Well, maybe not science per se...
So, these MM whine threads...
Lately, the hallowed pages of General have been stained with more bile than normal with posts related to the many apparent failures of the matchmaker.
The blame for many a stomp seems to be lain sorely at the feet of our MM... when I think the root cause for most of our humiliating defeats is a snowballing comedy of team errors, rather than the failing of the ELO system specifically.
In my experience, the outcome of a battle is based on a number of factors, which when combined with a large dose of frustration and ignorance add together to create the bitter, defeat flavoured soup we are all served from time to time - who's taste is usually blamed on the waiter delivering the crap to your table, rather than the chumps in the kitchen who all spoiled the broth. [/hilariously bad analogy]
While the MM itself might not be the #1 problem, the whining about it is a very real, and very important issue.
Frustration is never a good thing in video games, especially if you're frustrated at the wrong thing. In a fit of brilliant uncontrollable range, I once threw a computer out the window of a third story building. While it ranks in my top 5 most satisfying things ever, my one source of spider solitaire and minesweeper was gone for bloody weeks. GONE. WEEKS.
All joking aside, I can imagine people leaving the game over this - and the irony is, that the MM probably isn't at fault.
#1 factor in defeat (IMHO):
[anecdotal opinion]
In my experience, the way your team handles first contact is usually the deciding factor in a match - and I treat first contact as the first time your teams exchange fire in the lethal range of weapons. Spraying lasers at 800m usually doesn't count. One team will strip more armour from the enemy than the other, the other team will go defensive, retreat to cover, or charge blindly, and the match result will (usually) be a foregone conclusion before the first kill is even recorded on the board.
In the military, we call this 'winning the firefight', where the force that lays down the most effective and heaviest weight of fire in first contact gains a huge tactical advantage without necessarily even scoring a kill.
[/anecdotal opinion]
Some other factors:
Look at all those reasons!
The thing is, I see people acknowledging stuff like this in the various "MM IS CRAP BECAUSE I DIED" threads, but OMG the whining about the MM only seems to increase in power! IT FEEDS ON OUR HATE!
Kiiyor, why do people still complain so bitterly?
Why? Because all the most likely reasons for defeat are intangible.
You can't see them! In the absence of narrative, the human brain will construct one based on the facts it has available - and the #1 fact seems to be OMG MY TEAM ARE A BUNCH OF COWARDLY NO SKILL **** NOZZLES, when it's secondary at best.
You know what doesn't help?
The EOM screen. Despite having the word 'team' written on the summary screen, the stats are all individual. The only stats for overall team performance are the kill counters! 12-3 = stomp, surely? Maybe. 12-5 = stomp, right? Well, no, it actually may not have been.
So, what can be done to fix this? Refinements to the matchmaker? Maybe. Smaller game sizes? Maybe. A new balance system? Probably.
I propose something a little different though...
...information.
I think the EOM screen should include some overall team figures, and a comparison to global averages. Maybe, if it is possible, some GRAPHS, because I FREAKING LOVE CHARTS. Maybe numbers like overall team damage, average damage per mech etc. or, my favourite, overall team remaining armour and structure - because the winning team may still have been mauled by the losers, or the losers may have been particularly tenacious - and telling a tale of the conditions of both forces is far better than just providing the cold, hard result.
Something like (and don't get too hung up on the format) THIS:
So, ignoring the fact that this screenshot was a fairly short fight and I couldn't be bothered finding a better one, and that I stretched it out too far to fit everything in, and that the colours and layout should probably be different, you can SEE what happened in the match.
If you can see that your losing team did better than the average defeated collection of strangers, maybe you'll be a little less frustrated. If you can see that your teams were far more eavenly matched than the scoreboard suggested, maybe you'll be a little less inclined to rant on the forums. If you can see that your team managed to take two mechs from the enemy early, yet failed to capitalize on it, maybe you'll be more inclined to exploit an early advantage next time. If you can see that things went VERY downhill because you ignored a push early on, you might be more inclined to support your teammates better next time.
What do you guys think? Am I on to something? Would this appease/not appease you? Do you think it would help? ANSWER ME.