No offense taken.
Simple formulas like the one my group used, and a complex formula like you use serve two seperate purposes. For maintaining balance with thousands of XP, a complex formula like yours is needed. But that isn't the purpose of simple formulas like mine. Rather those are simply a formulitic way of expressing the general idea that the more agile a character is, the weaker that characters attacks and defenses are.
Simple formulas just express the trade offs, for example that 5 points of attack equals 1 OCV, or that 1 DCV equals 5 points of PD or ED, 10 points of stun or 20 points of recovery.
Are such simple formulas perfect or sufficent for the long run? No, of course not. All they are good for is to codify what factors the GM feels are most important, and how they relate to each other. For a group whose games rarely last much past 100 XP, and never to 200 XP, we don't need such a comprehsive formula as your long lasting games do.
As for the Champions not fitting in the 100 limit, my group tends to run low powered heroes. For us, a 60 point attack with an 8 OCV is high, most characters with a 12d6 attack have only a 7 OCV (or less). And Haymakers and move-throughs are counted, since our groups uses those manuvers very rarely. In fact, none of our characters reached the limit. And the one character with darkness (not covered by the formula) had even lower defenses to compensate. With good players, a rule of X isn't a limit, but a guide line so that they don't make characters that are too far from the norm.
As with any rule of X, the X needs to be set to match the desired power level. Pehaps 110 would be better for most groups.