fugg In your example, I prefer the scoring as is. While Player A lost two 2p games, Player B didn't simply "lose" two 3p games, they got 2nd. If they had fully lost and gotten 3rd, they would have found that fully losing a 3p is more bad than fully losing a 2p. In addition, it's plausible A's wins were influenced by player C's choices, whereas player B's 2p wins were not, so maybe value B's wins more. So my opinion is that dropping one rank in a 3p should cost less points than a full loss in a 2p.
If the goal is to make 2p, 3p, and 4p skill all equally important, the case could certainly be made for minor tweaks. (Maybe a 3rd 4p game, or 3-0 scoring in 2p.) But is perfect equality the goal? In International, it's more important to be good at 4p than 3p, and that's simply a valid tournament design choice.
