Matchmaking isn't the problem. It's entirely how they've decided to structure rewards.

They are not going to fix match making. No matter how many updates how many promises they will not fix match making. They are simply messed up peoples.

Then win percentage means nothing, a lot ofpeople play in teams so they have higher win percentages to people who play on there own, so most matches are 50/50 to win, higher win percentage doesn't mean they are better players, plus a lot of sp droppers have higher win percentages

Well that was quick. A spam ban for posing one post and ironically it was removed from this very thread. 

Matchmaking is working as intended. Matches are manupliated to win or lose. As far as the mech/weaponbs using bought grade combos. That is to let the play experince it's power over what they are currently using in or to make said player feel they need to spend money to be on the same level of power. 

Most players are bots. So match making is not possible 🤔.  I started 2 accounts and my high level account has all the same people I play with in the low level account. Only thing is they don't know how to move 

Matchmaking is appropriate. It will take time to adjust to where you should be. If you are losing most games, you will drift down until you start winning. Likewise, if you are winning a lot, you will drift up until you dont.

You are really going to equilabrate at a level where would win half the time. What could be more fair?

The rewards are good if you win and take first place. If you dont, then they suck. However, i think more players are scoring some a-coins than were under the old system. Thats a plus.

I'd felt the same way about equilibrium, but the way it is currently implemented you are on average nudged up instead of staying put. As one specific example, if I win 4 games at any position and lose 4 at 1st position in my team, I'm up 40-200 points. Another example - coming last in FFA deducts only 30 points, whereas coming first adds 55.

I haven't thought much about how to fix it, but here are some high level ideas -

* Points based on contribution (whether you win or lose), similar to the rewards based on contribution idea discussed in other threads. Winning does not automatically mean you progress.

* A bigger barrier of entry from one level to a higher level. If I'm one win away from increasing my tournament level that doesn't mean I belong at that level. Perhaps the easiest barrier of entry would be player willingness. The game can say, "entering the next level increases your rewards but increases the difficulty in such and such manner. Do you want to enter it?"

There are other small (and vague) ideas in my head, but the crux is that today the only way to truly maintain equilibrium is to deliberately lose games. At my SP I know I don't belong in master level. My 4 and 5 star mechs face near fully maxed gear on bots, leave alone players, and any wins are usually pure luck. I spent most of this season downgrading myself to expert, and at expert I still have to deliberately lose games so I don't end up back in master. (And I only do so when I have no human teammates, which means I get fewer opportunities to do so.)