does anyone know why tourney is structured as a 2 level triangle, with A on top of B and C, where B and C are roughly equivalent?

compared to a true ladder, with A on top of B and B on top of C, with movement up and down the ladder generrally only one level at a time?

i'm pretty sure i'd prefer a ladder over the current triangle

It's because of the lack of players.

i'd think that fewer players argues for the ladder approach

splitting those 70 players to even more ladders (like 10) would result if 2 players get into fight against eachothers then rest have much easier to get up or stay.

10 might be too much given our small player base, but the score boards always show 100+ each in b and c at the finish, and a+b+c at the start is always well more than 100, and quickly reaches 150. so i thnk 150 is a better number than 70.

but yes, more levels would change strategy and tactics for advancement to A

i was thnkng that there are enough players around that if A stayed around 50, B could be around 75, and C would be whatever is left over and would catch all the late starts and restarts

but i could see a 4 level ladder with generally smaller sizes

in the swirve days, there were many levels and several groups of each. there was one level that featured small group size, and i remember that play was different on that level

we could have a 4 level ladder, where the B or C level had 4 groups of 10 rather than a single group of 40 ... something like that might work well

~250 players last set (under 50 in a and bit over 100 in b) so a+b would be 125 so c would get another 125 or all levels have max 50 countries (that'd give 5 ladders).