Hi! I hear you, thanks for sharing. We've actually run a few tests on our matchmaking. So far, we haven't found an ideal option. We're still experimenting. I do hope we'll find it soon, though.
Averaging out the "potential" hangar strength would be about the fairest way you could create a matchmaking algorithm.
This takes care of the two biggest problems I have heard matchmaking created. First is "seal clubbing" by dropping all mechs to minimum and then maxing one of them out with the intention of getting low strength opponents but being able to clobber then with one high level mech/weapon loadout. It secondly eliminates the "whales" from buying all the high level stuff early and getting a major advantage over those that are progressing normally.
No reasonable player expects perfect matchmaking but they should be able to expect a group of devs recognize the flaws and find a way to eliminate the two extremes mentioned above.
I have been a content producer for Wargaming ( WOT Blitz w/club wargaming in the USA ), worked with Panzerdog on content for Tacticool, had some of my content featured by Mech Battle devs Djinnworks and I worked very closely with Bravo Company which was working on very well recieved game "Forces of Freedom" which unfortunately lost financial backing after several years of development. I have a pretty decent idea of what players want and what they don't want. Right now your devs are on the wrong side of what players want and it should be a pretty easy fix if they are listening. I know the CM's are listening though which is appreciated.... even if things get a little heated on the players side ;)