I am a new user and I am positively surprised to see 30.000+ users at the same time (at peak hours). Considering that quite a few of those only do a 20 minute workout or something, that is quite a large number.
I really like Makuri Island (and the new Urukazi part is just amazing) and I am going to be a little bit sad when the calendar shifts and we get two other worlds.
I was lucky enough to be one of the very firsts who managed to log in to the new maps on the live server(s) and I didnât mind to see a few less people around. I do not need to have 200+ avatars around me to feel engaged.
So I was wondering. What do you guys think about the world limitations? Do you think it is good to only have 3 worlds at the same time?
I am sure Zwift has itâs reasons and they have internal and scientific tools to decide what number of open worlds is the right one⌠I was just wondering what you think.
(I know there is a world hack out there, but I am new, so I still have plenty of routes to explore).
All worlds are available all the time if you initiate a workout or meetup and you can go badge hunting. And if Makuri isnât on rotation, just join a Makuri pace partner to get there which is even easier. Doesnât need the world hack, very simple and a lot of people do this.
Back when only the world hack was available, it was fairly easy to find a relatively isolated world, but these days, not so much.
If I understand it correctly your answer is: you can bypass the limitations. But you didnât answer what you think about the limitations. Should they be removed? Is it a good idea that we have it? Should the number of worlds that we can visit without bypassing increase?
My opinion is Iâm very happy with the limitations. Yes it is a good idea to just have three worlds, I like that the three worlds are relatively well populated.
Those who would like to ride wherever in unpopulated worlds may do so.
Those who like to ride in populated worlds would not have the ability to ensure they can if everyone was spread around all the worlds.
I hope that actually answers the question you have asked.
Four would be better now; Watopia and Makuri are developed enough to be live at all times, with two guest worlds on rotation.
Given that there are now Pace Partners on Makuri at all times anyway (plus you can make workouts/meetups anywhere), weâre almost at that stage already. Might as well just make it less annoying. Arguably the game actually needs to be less crazily populated in certain spots IMO.
I kind of think pace partners should be on worlds that aren[t on rotation, i donât like riding in big groups and often get stuck in a massive group following a pace partner and it usually means i have to actually stop pedalling for a bit to fall out of the group which is pretty annoying.
I was probably focusing on the fact that you were new and Iâm well used to working with the tools Zwift provide to ride anywhere, however to answer your question re worlds on rotation - I think you have to look at peopleâs motivations for why they ride where they do. Iâm possibly a poor example as I pick a world that has routes that fit with my riding goal on any given day and donât mind whether those worlds are super-busy or quiet.
I know some people chase XP so will go for busy worlds where they can draft and clock up the kmâs quicker than riding on their own. Others like chatting. We all have different motivations when we ride and we seem to co-exist fairly well.
I suspect that many people, even if they donât actively seek population density, still appreciate it. And maybe they donât even think about it while they are appreciating it. I say that because (anecdotally) itâs the most common complaint I hear about RGT and Rouvy and other servicesââplatform works great, good visuals, but itâs a ghost townâ.
Same concept for a store IRL. If you go to a store to buy something, or a gym to workout, youâre going to be more likely to think of it as a good store or a good gym if it has a certain density of shoppers/users. Obviously YMMV for what that density is, and you donât want shoulder-to-shoulder. But what you donât want if itâs your business is someone walking in and getting the impression that âman, no one comes hereâ. People react (usually positively) to things that are popular and well-liked, and number of users visible using the product gets that message across.
So that said, if the number of Zwift users was large enough in comparison to the number of worlds, they could achieve the same results with more worlds open. Itâs not like 3 is a magic number.
But you can still see how many people are in each world so if you want to ride with a lot of people go for one of the worlds that has a lot of people on it, if you want quieter roads, go where there are fewer. Let people choose, it is unlikely all the people will be evenly distributed so will always be a mix of the two
I understand the motivation to let people choose. Iâm just saying that, as a marketing strategy, making it easy for people, including new users, to end up in a place where it looks like no one uses the product is probably less than ideal.
These things affect us on a less than rational, less than conscious level. Just like colors of packaging or beads of condensation dripping down the picture of the can of Coke. Nobody says âI want a Coke because of those beads of waterâ, and plenty of people will tell you âI never choose which products to buy because of the color of the packaging.â But we do Similarly, my claim is that the Zwift population density is, for a lot of people, helping make it more enjoyable for them. And I suspect itâs for a lot more people than even realize it.
And I also suspect that it might be better, from a marketing perspective, to force all users into a few worlds (even if some of them donât like it) than to risk losing those new riders who stop using the software because (even if they canât explain why) theyâre not enjoying it.
To be clear, Iâm not saying marketing concerns are my favorite thing in the world eitherâjust that Zwift, as a business, is likely to be very concerned about these things.
Hereâs an interesting paper that seems relevant. Itâs a restaurant study, but it discusses crowd size and customer happiness (measured here in evals of servers). Their finding is that, for people who are using the restaurant for utilitarian purposes (just need to get some food), larger crowd sizes are worse. But for people using the restaurant for enjoyment, larger crowd sizes are better.
Iâd think it would be similar for Zwift. People who âjust want to workoutâ donât care who else is aroundâto the degree that they just want to workout. When enjoyment enters the mix, now the crowd size will start to become important. And it seems, for many Zwift users, to be a mix. A lot of people use Zwift to workout, but also because itâs enjoyable.
personally Iâd like to see all worlds available all the time, having to wait for a certain world to be available to ride a specific route can be annoying, yes it can be done via clubs and meetups but that isnât the point
I donât disagree that it would be easy. But part of the secret marketing sauce is always that people donât really know how these things affect them. And so one of the axioms of marketing is that people donât really know what will make them happy. Someone might think that they really want less population density, and then use those worlds, find themselves not enjoying it, but not know why they arenât enjoying it. Or blame it on something elseâgraphics, drafting, whatever. So from a business standpoint, the company has to figure out whether the cost of losing those people is worth more than the cost of making users who would like a change a little unsatisfied.
So if some people would really like more worlds but continue to use the product, and they think they would lose customers by making that changeâŚthey arenât likely to make it. Even if N customers left because the change wasnât made, if a sufficiently bigger >N would have left if the change was made, the choice there seems easy.
Another way to put it is that, when youâre trying to maximize both the number of customers, and their overall satisfaction, sometimes âmore choices and more freedomâ is counterproductive. To use restaurants again as an analogy, itâs usually the case that more menu options leaves customers less happy with their food and the whole experience at the restaurant. Even when the kitchen could easily make more items. And even when some customers complain (but keep coming) about the limited menu. And even if some customers donât come back (so long as more new customers are coming and keep coming back). Some of the unhappy customers really would have a better experience with a longer menu. But others only think they would, and they really wouldnât.
I donât have the numbers of course, and Iâm not a statistician so Iâd just stare at them and ask for someone to make them make sense But itâs a common principle theyâre following. Car companies could offer their cars in a much wider range of paint schemes, pretty easily. They could even do custom paint. They could even have a âdesign your own paint schemeâ website when youâre buying a brand new car. But then some frat dude would laugh and buy a Camry with penises painted all over it, and would find out later that he really doesnât like itâbut it would be Toyota who would look bad. So they pick 6 or 7 colors and run with it.
It has to do with density. If they have the numbers, then more worlds will still work. Itâs not a static thingâ3 worlds isnât a magic number. If the user base grows large enough, youâd have enough users to open them all. If not, you donât. So Iâd guess that they offered 1 world, as as more users came onboard, they offered 2, and then 3. That would be expected with a growing user base.
But it could of course be the case that they didnât make ideal choices all the time. Or that they were experimenting to try to find what that ideal density was. So, yeah, they might not have made the right choice each time. And they might not be making the right choice now. Iâm just talking about why they might be making these choices.
There are other factors too. The perception of scarcity is another oneâif something is commonplace, it becomes less valuable. So if you were Zwift and you happened to think that one of your worlds wasnât as good as the others and might not get used if it was open all the time (looking at you, Yorkshire), one way to keep people happier with it would be to not let them use it all the time. Then itâs a treat, and you donât get used to it and realize itâs not great. Scarcity also works with really good products. Restaurants could offer prime rib every night of the week, but they make Fridays âprime rib nightâ because they end up selling way more prime rib that way than if they offered it every night. Even while some people say âI wish we could get prime rib every nightâ.
I donât like crowded roads. If you wanted to be shoulder to shoulder with people and in the draft the whole time, you can do a group ride or pace partner. But when I free ride I like some space. So whatever would make that more possible would be my vote .
I agree. But I also donât usually find myself shoulder to shoulder on free rides, maybe Iâm just getting lucky. I did the 5th Makuri Stage solo last night, and I think I passed/was passed by maybe 30 people in the 24+km. Granted a lot of people seemed to be looping in the opposite direction
Similarly, my claim is that the Zwift population density is, for a lot of people, helping make it more enjoyable for them. And I suspect itâs for a lot more people than even realize it.
But itâs a common principle theyâre following. Car companies could offer their cars in a much wider range of paint schemes, pretty easily. They could even do custom paint. They could even have a âdesign your own paint schemeâ website when youâre buying a brand new car. But then some frat dude would laugh and buy a Camry with penises painted all over it, and would find out later that he really doesnât like itâbut it would be Toyota who would look bad. So they pick 6 or 7 colors and run with it.
.