[InnerSphereNews]

Attention MechWarriors,

This Thursday (May 24th) we have a patch scheduled to go live that will bring GDPR compliance to MWO.

What is GDPR?

• GDPR is the General Data Protection Regulation law in the European Union.

What is the purpose of GDPR?

• For players:
• To give all players a plain English description of what personal information we store and how we use it
• Let players know they have a right to see the personal information we have stored.
• Let players correct or remove their personal information.
• In our services:
• Audit the personal information we store.
• Ensure data encryption and security.
• Optimize the data for retrieval.
• Optimize the data for removal.

What does this update entail?

This update allows us to comply with GDPR in the following ways:

• Changes to our sign up process.
• Changes to our terms of service.
• Changes to the ways in which we store, retrieve, and reference players’ information.
• The ability to retrieve and send to players the stored personal information associated with their account upon request.
• The ability to anonymize player accounts (Personal Information Deletion along with Account Anonymization).

When is the patch happening?

• The patch will roll out Thursday, May 24th at 10:00 a.m. and you will need to agree to the new TOS (Terms Of Service) before playing MWO.

It’s worth saying that Piranha Games does not collect your personal information for any reason other than for you to engage with our products.

The changes listed above will bring us in compliance with the GDPR. However, we respect that some players will wish to challenge us on this compliance.

If you wish to do so, we will have a Data Protection Officer email available for you on the 24th.

See you in the Data-field

The MechWarrior Online Team

What else is coming in the Patch?

• Bushwacker Geometry Fixes
• Rifleman Weapon Geometry Fixes
• Battlemaster Pattern Fixes
• Flea and Hellfire Camo Spec Colors Removed
• Mech Max Armour Save bug Fixes
• Various Solaris City Collision Fixes

[D V Devnull]

I hope this HotFix Patch will repair the Version Number, as well? Seeing "0.4.169.0" is kinda goofy...

~D. V. "A question from the person who reported this..." Devnull

[suffocater]

No Fafnir Warhorn fix?

[BTGbullseye]

suffocater, on 22 May 2018 - 02:38 PM, said:

No Fafnir Warhorn fix?

Not a hotfix level fix... That one needs a full version change.

[VXJaeger]

Maybe you should do that nerf for clan lazorvomit (which was pulled off from last patch, you *******) while you are patching anyway. Just don't announce it before it happens.

Edited by VXJaeger, 23 May 2018 - 01:07 AM.

[Bishop Six]

• "Battlemaster Pattern Fixes"

Thank you!

[Toxicresidue]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 23 May 2018 - 07:12 AM.
unconstructive

[BTGbullseye]

VXJaeger, on 23 May 2018 - 01:06 AM, said:

Maybe you should do that nerf for clan lazorvomit (which was pulled off from last patch, you *******) while you are patching anyway. Just don't announce it before it happens.

I seriously considered posting something that would get me banned again... That is the single stupidest idea I've ever heard on these forums.

[Kmieciu]

I bet Chris is the new Data Protection Officer ;-)

[Chris Lowrey]

Kmieciu, on 23 May 2018 - 05:43 AM, said:

I bet Chris is the new Data Protection Officer ;-)

Lord no. That's a can of worms I would prefer to kept rightfully walled off from my own work.

I'm the "big data" guy in relationship to 'Mech and weapon data. Anything related to user personal data is something that I have zero access to.

[fourfinger]

at the last push!
Law becomes effective on 25.5.
Hope all goes well
Toi toi toi PGI

[Grayson Sortek]

Chris Lowrey, on 23 May 2018 - 07:55 AM, said:

Lord no. That's a can of worms I would prefer to kept rightfully walled off from my own work.

I'm the "big data" guy in relationship to 'Mech and weapon data. Anything related to user personal data is something that I have zero access to.

I don't blame you. I work with this kind of data every day. I'm just happy that we've been following a policy close to GDPR already. Thanks to PGI for being open and honest about what this is.

[BTGbullseye]

Chris Lowrey, on 23 May 2018 - 07:55 AM, said:

Lord no. That's a can of worms I would prefer to kept rightfully walled off from my own work.

I'm the "big data" guy in relationship to 'Mech and weapon data. Anything related to user personal data is something that I have zero access to.

As holder of all that data, mind giving a detailed run down of Ghost Heat for us? Please? It would be very helpful...

[Fox the Apprentice]

BTGbullseye, on 23 May 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

As holder of all that data, mind giving a detailed run down of Ghost Heat for us? Please? It would be very helpful...

https://mwo.smurfy-n...eapon_heatscale

Data pulled from the game files.

[Chris Lowrey]

Well, can't get more detailed than a break down of exactly how the mechanic works.

[BTGbullseye]

Ok, thanks. Can you comment as to why I have less than half heat showing up when I fire one HLL vs 2x HLL then? Is it a bug?

https://mwomercs.com...lied-to-2x-hll/

Edited by BTGbullseye, 23 May 2018 - 11:09 AM.

[Chris Lowrey]

BTGbullseye, on 23 May 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

Ok, thanks. Can you comment as to why I have less than half heat showing up when I fire one HLL vs 2x HLL then? Is it a bug?

https://mwomercs.com...lied-to-2x-hll/

You are probably not accounting for the heat dissipation throughout the duration of the laser burn.

Firing weapons does not stop heat dissipation, so for any weapon with a duration, your heatsinks are still actively dissipating the heat as it accumulates.

So in the case of the Heavy large laser with a 1.55 second duration, firing a single laser, followed by another, additionally gives you 3.1 seconds of active heat dissipation from your 'Mechs heatsinks (modified by any external factors.) While if you fire them both together, you are only accounting for 1.55 seconds of heat dissipation when both beams are over. So while you would be generating the same amount of heat in both situations, you wouldn't be dissipating the same amount of heat. To get an accurate account of the situation, you would need to wait 1.55 after the end of of initial burn to see where your heat gauge sits. Because that is how you would account for the extra heat disspation time that is present when you fire a single laser after the other.

Another wrinkle to this is laser duration nodes. The weapon's heat is applied throughout the weapon's duration. Because your heatsinks are actively dissipating heat throughout the duration, shorter duration beams actually apply the heat faster then those beams that are longer. Which may affect the final heat gauge position despite identical heat profiles. Because one weapon has the benefit of extra ticks of heat dissipation while the other does not.

[VXJaeger]

BTGbullseye, on 23 May 2018 - 04:47 AM, said:

I seriously considered posting something that would get me banned again... That is the single stupidest idea I've ever heard on these forums.

Of course, clanners love their brainless lazorvomit-builds. I'd do that nerf without any hesitation, even when I like playing with clanmechs. That vomit has been meta for too long, and must be turned more into mixed-build meta.

[Fox the Apprentice]

Chris Lowrey, on 23 May 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

Well, can't get more detailed than a break down of exactly how the mechanic works.

I always liked that stalker sketch

[BTGbullseye]

Chris Lowrey, on 23 May 2018 - 11:28 AM, said:

You are probably not accounting for the heat dissipation throughout the duration of the laser burn.

Firing weapons does not stop heat dissipation, so for any weapon with a duration, your heatsinks are still actively dissipating the heat as it accumulates.

So in the case of the Heavy large laser with a 1.55 second duration, firing a single laser, followed by another, additionally gives you 3.1 seconds of active heat dissipation from your 'Mechs heatsinks (modified by any external factors.) While if you fire them both together, you are only accounting for 1.55 seconds of heat dissipation when both beams are over. So while you would be generating the same amount of heat in both situations, you wouldn't be dissipating the same amount of heat. To get an accurate account of the situation, you would need to wait 1.55 after the end of of initial burn to see where your heat gauge sits. Because that is how you would account for the extra heat disspation time that is present when you fire a single laser after the other.

Another wrinkle to this is laser duration nodes. The weapon's heat is applied throughout the weapon's duration. Because your heatsinks are actively dissipating heat throughout the duration, shorter duration beams actually apply the heat faster then those beams that are longer. Which may affect the final heat gauge position despite identical heat profiles. Because one weapon has the benefit of extra ticks of heat dissipation while the other does not.

Thank you much for that explanation.