Ratio of studying vs playing

For some reason I feel I read to much and play not enough :) 

Since I joined chess.com a couple of days ago, I spent more time in the trainer than inactual games. 
Besides from this I'm also reading a couple of books and view a few videos on youtube per day.

I was just wondering, what is a healthy ratio of studying vs playing as you probably need time to process the info you captured from reading/videos/trainer. 

I first want to improve because now I find it very difficult to win, even on 800 and below:p 

I don't have intention to become a GM or instructor. I just want to be proficient in chess and be able to play interesting games with other people :) 

Playing is a good way to learn how the pieces move (which is probably what you "need" for now - no offense intended, we all were beginners), and more enjoyable than endless tactical drill.

This being said, if you do enjoy tactical drill more, go for it.

study is fun, play is more fun, I also think that play is more instructive for most people.

i improved 300 points and 1.5 year by just palying whitout even knowing the name of one opening or dowing tactic´s trainer.

A lot of initial improvement comes simply from not blundering pieces. Knowing a lot of theory doesn't help if you give away pieces or rarely get into an equal position unless you and your opponent swap blunders. Once you know the basic plans for each phase of the game (opening: control the center and develop with a plan; middlegame: improve your pieces, gain space, make threats, look for tactics; endgame: create passed pawns and promote them!) play as much as you can to develop board awareness and then analyze your own games! At this point focus on when you dropped pieces or got into a horrible position and what you missed on the board right before that happened. GM Kaidanov has a great series in the video lectures about that topic.

Hi Yannick, other players have given you a few advices and if you keep asking you will get even more. I may be (or likely am) wrong but I think Chess.com is a good place to improve. Here is what I do:

1) Online (correspondence) chess - it can be sometimes boring but it gives you plenty of time to ponder your moves. I can use opening databases so that I do not throw the game away in first 5 moves and it helps a lot to learn some openings and understand basic principles. Plus there is the Analysis board which helps me a lot. A friend of mine (a good OTB player) says we are cheaters for you have no DB and no side board when you play OTB.  Be that as it may, I would recommend you to pick one or two openings you would play as White and something you would play as Black against the most common first moves - d4, e4, c4 could be your first choice.

2) Fast Live chess, i.e. Bullet and Blitz. I know people say players at our level should not play it at all but I believe it helps, too. I have played about 50 % of games against computers (mostly Medium, than Hard and Easy - it depends which one is available) because computers do not give me names when I win and since they do never lose on time I have to try to win and I cannot play the way many people do - just beat the clock.

3) Standard Live chess - that is a nice combination fo the above two. 

4) Tactics Trainer - I do not really like it much. There is always a time limit (you usually have to solve the problem in about 30 - 40 seconds to win some points). Another problem is that although the solution is always the best move/sequence of moves it would be better if another (worse, yet winning) move would not mean you failed. They could write something like: "an OK move but there is a better one - keep on trying". 

That is just my two cents. The most important thing is to enjoy playing chess.