On-line rating (discussion)

Let's say, I, Vasya Pupkin, and Pupka Vaskin get together and hold a tournament (or maybe we don't actually hold it, but just write that we played), and we get 500, 400, and 300 points, and we enjoy it. A week later, we hold another tournament.
As soon as loopholes appear in rating manipulation, they will be used.

We all know each other quite well, and I think it will be impossible to organize such a fake tournament. It should be obvious!

Therefore, a large tournament should award many rating points, and a small tournament should award fewer.

Playing in a tournament with 16 or 32 players will result in the same total number of games – there will just be more subgroups. I won't argue with that; I agree with the majority opinion. A big request: more specifics. That is, with numbers, etc. The next season is coming up soon, and we need to solve and think about all this in 2 weeks: how many points 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place receive in a tournament of 8 players, and also the number of points awarded to winners of tournaments with 16, 32, and 64 participants.

32 players - 1000
16 players - 500
8 players - 300

In my opinion, this is too much! Winning a tournament with 16 participants is almost as difficult as winning a tournament with 32. As I wrote above, the number of games is the same, and there are just more subgroups!