New Matchmaking Idea

Here is my two cents.
Institute hard tiers based on levels. Doesn't matter if level is your bot or weapon. Use the elo system within the tier to match teams as evenly as possible.
1. Bronze: bot/weapon levels 1-4 (only ag bots/weapons and no squads)
2. Silver: bot/weapons levels 5-7
3. Gold: bot/weapons levels 8-10
4. Top: bot/weapons levels 11-12

All workshop and gold bots/weapons start at level 5. Heavy bots start at level 5. Now optimum hangers are:
1. Bronze: level 4/4
2. Silver: level 7/7
3. Gold: level 9/9
4. Top: level 12/12

New players are protected from OP bots/weapons and players (especially clans that squad up in bronze). Players can run hangers in different tiers for more gameplay experience. Devs can make more money (players will have to arm all bots instead of switching weapons around). All bots and weapons would be relevant again, albeit in different tiers.

I think that it is not the tiers that are the issue, it's the handicapping. I have played for a long while and studied almost every game I played by reviewing the team boards at the end. To be sure, something has changed recently in that the match making has gotten far looser than it was a couple of weeks ago. Everyone, who is not playing Gold or Level 12 seems to be complaining about this subject. Interestingly, once your bots and weapons hit this threshold, the field of battle is finally leveled. Before this, however, there's a different experience, particularly at the level I play at - probably mid-Silver.

There are 2 issues I have seen: (1) you can have widely ranging player levels (as determined by weapon and bot levels) in the same game or (2) you can have players "gaming" the rating system for an advantage. The former, which I am sure we have all experienced, is pretty frustrating when you find out at game end that the opposing team was stacked with players far stronger than you or your team. Or that you have been playing in a game with players on both sides that far outgun you. The second is seen most often during these medal events where awards are based on relative damage done by either winners or losers. In this case, players stack very low level bots with very high level weapons. For example, Level 10 Aphids on a Level 3 Patton. This player ends up against much weaker opponents and racks up the hit points.

It seems to me, without knowing the internal rating system of bots and players, that the current method is flawed. The objective would be to have a rating system that balances 3 items for each player and returns a handicap: 1) weapon level, 2) bot level and 3) equipment (amount of and type). I could come up with my own analog for this but it's not my software. I'm only suggesting here a more balanced system. The objective is more to avoid pissing people off but putting them into a match where they are massacred easily because this discourages game participation.

Fundamentally, this is what I would do. Weapon level is far more important than bot level, so the primary rating is generated off the average of all weapons on hangered bots. The average of bot levels is blended in. Lastly, adjustments are made for specific equipment factors as needed. This is the tricky part. One guideline would be that if a player fields a bot or weapon at Level 10, 11 or 12 then they could only be matched with similar players. This ends the exploitation of using low bots and high weapons. Personally, I field bots and weapons at the same level so I feel my rating is pretty consistent. Its amazing who I am matched with. Other adjustments would be for numbers of bots in the hanger. I see too many games where people with 3 bots are matched against a team of 5 bot players. Needless to say, the team with more bots generally wins. Just like the team with the greater weapons sums tends to win as well. Another adjustment would be shielded bots, especially the Brit bots. The team with the most Brit bots also tends to win. It has gotten to the point where I can almost determine up front the outcome of a game by observing the bots and weapon damages.

SO what does this look like? For my purposes I set up a simple Excel spreadsheet that generates a player's rating based on what is in their hanger. It takes takes all the weapons and returns a score, then adds in the bot levels. In my case, 5 level 8 bots with 18 weapons of 8 and 9. My summary is 186. Divide by the number of bots and my rating is 37.2. I have no high tier weapons and no Brit bots. I do have a high win percentage that might make for a n adjustment. Lets take a look at another player. 4 Level 5 bots with 16 weapons of Level 10 or higher. His summary would be 190 and a rating of 47.5. In my world we could be matched except for the fact that he is carrying 1 Level 12 weapon. He gets an instant upgrade in rating. For me, I'd move him into the rating 60 group. Given how rating groups would be matched, it is very likely I would never play this guy. The devs can work out a more detailed analog, but this is the idea.

I agree with u about random players and not enuff people getting the proper info to enhance their playing experience.  Perhaps game could install a ingame icon like the fb one to bring people to this forum.

Yeah so many people have suggested it I'd be surprised if they weren't already planning to do that. But they still have to make the ranked mode first (league system)

Oversimplified, but generally works for me. 

Leagues should calm your brain cells

Credit to you for attempting to provide a solution to our problematic MM. Thank you!

May I ask, why do you support the original MMs practice of matching up players with one heavy bot under lvl25, with players with ALL heavies? This sounds very unfair and against the principle of your suggestions. I must confess, I bought a Leo under lvl 25 which I levelled up, which led to a terribly unfair playing experience for me as a result. What is the reasoning for this? Why can't you match 1 heavy with 1 heavy, 2 heavies with two heavies etc?