Is the basis of that path any different from the previous categorisation? Just race as hard as you can and at some point you (may/will) get rewarded and get seeded in the higher category. IMO the current focus rightfully is on setting the cat boundaries competitive and fair. This likely will require more tweaking and it would be a real feat to get it crystallized. Eventually adding race results would fine tune the correct seeding of racers further, but the current progress is already a big step forward and provides the necessary basis to also accomodate occasional racers in an auto-cat system.
2 Likes
Perhaps we are just differing types of people - Id like to know the process from the outset, It allows for goals to be set and to keep everyone honest.
As an end user, how I am graded should be transparent, its fairly simple request to be fair.
Im always amazed at people’s need to rush to defend Zwift \ WTRL from a simple request, be transparent with the bits that effect the end user and how it impacts their experience.
1 Like
It’s OK to speculate. It’s a user forum.
We have waited years for there be development in this area, it’s exciting, we want to discuss it, but also we have to accept it is a work in progress, and try to be helpful rather than demanding.
We are one race in, with a work-in-progress system. Let’s see how it plays out over the series, and hope for more communication regarding the data they have gathered and future development plans after that.
6 Likes
This is one of the issues, with Zwift racing. Some people think its about racing as hard as you can. Others think its about racing as smart as you can.
A ranking based on fitness rewards the first. A ranking based on results rewards the second.
6 Likes
As I said they are still testing so things keep changing. You can’t expect them to update the rules every day when they learn something new. That will be super confusing.
We are not defending ZTRL or Zwift, we just understand that testing takes time.
EDIT fixed WTRL LOL
1 Like
Freudian slip? 
2 Likes
I’m not sure you were “placed well.” I assume you are in this series to race on a weekly basis and that you like competing fairly against others that reflect your realistic fitness. Rather than placing 65 out of 130ish, wouldn’t you find it rather more exciting / interesting to honestly race against those same “lower-level B racers” that you speak of for a top ten or twenty placing during a weekly race series like Classics? Maybe then, we all could begin to deploy race tactics to put ourselves in the best place for a win? Riders who compete in a weekly series, proper categorization is critical. To destroy oneself weekly, just to prevent from getting lapped is by no means fun. If I’m racing within a proper category, drafting, jumping-off the front or bridging-up becomes more relevant and realistic within the racing experience.
1 Like
Just looking at my own race again and you have to go down to 24th position to find the first ZP cat C finisher. Everyone ahead of that is a cat B, and the first group of 11 racers finished nearly a minute and a half clear of the group containing that cat C. In fact there were only two cat C racers in the top 40, with everyone else being a B. Personally (as a cat C with low outright power) I had no chance against them, and it seems neither did anyone else I’d ordinarily be racing against. Virtually all the Bs beat all the Cs, with very few exceptions, and most Cs were 3mins or more behind the winning time. In this respect it was no different to a traditional race in which a bunch of people are sandbagging, only I had even less chance of staying with the front group than usual. 
I finished 59th in the game, but if the race was subject to the usual ZP automatic filtering I’d have been in the top 10 I think. Hard to tell because ZP results are broken after the top 50.
Not a complaint, merely an observation.
2 Likes
That’s a benefit over the current system, but not over race ranking.
1 Like
Virtually everyone agrees, but this isn’t intended to be the best and only solution. It’s just a start.
1 Like
This post is a test.
Hypothesis: an explanation of the nature of testing will help us understand one another.
Test: the way I understand testing is that a hypothesis is formulated (let’s say, ‘things fall downwards’), a test is designed and performed to try to validate the hypothesis (let’s say an apple is dropped out of a tree), and then the result of that test is compared to the hypothesis (the apple fell to the ground).
Result: Do you see why I keep asking about what they are trying to test, and why for me ‘they’re testing’ is not really an answer?
The reason why I’m interested is that if they just used race ranking (whether implemented as ZP already does, or using Trueskill, or whatever), they could already be testing that instead of testing these things that at this point nobody has explained why they would improve things. I would prefer to contribute to an effort that I understand the value of.
4 Likes
I’m not sure how we keep talking past one another like this.
A great solution already exists. It’s race ranking. It’s a standard solution to this problem.
Why are we doing something other than pure race ranking? What is the benefit of doing whatever it is that’s happening here? Where does race ranking fall short? How does this help with that, or otherwise improve things?
3 Likes
Well put!
1 Like
I don’t work for Zwift. They’ve openly said on multiple occasions that ranking based categorisation is the long term goal, but it’s going to take time to implement into the game. This is one attempt at a short term solution.
Seems odd to invest time and money into it if it’s only a stop-gap solution. Wouldn’t auto-categorisation also just improve the race experience immeasurably?
1 Like
Surely the easiest short term solution is to lock in using the current cats - no testing needed there. Or dare I say, move to 6 cats and lock them in using Wkg as the short term solution.
Why involve a 3rd party? Why use course completion time that has many variables…
3 Likes
Not sure I get your point, Ken. Mine was that the lower placed B’s don’t seem to sign up to the races. There are usually very few below the 3.6 mark and most are well above. So it’s hard to find a race where I’m not dropped in the first few minutes. I presumed I finished mid-field in the Classics race on Tuesday because I was among the very people you mentioned, lower level B’s, and therefore was getting some fairer racing, or racing more at my level than the usual B events. Is that not what the new format is offering, or trying to offer?
1 Like
What a hyperbole you drew there! He said he finished in the middle, that’s hardly getting lapped.
Pretty sure you are allowed to deploy any of these tactics even if you are not with the front pack. As I see it, it is completely up to the racers to make the race as fun or as bland as they like. I finished 17th in the C4 on Tuesday and had more fun than the races because I “chose” to animate the little group we had with a surprise attack in the final straight. I prefer to have some riders above my skill in my races to show me where my weaknesses are so I can improve. After Tuesdays race, I know i have a deficit in 2min power, so I can work on that. How would I have known that if I kept racing crit city with people at my skill level?
2 Likes
As bit of a breadcrumb, the communication isn’t going to stop after a lengthy FAQ forum post and then 1 race of an 8 race series. It would be foolish of us to post this and then go silent, no? (Please, let’s pretend that hasn’t happened before 
)
As I said earlier, we’re watching and reading the discussion. I, for one, have been thrilled to see the excitement and engagement with this system, even in a testing phase. There are lots of unknowns on both ends, and this is why we test. We’ll let you know what’s up soon enough!
11 Likes
Well they’re getting help from a third party who have a bunch of systems in place already, so I doubt it’s that much time and money from Zwift’s perspective. There’s very little (if anything) actually changed in the game to accommodate this new categorisation system. Event organisers have been able to set up custom pens for ages, this is just a variant of that as far as I can tell.
1 Like