In any competitive game you are going to find games where you couldnt have won and games that you had no hand in winning, it is a fact of the system, you cannot create perfect matchmaking and EVEN if you could matchmaking cannot take into account how a person is feeling on a particular day, someone of equal skill to you can play both well above and well below their skill level at any one point because of external factors. Also you have to take into account the season is still very new so there is simply not the data to create the 50% principal consistently, you will find peaks and troughs and anomalies. You seem to be suggesting if one person does so well in "one" game but lose they should be rewarded for doing so well in the face of such opposition, while you may think this is reasonable it goes against a few key principals.
a) Seasons are played over multiple multiple games and, as matchmaking seeks to get you to a 50% winrate, rewarding you for individual games and spiking your reward based on those performances goes against what matchmaking is trying to do, in such a case it would have to compensate by punishing you for very bad performances in games you won, otherwise it creates a sytem that is not "fair" and becomes imbalanced and, as much as some will be sad that they arent compensate for playing well, imagine the shitstorm of people who win and are given next to nothing because they didnt contribute significantly.
b) As I mentioned in my prior post, it is not as simple as "This person played so unbelievable well lets cap his xp so he doesnt lose much" because desigining a system like that has to take into account so many variables beyond "Oh he got 40 kills hes good". There are mutliple roles and rewarding each role equally would be an absolute nightmare, you cannot underestimate how much of an issue it would create because, as ive explained, the distribution of points varies between not only classes but individual heroes. You cannot create a sytem around accuracy, healing, damage, play of the game, deaths, kills because in every circumstance some heroes would be significantly more prone to meeting these targets.
c) Your point about skill, skill is a very difficult to measure thing, especially when it comes to team compositions, an example, in some compositions there are two tanks, two healers and one dps, say this becomes meta, well then you have one dps who is going to be gold on everything (Lets say they are soldier 76) because they literally are responsible for a majority of the teams damage and the team is there to keep him alive, everyone has contributed, but the soldier is going to have the medals. In your suggested system the solderi would be rewarded on a loss and the others would not be, even if one of them played a much better role btu didnt have the stats to back it up.
d) Every competitive matchmaking game that I know of, from Mobas to Strategy games to FPS is designed around the "55% principal" which is that to advance you need ot win 55% of your games, matchmaking is designed that if you do this you will rank up, so basically 6/10 games, this coincides with the system trying to "find" your elo by getting you to a 50/50 winrate which rewards you with good competitive games. Competitive games are not seen through the eye of individual games but as a collective, this reduces gross unfairness because you can win/lose individual games based on factors such as teammates but over the long term your skill will be recognized. This will lead to immense frustration in some games and being totally carried in others, it is the system, you have to get used to it.
