I think it is also very dependant on what the worlds are paired with - is France popular or is Paris really unpopular? If you switched New york and France would New York look more popular and would people be less likely to ride France when up against Makuri Islands?
I’d like to see randomised pairing of worlds.
Here’s a plot of the (log) average number of zwifters (numbers from the article on Zwiftinsider) and the (log) sum of events from 6 random weeks from nov. 13 to end of dec. (numbers are planned events the next week from Events).
In short the worlds down in the right corner (France) has few events compared to number of zwifters. Yorkshire seems maybe slightly more popular as an event world than for “free riders”.
I submit that people are, literally, voting with their feet here. Furthermore, whatever (few) elements there are interesting in the UCI world then Zwift can replicate that in the fictional worlds. As a specific example then the profiles of the routes from Yorkshire (e.g. the main circuit) and Innsbruck (e.g. the main climb and the main city circuit) could be copied into Watopia or France somewhere and then those worlds deleted.
Based on the article and on @Sigurd_Espeland’s replies here then I would say “both”. As a fictional world then Zwift also has the capability to expand France in any way it wants. As an example, the profiles of the routes from Yorkshire (e.g. the main circuit) and Innsbruck (e.g. the main climb and the main city circuit) could be copied into France somewhere and then those worlds deleted.
The UCI didn’t choose these locations because they were the most excellent ride locations or the most interesting route profiles. The UCI chose them because they could organize events there and there is much more that has to align than just the routes. Zwift should focus on the best virtual cycling experience and not get bogged into the UCI locations, even as “medium-term” events such worlds might make sense for 1-2 years.
I don’t see the argument for getting rid of them? just ride somewhere else if you don’t like them.
You can easily not ride them if they are there but you can’t ride them if you want to if they’re not.
Totally agree. And on top of that, “quality” means different things to different people. I think it’s important for Zwift to keep the variety and challenge there for all of us, even if “our favourites” don’t match with the favourites of the majority.
I’d be gutted if Yorkshire was retired.
Yes, the only arguments I can see for retirement would be (a) insufficient riders, since the whole point is the community of a populated world and (b) maintenance costs/digital rot for old assets.
(a) doesn’t appear to be the case at all, there are lots of riders most of the time certainly on Watopia which is always open and (b) is pure speculation that has never been supported by anyone in a position of knowledge.
Of course I may be missing some killer argument “(c)” in which case maybe someone will help me out…
Yorkshire and Richmond are great race courses (several distinct courses each in fact) and it would be terrible to retire them right now without having already developed more alternatives IMO.
Difficult to vote with your feet when only three world are available on any given day, with those appearing more often having (quelle surprise!) the most riders riding it.
I do ride elsewhere. I most often then make a beeline to ride on Watopia. I see those UCI worlds in rotation and effectively my choices have been limited to riding with others on Watopia or riding mostly alone in a world-hacked worlds (which makes no sense because Zwift’s core is the social interaction).
I would both want Zwift to focus on the better worlds, not invest their development and community efforts on the UCI worlds*, and also to have more and better choices in rotation on a regular basis.
*E.g. the UCI worlds could be a part of marketing efforts tied to UCI events and be in rotation for 1-2 years and then be replaced with the next UCI world. I.e. be “medium-term” events.
I can’t speak of Zwift’s particular situation in this regard, but I work at a game development studio for almost two decades now and digital rot and the associated maintenance costs is an actual thing.
The races are always events, correct?
Perhaps the compromise is to stop having the UCI worlds on rotation; rotate London, France, New York, and Makuri with Watopia and continue development on them.
Have the UCI worlds Yorkshire, Innsbruck, Richmond, Bologna, and Paris as event-only, and not add anything to them.
This isn’t a argument to get rid of worlds it is an argument to make more available more of the time.
Innsbruck is great route for a replacement indoor Sunday spin through the winter - 2 x 20min climb, bit of flat\rolling between them.
Also great for racing.
Richmond is great for racing.
New York is a bore fest and has been a poor design for a world since the outset.
Edit to add - Id much rather see a Watopia sister island spring up than the likes of Makuri or France etc…
Zwift hasn’t wanted to make all of the world available all the time but rather focus riders on particular worlds each day. Making the fictional worlds more available would entail making the UCI worlds less available (or just take that to the eventual conclusion and retire them).
Usually I choose where I’m going to ride by the route. Watopia has the greatest number of routes so most often I end up in Watopia.
The world ranking in the Zwift Insider article follows the order of the number of routes, with the exception of France. It would be interesting to dig into why France breaks the rule. (Come to think of it, I don’t recall it ever raining in France, and it rains frequently in London…)
I really like Innsbruck, but not counting the reverse directions and combinations, it only has two routes. Perhaps a column should be added to the above table showing “Total kilometers of roads”.
Pace Partners must also be skewing the data. At this time of year there are hundreds of folks riding with the Pace Partners and they are only available in Watopia and Makuri. Take the Pace Partner pelotons out of Watopia and Makuri and France moves up at least into second place in the “popularity” rankings.
The partnership in worlds will probably drive some of those numbers, France & Paris are always together, Paris is tiny & not worth it, so more users will gravitate towards its partner worlds.
Oh I absolutely agree it’s a real thing in general. It was the application to the zwift worlds, and more specifically the magnitude of the ongoing investment and whether it’s a big enough drain to justify streamlining, that seems speculative.
Maintenance only incurs costs if you do some actual maintenance at least occasionally. I’ll get me coat.
It is indeed an actual thing.
But what you seem to be missing is that Zwift let the digital rot happen and don’t do the maintenance. Textures go missing, long-standing bugs on particular routes don’t get fixed, the list goes on …
