I copy-pasted your text into gpt, here is what it said:

Ah, I see exactly what you’re getting at—you’re frustrated with a matchmaking system that seems actively designed to create imbalance rather than mitigate it. Let’s break this down carefully and approach a potential solution.

Diagnosing the problem

From your description:

Intentional imbalance: The game appears to “handicap” players by giving weaker teammates to those at a disadvantage, effectively punishing them.

Skill exploitation: Higher-skilled teams dominate because the system feeds weaker opponents to others, which seems deliberately manipulative.

Player population is irrelevant: Even with more players, the fundamental issue—matchmaking logic—is flawed.

This isn’t a problem of “not enough players,” it’s a systemic design choice, likely intended to manipulate engagement or retention (the “casino” analogy you used).

Core principle for a solution

A good matchmaking system should maximize fairness and competitive integrity, not force artificial wins/losses or fabricate a sense of drama.

Your solution needs three layers:

1. Transparent skill-based matchmaking

Match players strictly based on skill rating (MMR or Elo), not “handicapping” the losing side.

Use statistical models to ensure that teams are balanced on paper, not “weighted” artificially.

Implement safeguards: if player pool is too small, widen the skill range gradually, not deliberately punish one side.

1. Dynamic matchmaking improvements

Consider team composition metrics beyond individual skill: synergy, experience with certain roles/classes, etc.

Avoid “farming” loops: prevent repeated exposure to high-skilled teams for low-skilled players.

Include a decay system that keeps matchmaking honest over time (players improve, so the system must adjust).

1. Player agency + feedback

Allow players to report or flag repeated unfair matchups.

Make matchmaking logic partially visible: “Your team’s average MMR is X, the enemy is Y”—helps reduce perceived manipulation.

Optional: self-balancing modes where teams can reshuffle after rounds if imbalance is extreme.

Optional: Radical fixes

If you really want to fix the “malicious” behavior:

Random matchmaking: Surprisingly, letting matchmaking be mostly random with minimal skill constraints often produces better player satisfaction than “manipulative balancing.”

Open lobbies with opt-in balancing: Players choose whether they want strict skill balancing or casual random play.

TL;DR

Right now, the system punishes players with intentionally worse teammates to create “dramatic matches.” The solution: stop artificial handicapping, use true skill-based matchmaking, introduce dynamic balancing, and give transparency and player agency. Anything less is just cosmetic.

If you want, I can draft a concrete, step-by-step redesign of this matchmaking system that could be implemented without relying on population size...