I don’t think damage ranking is a very good metric. It penalizes players for having teammates that focus only on damage instead of beacons. It penalizes players for teammates that quit.
The new MM was heavily advertised on the forum as being based on the Microsoft’s Bayesian TrueSkill algorithm. This resembles nothing of the sort. Bayesianism is all about comparing what happened to what you expected to happen. If the MM fails badly (which it still does pretty often) and pits your hangar of 8/8s against team of 12/12s, you should NOT be penalized for losing that match because that result is only to be expected. Indeed, you should be rewarded for merely making it close (and rewarded very heavily for pulling off the upset). If a teammate quits, you should NOT be penalized for losing that match either.
Heck, if your team loses on beacons, the players on the losing team with the fewest beacon caps should be the ones punished. Instead, this system rewards the players who just give up on the match and try to max damage. As the Superbowl illustrated, big comebacks are by far the most dramatic games, and with this system, there is very little incentive for players to try to come back. There is a big incentive to avoid being 5th or 6th in damage.
The metric needs to include both beacons and damage, and the beacon algorithm could be improved greatly from Medal of Capture: weight home beacons lower, weight center beacon and enemy beacons more heavily, give credit for neutralizing beacons, award credit proportional to the amount of impact the beacon had on the beacon meter, etc.
Ranking is also way too arbitrary. Far better to heavily penalize players for being more than 1 or 2 standard deviations below the team’s mean damage/beacon score (rewarding players for being that far above it), spreading it around more evenly if the team was more even.
For a game with very sophisticated graphics and sounds, it’s rather surprising that the statistics and rewards seem so very rudimentary.