In my opinion, the system I described is more balanced. You give too many points for played games and too few for the difference in skill level.
the difference in skill level is a purely subjective concept. How can you clearly define this line between the skill level of different players? If we take into account the games from previous seasons, then the best player will be Dubrovin Pavel (no offense, just an example of the most active player who is at the top of the ranking). You say that Uran and Dudj are the best super players. It's hard to argue with that, but personally, I can confidently bet on some new players who will play just as well, if not better! I think my point is clear. From our ranking system, it is clear that the most active player will be at the top, the one who not only loses but also wins. And no matter what formulas anyone gives as an example from different games, the essence will not change significantly. Well, there will be 1000 points at the start instead of zero, well, there will be no negative values in the ranking. So what will change?! If both parts of the equation are multiplied or divided by the same number, the essence will not change.
Personally, I want to suggest that wins in Tournaments should significantly affect the ranking!!! For example, give 500 points for first place, 300 for second, and 200 for third (the numbers are arbitrary and can be discussed). Then there will be an incentive to play in Tournaments, and not just to mindlessly increase your ranking. I think few people would disagree that it is not easy for just any active player to win any Tournament! So why not give him a good bonus for this, so that he continues to play and win! Here, people play for three months around the clock, trying to climb to the top of the table, and a strong player will only need to win a couple of Tournaments - and he will be the leader of the ranking! In my opinion, this will be more objective than just proving to each other whose favorite player plays better!
