Steel, the biggest reason for that is what PGI is trying to do. They're trying to put the game down as true to the table top as they can. There was no pilot progression in Table Top. Hawken was created from the ground up as a completely fresh IP. PGI is trying to put in some form of growth for people to a game that didn't have persistent pilots like that; unless it was mixed with the RPG.
People don't realize the sheer difference in development two games will have when one is a completely fresh, out of the box idea and the other is rooted to an established canon. The difference is astronomical.
PGI isn't making 'a mech game'. They're bringing Battletech into a medium that really hasn't had it this true to value since MW3; and even then it wasn't like this.
Aside from that, the pilot growth concept isn't meant to overshadow much at all in MWO. Your personal skill with the mech should always trump the 'value skill' of another player. Period.
Even with its faults, MWO is doing far, far better with BattleTech than anyone else has in a long, long time.
I applaud what the Hawken devs are doing. It's great. But trying to compare the two development wise is ludicrous. They're both on completely different planes of approach and scope.
EDIT: Battlemechs, in a lot of cases, were designed with specific roles in mind; hence the variants. Anyone that tells you an Atlas shouldn't engage in a long range fight isn't paying attention. If your variant is designed with that in mind, that's where you're going to find yourself most effective (unless you radically change the design via customization). Some light mechs are designed with a 'Pomeranian' approach; run in, sow confusion, nip at things, while your bigger, better armed allies tear them down. Some medium mechs (and even assault variants) were designed as light mech hunters. Some light mechs had that honor as well. I, for example, use a Commando with 3x Streak SRM 2s and a Medium Laser and hunt light mechs predominately.
Edited by blurryhunter, October 23 2012 - 12:48 AM.