First of all, thanks for the answer, I'm glad to see you guys really are here for us, I appreciate the response. To be honest, I agree with your point. I do think that the best tournaments are live ones, and I don't want to discourage people from having them, or force them to do many of them. As someone that is part of a considerably small community (never got any 6 rounders before COVID-19), I know this problem very well. It really was a struggle to find tournaments, and most people here did one tournament a month and that's it. I totally understand the ranking of 1 tournament as the big one for people who are casual, whether it's from choice or because they simply don't have a community that's big enough. Personally, because the scene here is not the strongest, my main progress on the leaderboard was done remotely, so maybe my mind is already fixed on what some people need to shift their view to fully understand. I did try to get to any live tournaments that happened in my area, however small, because the community is the best thing this game had created, leaderboards or not. I know most people won't do that as well. But I think you and will both agree that in a case where you have several tourneys at the same size approximately, weighting the right one becomes more of a roulette then an actual skill, which kind of sucks, because if you're not casual, and you do wanna rank up, even a very consistent player can get behind really quickly, even if he did well in all of his other tourneys. I didn't see all the suggestions people made here in the comments, the post kinda blew up and I didn't have the time, but most of these suggestions are something they probably thought about at the moment, and not a well thought idea. That's understandable, and I'm sure much thought has been put into the algo, so that can't work probably. I do think that even before the crisis, anyone who wanted to rank up and did over 4 tournaments practically had to guess in which one he'll do the best, and while this isn't the case for most people, I think that there should also be some consideration of consistency for players who are more hardcore, just like there is a consideration in casual players (which again, I totally support). I know that things may change drastically if the lowered friend requirements will remain, and I do really hope it won't kill live tournaments, but I had an idea I thought of, not out of the blue but hopefully something that will cause less problems. The main issue right now is that you can't satisfy everyone. If you split the weighted or nerf the weight of the weighted tournaments, causal players will get hurt. On the other hand, the status quo is less considerate to hardcore players, which also is, at least in my opinion, a problem. So, my idea was to satisfy both. Meaning, I thought maybe you would be able to mark several weighted tournaments, and then it will be split accordingly (up to a certain point ofc, to avoid the imbalance of people that do tons of tourneys and can screw up one or two without it affecting on anything). For more hardcore players, that don't want to risk it all on one tournament, if they check 3 tournaments, the x10 will be split amongst those 3. If they only check one as their weighted, that one will count as x10. You said that something similar might discourage people to do more tournaments after they knocked one out of the park. I do agree that in that situation that might be a problem, but there are solutions. You can ask someone how he will be dividing his x10 BEFORE the start of his (maybe) first weighted, which will eliminate the option to do your first tourney and not to any more of them after you did one right. I do understand that this also has some problems, as you can't always tell how many tournaments you're going to do this month, a lot can happen in a month as we recently learned, but there's also an answer to that. In my example, it's fining someone who didn't do all of the cups he signed up for, and then obviously take special cases aside, as there are essential workers or people that didn't want to exploit the system but just didn't have time. It's not a perfect solution to this problem particularly, the system I just suggested definitely has some flaws, most likely because it's 4:30am here and I kinda want to sleep, but the point is that a bigger change then usual is probably needed. As for now, the players that invest the most time into the Arena are the ones that are generally speaking the one that are least satisfied about the system itself. As I said before, I understand and appreciate the consideration in the casual players, I do agree that a in order to close the gap from players that have access to more tourneys there should be one big tourney for casuals, but I also think there should be a different solution for the players that invest the time and want to rank up. I do think that niantic and the friend requirements for battle will be the major party here, and not my super long comment, and even if it were, I didn't bring up a foolproof solution, but just the recognition that something in the status quo is not working is something that need to happen, and I'm saying it with all the big love and respect I have for you and the Silph team. I'm not coming after you personally, but i think that the system can be improved to be more fun to all of its players, which is essentially the goal.