...For once...a change actually doesn't sound that bad...Racking up trophies every time you hit a limit...

I wouldn't mind this, or staying as is, whatever really.

this is a gd idea... much better than subtracting points for inactivity

sounds interesting.

It's an interesting idea. However, I think the number of points coming into the system will not weigh against the points removed from the system for trophies, causing deflation. This in turn would result in fewer and fewer people actually reaching 2100.
So for it to actually work there needs to be a new source of points. For example, the removed points could be fed back into the system by dividing them over all active players.

Secondly, I suppose the ranking would be first based on the number of trophies and then the current number of points.
Now say we're some time into this system and the nr. 1 player has earned 5 trophies. A new player comes along who plays a theoretically better strategy, who, by common sense, should earn the nr. 1 rank some time. But to actually reach this he would first need to catch with nr. 1, which would probably be very very slow if the current top player is still active (as only the difference of skill will be used in catching up).
To solve this the trophies would need to devalue over time (assuming the rankings are to be taken as the current top, not the all time top).

Finally, the elo rankings will lose their meaning. The nr. 1 ranked player will probably not have the highest elo ranking, making the adjustments inaccurate (beating the best player will not give the biggest increase in rating).

Like it! Have a monthly winner and a winner of the year and reset from time to time. Either we'll find out this game is all about luck, because there are hundreds of different winners or we'll find the ppl with real skill! Besides: when s.b. stops playing, he'll be the mark for a month at the most. If not earlier, next month he's to play again...

by "from time to time" I mean at the beginning of each month. Otherwise the idea I "developed" (rather support) makes no sense.

If the rating system above 1900 isn't healthy, take out the 1900+ tables. :o

"However, I think the number of points coming into the system will not weigh against the points removed from the system for trophies, causing deflation. This in turn would result in fewer and fewer people actually reaching 2100."

When fewer people reach 2100 less points will be taken from the system and players who start an account, lose a few points and stop playing will bring more points to the system. So I think the system is self-regulating.

Now your second comment Brain:
I think the current system is more unfair because the new players see that some of the top players have only made 30-50 games and then stoped playing. That means they had just luck and they didn't "worked" for it. Also you can't see the real skill if someone who just made a few games. Only after hundreds of games the luck factor is reduced to a minimum.
I have to admit that it wouldn't be a real ELO system anymore.

alia: I would prefer a reset every second month.

"When fewer people reach 2100 less points will be taken from the system and players who start an account, lose a few points and stop playing will bring more points to the system. So I think the system is self-regulating."

It is, but in turn it does mean the value of trophies is not fixed. It would be easier to earn a trophy early on. Though I admit it's hard to actually create an equillibrium I think simply taking the points out will not work very well.

"I think the current system is more unfair because the new players see that some of the top players have only made 30-50 games and then stoped playing."

Totally agree on that, but I think inactivity penalties would actually solve that problem for the most part.

You're right my system isn't 100% fair. I don't know how to solve this now. I will think about it...