Wins only ranking is the best. It's much less discouraging and the frequent players will be at the top.
Massgaming with no care about results puts you at the top spot, to be precise. Someone with a 3000-10000 w/l will be (or rather: is) in front of someone with a 2500-150 w/l, which is a plain joke.
Points sucks. Lose to someone with less points, lose a ton of points. Win vs someone with less points or same, hardly any points.
Lose to someone who sucks, lose a bunch of rating. Win against a beginner, don't get any points.
Lose to someone who is great at the game, don't lose much. Win against someone great, get a huge point boost.
I don't see how that sucks? It's how any ELO type system in any sport ever works, and it works GREAT and accurately.
Wins - Losses sucks the least. At least it would be more possible to dig yourself out than ratio.
Wins-Losses is at least less terrible than just Wins, but runs into the issue that a 'noobfarmer' will have much better rating than someone playing strong players.
IE I play at EU hours, dodging all the top US players and just keep winning against the same 10 beginners over and over, while someone else gets much harder competition and lands behind me not because he is worse, but because he's playing stronger opponents.
At the same time, this is much worse for beginners to deal with - they will lose their first 100 matches and be on a -100 rating before they start winning, and then they have to dig their way out of a piece of crack rating slowly.
Compare to ELO: They will still lose their first 100 matches, but only lose 1 or 2 points (starting with say 1000, so they end up at ~850) every time. Then they get better, win 3 matches against decent people, getting +30 rating every time and woop they're 'back in business'.