As I said, the top players have to be present and also have to be seriously contesting for the title. When Sock won Paris, Federer and Djokovic were absent and Nadal pulled out with an injury.I get what you're trying to say, but... it's incorrect. Look at Jack Sock's Bercy win. Which Top8 did he beat? Did he even beat a single Top20?
Some knock on WTF bc you can win it by losing a match (two if it's extreme). But you simply cannot win it without beating at least 4 Top10 in most cases. It's VERY rare that you have to beat that many Top10s to win any other tournament. Some can be won without beating a single Top10 (see Sock's Bercy title).
But if they are there in full power and motivation but just lose to someone else who is then beaten by the eventual winner, then the winner has beaten them as well IMO. Tennis is about beating full draws directly AND indirectly.
I think the Paris Masters suffers from top players being not interested because of more points (and also money) to gain at WTF. If that wouldn’t be the case, then Paris surely would be the bigger event in a purely competitive sense.