#1 and #2 have been suggested many times.
#3 is interesting. This is kind of an equalization approach. It could be an option that could be applied to some races.
Right now it seems like people generally don’t want to level up. This is a problem since it triggers cruising.
So why are such suggestions seemingly falling on deaf ears?
I think a points-based system is what we’re “all” clamouring for and appears to be Zwift’s longer-term goal, with CE being some kind of stop-gap?
Whilst there’s a bit of momentum behind CE at the moment (both good and bad), I feel Zwift should bite-the-bullet and implement this as the new default for all races asap (and change the current ZP cat ratings to CE-based ones on everyone’s ZP profile).
It would give WTRL more time (and “encouragement”) to implement it for the next round of ZRL 
They are not. I have stated in the past that we are looking to move towards results based categorisation but that will take time.
How much time James; I’m not getting any younger (or faster) 
x days and y months.
I don’t have any specifics I’m afraid.
It’s all been said before.
For a good results based ranking system that can be used to sort pens, you still need the CE system. It has to come first. If, for example, Zwift just adopted the Zwift Power Rankings and sorted pens based on that, races would basically be randomised s**t shows for a long time.
A ranking system (I don’t say points, because there are many other problems with points based systems, rife in real life examples) will deliver a different race dynamic (sometimes better, sometimes worse) so it also makes sense that race organisers can determine how the pens are split (power, age, ranking) and the ranking system underpins the whole thing to offer that progression incentive you mention.
I don’t understand this incredible certainty you have that a points-based system won’t work. Sure, in a world where people only race a handful of times per year, they might not settle into reasonable categories fast enough. However on zwift, people race a handful of times per week (certainly per month). Nevertheless, zwiftpower already has a ranking system, and you can see at a glance that it does actually provide a reasonable ranking that could be implemented for pen assignment immediately. Any minor inconsistencies between categories (due to lack of mixing between them currently) would be ironed out quickly, because that’s what ranking based on results does.
I also don’t understand why you think CE is so fantastic. Of course the E (enforcement) is required, but the new calculation is just an obscure and arbitrary change to the old power cats. You may love how sciencey it all seems but it has several glaring problems including (a) that the MAP element is nonsense as has been repeatedly pointed out, because the thresholds are stupidly high. And (b) the fact that you can drop a cat by setting a new 3-5 min power record…well honestly. Garbage in, garbage out.
It’s interesting to change the boundaries a bit, but the whole concept is still fundamentally wrong. Until TPTB get their heads round the simple fact that power-based categories cannot work, we are just banging our heads on a brick wall. Unfortunately neither Zwift nor WTRL appear to understand this elementary point. As for x days and y months, what I wanted some hint about was the z years that it might take.
I wanted to post something similar yesterday. There is definitely an opportunity to experiment with this as part of the “future works” races.
What if it would not be a “boost per power up” but a permanent boost in races? Something like this for B:
This would:
This would be my preference and can probably be applied without too much impacts elsewhere in Zwift.
I blame WTRL and “as long as you stay withing category limits”
Sorry, but aren’t we supposed to be racing?
In any given cat (just like IRL) there are probably only a handful of riders who are capable of winning, many will be “middling” and unfortunately there will also be the also-rans.
This comment is coming from someone who is usually C-cat pack-fodder.
95% of Zwifters have a 500-600 ZP ranking. And that is not a points system either.
I’ve already explained this, but a points system is not self levelling. In contrast, a good ranking system (not ZP) can very quickly place riders appropriately. So ranking > points. For all of your rubbishing of CE, you have yet to explain how a points system would actually work. It would have the same issues as in real life - the lower categories / pens would be packed full of high quality riders, at all times.
I said this elsewhere but take the UK for example. Racing is pointless with a sub 4 w/Kg FTP because 4th cat is packed full of high quality riders. If we could use power profiles in IRL racing, we could offer great real life race experiences to those who race C/D on Zwift.
There are positives and negatives to both systems, so give race organisers the choice.
I like CE because it stops sandbagging and cruising. THE two biggest issues with Zwift racing. All of your complaints are related to the static category boundaries, which can be fixed with future changes.
You are unable to think outside of your dreamy points system, because philosophically it is obviously the right way to go, to reward performance. But there’s a different between philosophy and practicality.
CE, followed by boundary flexibility, followed by a ranking system that underpins everything solves all of these issues - and it seems like Zwift are attempting to follow this path. So what exactly are you so angry about?
Points system without CE = JUNK
CE without points/ranking system = room for improvement
CE and ranking system = best of all worlds
Once this is in place you can decide not to enter events where pens are sorted using CE logic if you think it makes for a terrible race experience.
(note - if pens can be sorted by ranking or by CE logic, my prediction is that both will be popular)
I think most of these comments come from people racing WTRL that doesn’t use this system.
The sooner we transition to one system the better.
I want to raise the point that this frequency of participation will probably not be possible without severely hurting your personal development in training, or worse, your actual physical health, unless you are racing at a level that most people would call “cruising” and my personal view is that more people racing more often = better racing community
Yeah, and it is completely wrong.
That statements probably applies to 1% of Zwifters.
i dunno man… i’m looking at the zwift event page right now trying to decide what i’m gonna do this evening and there’s a whole lot of empty races.
edit: oh, but it is TTT thursday. so there is that
I think this conundrum was raised previously. Frequent racers, or just those who do not rest enough between events, will perform at lesser level than being fully rested for the same event. Then, they do have a lag and get in their rest, outperform their prior history, get bumped up a Cat, want to restart their frequent (non-rested) racing cadence, but now aren’t competing in the higher cat, because their exhaustion won’t allow them to. 
I think that depends on what races you are doing.
For example, ordinarily on Thursdays I’ll enter the 1200 BST Micro Mountain Massif TT (~3.1Km custom finish on Sea To Tree) and finish that VO2 Max interval in under 8mins, get a bit of recovery and then enter the 1215 BST Team Electric Spirit Co. Preprandial Crit that will typically take 10-15mins at z4/z5.
Granted, I don’t expect to do quite so well in the second event, but it’s not that far off doing an ERG z5 intervals workout.
Sure but how many riders do you think are doing similar? (broader question not targeted to you specifically)
One of the goals of CE, a ranking system, new race formats, etc is to make Zwift Racing more accessible and more addictive, to increase participation numbers. Today casual racers enter a race from the companion app and hate the experience because the race is blown apart by sandbaggers and cruisers. With a points system, new riders would start from the bottom and have their races blown apart by stronger riders who haven’t moved up yet.
The experience for casual racers and future Zwift racers has to be considered with any system design. This forum is limited to the top 1% (not ability but ‘interest’) and designing only for us would miss the point somewhat.
But of course it doesn’t! It just shifts the problem a little. The boundaries have moved, but they still exist, and there will still be a bunch sitting just under the limit. Conceptually it is no different at all.
To the extent that the CE calculation reproduces race ordering better than the old 20 mins, it will be an improvement, and I suspect it’s a small step in that direction - but can anyone show that with analysis? Making the calculation opaque makes it hard to deliberately cruise under the threshold, but most people just did it naturally under the old system because that’s what it was designed to select. The faults of the 20 min system were never primarily about bad actors deliberately gaming the system.
This sort of language seems a bit silly. A decent ranking system would probably be fine too.
You still haven’t explained where you get your certainty that any points system, in a world where there are dozens of races per day, will have the problems causes IRL where there’s a limited race season with few races such that riders struggle to ever find races they than compete in. Just by way of example, if points were awarded on a sliding scale to the top 25% of the field, and expired after a year (which seems a fairly simple and natural arrangement) then you’d only have the bottom 0 point pen “packed full of high quality riders, at all times” if there were literally hundreds of new/returning riders every single day indefinitely. I think that’s self-evidently an absurd claim, so hopefully I have misunderstood what you meant.
You don’t have to have a 0 point category, in reality you could probably raise that threshold a bit, but if it was set at the level of a couple of decent finishes then you’d still need many returning/new riders each day to pack out the bottom pen of every single race as you promise.
The big difference is that a large number (majority?) of riders are incorrectly categorised because they simply never do full gas 20m efforts, let alone the necessary 3 in 90 days. The evidence is this week’s ZRL. CE categorises most people correctly because it takes all activities, using power across a large range of durations. That is a significant difference.
Maybe we just shake hands on that point.
