335 replies to this topic

[Reno Blade]

If we have R&R in CW and you could only repair x% of your mech from last match and you had to pay more and wait longer for non-faction mechs, you would need to play your faction based IS mechs to make enough money to repair your expensive Clanmech for the next battle.

It's already included here:
http://mwomercs.com/...and-cw-effects/

It would not remove your ability to pilot what you own and what you want, but you would need to make a choice about when to bring your best mech and when to sit it out and repair it for x% after x drops.

[Steinar Bergstol]

Alexander Steel, on 25 July 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:

Yeah it's not like a unit founded by an ex-com star guy could end up after 3 years together having 4 clan mechs out of the 12 in their company.

Including a Masakari and 2 MadCats.

Oh wait...

Sure. Jeremiah Rose might have been able to do that by the power of Protagonist Protection from being a novel character. My point being that if every two-bit merc or house unit could do the same then the clans would never have been a threat. Fighting the clans would have been seen as a shopping expedition to get better equipment instead. Yes, the hero units and characters in the lore do amazing stuff and routinely spank the clans like they're naughty children, but the story is far, far different for those characters and units who are not an author's Chosen Ones, and they comprise the vast majority of the forces who face the clans. Those units would, at best, have mechs with new IS technology though most would likely have to field the kind of stuff which was available in 3025 since the houses primarily reserved the good stuff for upgrading their own units first.

This is why I don't like the idea of mixing tech in Community Warfare, because it makes it seem like every unit is the Wolf's Dragoons, or Eridani Light Horse, or Black Thorns, or Camacho's Caballeros (another book unit, much bigger than the Black Thorns, but the only clan mech _they_ managed to get their hands on intact was a single Mad Cat piloted by their commander, Carlos Camacho. The rest of their mechs were a mix of 3025 and 3050+ IS tech). There'll be no Wilson's Hussars or anything of the sort since even the smallest, most c-bill strapped unit's players can field clanmechs by buying them for real money.

At the very least I'm hoping Rearm and Repair returns with _significant_ cost penalties for equipment one should not logically have easy access to so that people are encouraged to run lore appropriate equipment unless they are swimming in c-bills.

[Cimarb]

Noesis, on 25 July 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

Grind is bad. Penalises the casual player and pugs as I believe will be a part of CW efforts?

Its the old MMO fail grind for gear mentality that will simply ruin the fun and player choice.

I like the economical skewing of purchases based off loyalty if it is at least flexible to cater for a number of play styles and choices as opposed to being pidgeon holed or committed to having to earn these and perhaps with limited choice based off activity.

A handfull of unique achievements that could end up with the occasional free gifting or significant saving on certain purchases could offer these incentives. Likewise the re-introduction of more purposeful economical factors with the use of a Mech with R&R and salvage and the bias of tech prices could also make things more meaningful about loyalty choices. But outright exclusion to use asests or purchases doesnt appeal to me.

Something has to be done to make planetary control and CW as a whole matter. Some pretty border colors are not going to make the game any more fun by themselves.

The unlocking/salvage system does not have to be any more of a grind than the current unlocking system (mech skills), and I would hope it would feel like even less of a grind just because (my version of) it requires incapacitating certain mechs in certain ways to have the salvage even be possible. In other words, if you want to unlock a Mad Cat S RT, you have to incapacitate that mech without destroying that section of it - so by legging it, headshot, or CT destruction. This would not only make matches more interesting, but it would also reward you for playing smart, instead of just shooting CT 100% of the time.

BTW, without a salvage/R&R system, we ARE looking at a complete exclusion to use certain assets, per Paul's statement in the CC post. Those of us opposed to that are trying to show how this SHOULD be done to appease both sides of that coin.

[Noesis]

I doubt that a complete even distirubution or preferences with player choice and affiliation can enable the drop queues to run smoothly if games are purely based off of faction preferences.

E.g. if there are twice the number of people interested in playing Steiner as opposed to Clan Wolf then presumably if locked by faction proportions as to which team you can be on, including pug representation, then surely based on the battle lines represented here then the Steiner players would have to wait twice as long to find a match.

I can appreciate that lone wolf representation can fill the gaps here with tech use if they can be placed randomly within the battle lines. But how does that help you choose where you fight and how you represent your interest to efforts in the game and the movement of battlelines towards objectives and tech you might like to obtain?

Limiting tech use in the player queues with these preferences in mind I expect will create a whole variance of player populations on various battle lines that will simply create bottlenecks in the queueing system.

However having said that it will be preferable to at least try to marry those individuals who have expressed an allegiance or loyalty to a faction to apply them with a priority to those interests. The idea of lone wolves filling in the gaps then potentially helping with non-allegiance interests to fill up the space and keep the queues moving. Thus for these cases I could see that some "lone wolf" pilots using clan tech could be used to fill up the gaps in order to make it equally fun in maximising gameplay with drops. Though that in itself is perhaps less of consideration to pug players if they also perhaps cannot choose which battle line to represent their interests, though that then emphasising perhaps a need to represent loyalty interests to persue those gains.

With the pug gap filled with mixed mech use I would predict that due to "favourite flavours of ice cream" it would create problems with the matchmaker. This then analysing the problem more to do with statistics and practicalities with the apparent player population, the matchmaker and the lack of a complete sandbox game.

For Merc players also that are more neutrally affiliated to Factions, and I'm expectant not gaining or losing loyalty so readily as pilots associated directly with the factions and their objectives as there is a need to allow for flexible interests with tech use and aquisition of tech based on employer or salvage use in order for the Merc units to compete and also to allow them to be readily employed by differing factions. This also a consideration perhaps then in rewards if this isnt the case where due to loyalty bonuses the Merc units wont gain these interests as readily as working directly for a faction. As such I could see a need for Merc units to also have a more flexible use in Tech use to balance out the apparent faction capabilities. For pirates or bandits that operate mostly on salvage the problem becomes even more apparent without the backing of a factions economy and infrastructure).

If faction orientation with tech use were to be applied then I would prefer that lone wolves, mercs and other types of unaffiliated units retain their flexibility to use differing factional tech whilst not receiving similar gains in loyalty rewards or bonuses. Otherwise if say these unaffiliated units can pick and choose more readily due to allegiances on a temporary basis and they also gain similar loyalty interests and bonuses as per faction players, then that disadvantages the faction players. It also places more emphasis on the effective use of and management of C-bills/Salvage for these neutral alligned factions, which would be the case anyhow as per lore; Mercs units could be made or broken based on their financial success.

So from a practical and political perspective with the percieved application of what loyalty to the factions mean and for it to be purposeful with the battlelines I can see a definate need that lone wolves and neutral factions have a more flexible if perhaps more costly use/aquisition of tech as a result.

Edited by Noesis, 26 July 2014 - 09:48 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Put everything on the tab of the Merc corp

[Cimarb]

Noesis, on 26 July 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

Spoiler

I doubt that a complete even distirubution or preferences with player choice and affiliation can enable the drop queues to run smoothly if games are purely based off of faction preferences.

E.g. if there are twice the number of people interested in playing Steiner as opposed to Clan Wolf then presumably if locked by faction proportions as to which team you can be on, including pug representation, then surely based on the battle lines represented here then the Steiner players would have to wait twice as long to find a match.

I can appreciate that lone wolf representation can fill the gaps here with tech use if they can be placed randomly within the battle lines. But how does that help you choose where you fight and how you represent your interest to efforts in the game and the movement of battlelines towards objectives and tech you might like to obtain?

Limiting tech use in the player queues with these preferences in mind I expect will create a whole variance of player populations on various battle lines that will simply create bottlenecks in the queueing system.

However having said that it will be preferable to at least try to marry those individuals who have expressed an allegiance or loyalty to a faction to apply them with a priority to those interests. The idea of lone wolves filling in the gaps then potentially helping with non-allegiance interests to fill up the space and keep the queues moving. Thus for these cases I could see that some "lone wolf" pilots using clan tech could be used to fill up the gaps in order to make it equally fun in maximising gameplay with drops. Though that in itself is perhaps less of consideration to pug players if they also perhaps cannot choose which battle line to represent their interests, though that then emphasising perhaps a need to represent loyalty interests to persue those gains.

With the pug gap filled with mixed mech use I would predict that due to "favourite flavours of ice cream" it would create problems with the matchmaker. This then analysing the problem more to do with statistics and practicalities with the apparent player population, the matchmaker and the lack of a complete sandbox game.

For Merc players also that are more neutrally affiliated to Factions, and I'm expectant not gaining or losing loyalty so readily as pilots associated directly with the factions and their objectives as there is a need to allow for flexible interests with tech use and aquisition of tech based on employer or salvage use in order for the Merc units to compete and also to allow them to be readily employed by differing factions. This also a consideration perhaps then in rewards if this isnt the case where due to loyalty bonuses the Merc units wont gain these interests as readily as working directly for a faction. As such I could see a need for Merc units to also have a more flexible use in Tech use to balance out the apparent faction capabilities. For pirates or bandits that operate mostly on salvage the problem becomes even more apparent without the backing of a factions economy and infrastructure).

If faction orientation with tech use were to be applied then I would prefer that lone wolves, mercs and other types of unaffiliated units retain their flexibility to use differing factional tech whilst not receiving similar gains in loyalty rewards or bonuses. Otherwise if say these unaffiliated units can pick and choose more readily due to allegiances on a temporary basis and they also gain similar loyalty interests and bonuses as per faction players, then that disadvantages the faction players. It also places more emphasis on the effective use of and management of C-bills/Salvage for these neutral alligned factions, which would be the case anyhow as per lore; Mercs units could be made or broken based on their financial success.

So from a practical and political perspective with the percieved application of what loyalty to the factions mean and for it to be purposeful with the battlelines I can see a definate need that lone wolves and neutral factions have a more flexible if perhaps more costly use/aquisition of tech as a result.

There you have it: a short example of why the Clan Chicken came before the CW Egg...

[jaxjace]

This is sooooooo cooooooool

[Bhodi Li773]

What was discusssed by the devs was that you could switch factions and keep whatever loyalty points you had earned for that faction. If this is true your faction affiliation should be dictated by your mech choices but LNW is left out in the wind.LNW would not earn loyalty points but that seems to go against gamelore.Many LNW or merc units build loyalty to IS houses eventually to the point of being a house unit. I would think LNW earning less loyalty points,say -50% ,as compared to a house/clan player would encourage house/clan choices for better benefits and faster unlocks of in-game rewards/content. As to being restricted to certain mechs in CW.The devs said it would be 4 mechs to choose from depending on faction.So if your not piloting a faction mech affiliated with the house you choose you soon may be.To make CW fair a game would have to be comprised of stock mechs simliar to each other on each side(3 lights 3med 3 heavy and 3 assaults).if this happens CW will be dead b4 it begins.What would be the point Iin buying mechs and personalizing them if we cant use them?

[Bhodi Li773]

The scary truth is that even if you have a group of 12 players to form a clan/merc unit,what r the chances all 12 will be on at same time, to defend or attack?This means worlds will be won by having a full group of 12 mechs repeatedly playing and winning 100x to win a world, in a row.( Devs said Worlds would be won/lost by getting 100%, +1 or -1% at a time , per battle).This would take a bare minimum of 10 hours with a 5 minute game time plus loading gameing queues, conservatively. This means CW will not be one clan/merc unit winning the world but a group effort of multiple groups over days.So how r rewards going to be given out? Fight to win a planet then fight to win specific territories(hex warfare)?Or would all who contributed to winning a planet be rewarded individually(LNW)?Something based on total damage done/assists/components destroyed like the current rewards achievements would seem most likely as it would require less programming to do.Mavbe each unit would be assigned a territory that they could choose what reward they get(reduced prices,tech).Once a world is won you would need a cooldown period b4 that planet could be fought over again(presumably the time it would take for dropship/jumpships to reach planetside once again)so winners could enjoy their rewards.This way you could have planets being fought over on frontlines but also behind frontlines.Do players pick which planet they r fighting over?Supossed to be over 3000 planets .That is a huge battlefield of planets.Do you think their server can handle that many different battles simultaneously?PGI has given us a very broad based idea of CW but very little in way of real details.We can only hope they develop a gameplay mechanic which rewards players in a fair manner and satisfies most of the fans of Mechwarrior in general.Personally, I think we won't see real CW until next year (2015).What do you think would be a good way to reward player contribution to winning a planet?individually ?By unit ?Maybe Both? And what would u like to see as rewards?salvage, MC,C-Billls of course but what else?Maybe Champion /hero mechs to top players on winning side?or both sides? I'd like to see what other players want as an incentive to jump into the CW frontlines ( Other than blowing up mechs in general .

[Docta Pain]

Um... I still don't get it. Error: CW Info Deficiency.
If I am in Davion Faction but my Merc unit is started by someone in Marik, but I have a Steiner Medallion in my Cockpit, and I buy a clan mech, and I win a match, what happens to my loyalty points??? Can I use a clan mech in CW if I'm not a clan? There is not enough info available for me to know if a faction medallion makes any sense. Why the drought? Is being Davion incompatible with belonging to a Marik Merc unit, if I don't care for Marik then would Lone Wolf be better, or what is the generic "Merc Corp" tag for in this situation? I just can't survive on wondering alone. I have held off on buying clan mechs and faction medallions and will continue to wait until there is a clear declaration on the multiple related matters that we have to deal with. Please help me, I want to understand, I'm not trying to be difficult or dense, but the official communications are very vague, scattered, and have so many gaps that I cannot know which way to go. How can I buy anything with nothing but my imagination to go on?

[Astral Esper]

Docta Pain, on 11 August 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

Um... I still don't get it. Error: CW Info Deficiency.
If I am in Davion Faction but my Merc unit is started by someone in Marik, but I have a Steiner Medallion in my Cockpit, and I buy a clan mech, and I win a match, what happens to my loyalty points??? Can I use a clan mech in CW if I'm not a clan? There is not enough info available for me to know if a faction medallion makes any sense. Why the drought? Is being Davion incompatible with belonging to a Marik Merc unit, if I don't care for Marik then would Lone Wolf be better, or what is the generic "Merc Corp" tag for in this situation? I just can't survive on wondering alone. I have held off on buying clan mechs and faction medallions and will continue to wait until there is a clear declaration on the multiple related matters that we have to deal with. Please help me, I want to understand, I'm not trying to be difficult or dense, but the official communications are very vague, scattered, and have so many gaps that I cannot know which way to go. How can I buy anything with nothing but my imagination to go on?

It's my understanding that a merc unit is standalone. You won't be able to be Davion, your faction will be merc. Also, it seems Clan mechs will only be able to be used by Clans and IS mechs by IS in CW (unsure about Merc groups but it seems to be the general consensus that they will be IS when it comes to mechs). I'm guessing the loyalty medallions will still gain you points for the faction but either will be much slower if you aren't in that faction or you can't do anything with them if you aren't in that faction. There's no way to be sure of anything for certain and I doubt they will say anything more on the manner until CW arrives.

[Cimarb]

Just in case you are not aware, Russ has stated in the last few days that Unit Creation is NOT just for merc units. It covers all units, be they merc, loyalist, or whatever you consider yourself. You will be able to determine your affiliation by choosing your faction first, then creating the unit. There will also be a "generic" Clan logo for those that do not identify with the first four Clans, and will likely be a dagger star symbol. Canon unit names will not be allowed, though we are still trying to scrape more details out of them on what will be allowed and what will not.

This information is all over the place, including Twitter, so I wanted to summarize it here too.

[CyclonerM]

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

Just in case you are not aware, Russ has stated in the last few days that Unit Creation is NOT just for merc units. It covers all units, be they merc, loyalist, or whatever you consider yourself. You will be able to determine your affiliation by choosing your faction first, then creating the unit. There will also be a "generic" Clan logo for those that do not identify with the first four Clans, and will likely be a dagger star symbol. Canon unit names will not be allowed, though we are still trying to scrape more details out of them on what will be allowed and what will not.

Mmh, do not make me think more of it.. I think Russ is getting mad, i know, but i really see no point in having Clan units if we cannot choose canon names. I am actually more confused now. I had understood that module 1 was for merc corps only and module 2 included loyalist units. You could join a NPC-driven canon unit with loyalty points.

Now, if module 1 includes units that i assume should be loyalists, it could fit in the previous picture but that would mean that our Inner Sphere will be invaded by non-canon House and Clan units, not something i would like to see.

I want to fight the Gray Death Legion, not the Death's Hand Brigade, and the 1st Drakons, not the Dragons of Rasalhague or something else, much less "Steiner Robot Killerz" or "The Sn33zy Bears"..

[Reno Blade]

CyclonerM, on 12 August 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Mmh, do not make me think more of it.. I think Russ is getting mad, i know, but i really see no point in having Clan units if we cannot choose canon names. I am actually more confused now. I had understood that module 1 was for merc corps only and module 2 included loyalist units. You could join a NPC-driven canon unit with loyalty points.

Now, if module 1 includes units that i assume should be loyalists, it could fit in the previous picture but that would mean that our Inner Sphere will be invaded by non-canon House and Clan units, not something i would like to see.

I want to fight the Gray Death Legion, not the Death's Hand Brigade, and the 1st Drakons, not the Dragons of Rasalhague or something else, much less "Steiner Robot Killerz" or "The Sn33zy Bears"..

Hmmm, well... ehm.
When we had to choose a new name, the statement was: Create your own history by actions rather than trying to be something from the lore by "using" a name.
And: "Imagine your favorite unit beeing controlled by some other group and rewriting the whole story of the BT universe. Would you be happy to see Clan Wolverine to eat the Jadefalcons, destroy House Steiner and cooperate with Liao to conquer Davion space?"

We could not be GDL, but I think it is not a bad thing actually.
Creating your own unit with own history and all the background is quite interesting and challenging.

Whatever limits to the CW will have for us, we don't know yet how much we can write our own story by conquering the IS, but one thing is sure, we are not limited by the chains of choosing a cannon name and get limited by already written history of such named unit.

[Cimarb]

CyclonerM, on 12 August 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Spoiler

Mmh, do not make me think more of it.. I think Russ is getting mad, i know, but i really see no point in having Clan units if we cannot choose canon names. I am actually more confused now. I had understood that module 1 was for merc corps only and module 2 included loyalist units. You could join a NPC-driven canon unit with loyalty points.

Now, if module 1 includes units that i assume should be loyalists, it could fit in the previous picture but that would mean that our Inner Sphere will be invaded by non-canon House and Clan units, not something i would like to see.

I want to fight the Gray Death Legion, not the Death's Hand Brigade, and the 1st Drakons, not the Dragons of Rasalhague or something else, much less "Steiner Robot Killerz" or "The Sn33zy Bears"..

Reno Blade, on 12 August 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

Spoiler

Hmmm, well... ehm.
When we had to choose a new name, the statement was: Create your own history by actions rather than trying to be something from the lore by "using" a name.
And: "Imagine your favorite unit beeing controlled by some other group and rewriting the whole story of the BT universe. Would you be happy to see Clan Wolverine to eat the Jadefalcons, destroy House Steiner and cooperate with Liao to conquer Davion space?"

We could not be GDL, but I think it is not a bad thing actually.
Creating your own unit with own history and all the background is quite interesting and challenging.

Whatever limits to the CW will have for us, we don't know yet how much we can write our own story by conquering the IS, but one thing is sure, we are not limited by the chains of choosing a cannon name and get limited by already written history of such named unit.

That actually illustrates the issues at hand. Clans do not have "non-canon" units - they do not exist in lore. We are ALL loyalists. On top of that, while it will be great if PGI implements canon units as some sort of NPC part of the game, we will never fight them, meaning they will be a very small part of MWO, and I do not want that either.

I am hoping the loyalist part of CW will address these issues, with our "non-canon" units being affiliated with canon units in a meaningful manner, so the "Fuzzy Wuzzy Bears" are the unit, technically, but they are a part of Clan Ghost Bear and labeled as such in the game. We should be able to name our units "Beta Galaxy"/"Night Howlers", but what if we are more than a single Galaxy (like we are Alpha AND Beta Galaxy, while German CGB is another Galaxy+).

How are all these associations going to work, as well? MAN, the more I think about this the more it annoys me that we are not getting any significant info on this stuff... The carrot is getting old here, guys...

[Noesis]

Dark Caste are not loyalist or affiliated with the Clan factions.

[CyclonerM]

Reno Blade, on 12 August 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

Hmmm, well... ehm.
When we had to choose a new name, the statement was: Create your own history by actions rather than trying to be something from the lore by "using" a name.
And: "Imagine your favorite unit beeing controlled by some other group and rewriting the whole story of the BT universe. Would you be happy to see Clan Wolverine to eat the Jadefalcons, destroy House Steiner and cooperate with Liao to conquer Davion space?"

We could not be GDL, but I think it is not a bad thing actually.
Creating your own unit with own history and all the background is quite interesting and challenging.

Whatever limits to the CW will have for us, we don't know yet how much we can write our own story by conquering the IS, but one thing is sure, we are not limited by the chains of choosing a cannon name and get limited by already written history of such named unit.

As i wrote in another post, creating my own history is fine. I think of myself as a fairly creative person. However, in this specific case, i love this universe, and i want to create my own histoy while feeling i am part of this awesome universe.

Copy-pasting:

It is not about immagination, at all.

There are already TONS of merc units in MWO with non canon names, rather they have cmore typical "gaming clans" names.

They are fine, because in the Inner Sphere there are many unregistered merc units, often consisting of a single lance or so.

But what i do not want is an Inner Sphere with ONLY this kind of units. I want to recognize the canon FRR and FedCom units in our invasion. Otherwise, it is not the Inner Sphere.

Besides, many units have had their names trough several past MW games, leagues and tournaments. Now PGI says we cannot have our names? I hope there will be at least the chance to join one as a loyalist as per their original plans.

I understand the names of the characters: i would not call my character "Phelan Kell" or "Aidan Pryde" because i want to create my own legend, and have my own character. However, i wish to see my character (and thus, myself) immersed in the Inner Sphere, in the lore of BattleTech. If we just take the 'Mechs and the weapons and throw them in context with very little to share with the BT Inner Sphere, this is not a BattleTech game in my opinion.

P.S. I used to love Star Wars. If i was in an unit playing, say, Battlefront 2, i would have wanted to see someone representing the 501st legion rather than a new, original name, because it makes me feel i am immersed in that universe. But these are just opinions.

P.P.S. to reply to you, Reno Blade, i would probably be fine with it. I never said that we shoudl follow the history of our factions to the letter. Besides, there is not much we can change, aside from the outcome of the invasion.. Actually it would be interesting if new and original alliances and hatres influenced CW, but fram what i have experienced in over a year often the units will somehow reflect the spirit and values of their faction

Edited by CyclonerM, 12 August 2014 - 07:11 AM.

[Noesis]

Tags > Names and will represent your unit's affiliation.

BT has a history so imagine if players formed a unit with a canon name and didnt follow it? BT lore would soon go out the window wouldn't it. Hence why PGI are using the method they have indicated to restrict player units from representing Canon units or noteable figures.

So tags allows your unit to represent their loyalty in the game as a result. Which hopefully should be enough to discriminate factional representation and whatever applied mechanics are assocaited with those groups as valid in the timeline for CW.

[Cimarb]

Noesis, on 12 August 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

Dark Caste are not loyalist or affiliated with the Clan factions.

Yes, Periphery Pirates is how I want to represent the Clans...

I understand your point, that there are exceptions, but those are not recognized by the Clans, and therefore worth nothing more than a periphery pirate would be to the Clans. Even Wolfs Dragoons, and eventually some of the other merc corps, earned the Clans respect, which puts them higher than the Dark Caste in the Clans eyes.

Noesis, on 12 August 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

Tags > Names and will represent your unit's affiliation.

BT has a history so imagine if players formed a unit with a canon name and didnt follow it? BT lore would soon go out the window wouldn't it. Hence why PGI are using the method they have indicated to restrict player units from representing Canon units or noteable figures.

So tags allows your unit to represent their loyalty in the game as a result. Which hopefully should be enough to discriminate factional representation and whatever applied mechanics are assocaited with those groups as valid in the timeline for CW.

PGI has already stated that we will be able to determine the outcome of the invasion, so the BT history you are talking about has not been written yet. Even if we ran a canon unit, its lore-based future "history" would be determined by us, though it would likely not be considered canonical, obviously.

[Reno Blade]

I played MPBT:Solaris on AOL and EA's MPBT:3025 as GDL back then, but there were other GDLs on Gamestorm and later on MW2,3 and 4.
Some of these GDL players like Havoc founded the GDL here and we moved to DHB.
This just as a example of 2+ units using the same history of the same unit.

I don't know if it could be done without a lot of problems.
I definitely don't want to go "back" where we could have 5 different GDLs running around, because it would feel like all of them "stole" my 15+ years of Mechwarrior "past".