I considered making groups of 6 and incorporating 3vs3 games into the mix, but I didn't go through with it for the following reasons:
- there'd have to be 10 3vs3 games
- 3vs3 games are longer and require more players to participate, which outside of sturdy struvture like official ladder is hard to maintain (boots, lack of focus, boredom, game stalling, vacations etc.)
- I wanted WCL to be relatively fast in comparison to 20 (again, boots prevented at least Timinator from effectively competing for 1st place, I'll comment more on that after JSA announces official 20 results)
What you propose is a good idea, but only in theory. In practise it's basically the same thing as implementing global ELO. If you want a 3vs3 ladder with random teams, that means you'd have to make a completely new code to calculate rankings. Also looking at 10 games requirement for 2vs2 ladder, it seems it'd be very hard to get an effective cutoff, random teams means more variation, so it'd require more games to be ranked, but 3vs3 games being slow and long in general would make it practically hard.
In my opinion the only way to make it practical would be to host 6 players quasi-RR tournaments with 10 games total variating teams in every combination (with >6 players you'd have a MASSIVE amount of games). That is an interesting idea, but it is limiting. First it has to be exactly 6 players, which is not a lot for a tournament, 2nd 10 3vs3 games is a lot if not played simultaneously.
To sum up incorporating 3vs3 games into a structure like that is for now possible only in that small 6-player quasi-rr format. I don't really see how to make it for more people in practise (you can make multi-level tournaments like that, 2 groups of 6 top 3 advance etc., but it'd take forever, unless players are willing to play 3-4 3vs3 games at a time). Also: