I understand that from a company standpoint, it is important to shut the mouth of those that don’t take Zwift racing seriously. Many haven’t even tried Zwift racing. There is a long way to go to making racing trustworthy. In addition to validating the power source, you will have to address WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) in the finishing positions. You can’t trust a system that shows you as #1 but is #3 in the results.
I agree that it would be nice to have a certain level of equipment used in races. At the same time, I have never thought that someone was cheating if they were using a smart trainer (ZP results) and behaved normally.
I used a wheel-on trainer when I started on Zwift. It was very generous with the sprint watts, and it was fun as long as it lasted. I don’t think others thought I was cheating and I didn’t know that it was reading too high. They were happy and I was happy. It could just be that I had a legally good sprint.
You will also exclude a lot of customers from racing unless there are open races with less strict rules. When I think about it - you must have open races if you don’t want to lose customers. Will their results count just as much as those from the restricted races? Will they have a separate ranking? Will they have the same categories?
“Cheating” doesn’t matter if you use race ranking for pen division. Until you get to the elite end of things, and sure if you want it to be a proper sport, then you need better controls on that.
I find Flint’s message profoundly depressing. A lot of irrelevant chaff designed to mislead and distract from doing what needs to be done. He just doesn’t get it at all.
100% correct. While there are a lot of things open and yet to be decided, one thing that is decided because it’s necessary is exactly that: we can’t make racing only good for folks that have spent money on a smart trainer.
We say Zwift is accessible for all when it comes to hardware, but it isn’t necessarily. It’s fun enough on a classic trainer, but when you get a smart trainer or ride on one, you realize “oh, this is actually what the game is built for” and that’s not a good feeling.
When we talk about these things for racing, the underlying assumption as a given - at least in my mind - is that we are not building racing to be only a certain way. We want to build racing to be hyper competitive for people that want that, but there’s also a bunch of folks that race to just get some fitness and they’re not worried about the best gear, may not know about power meters, etc.
We are building to give options, not to say “if you don’t race under these exact criteria then you can’t race.”
Just because someone doesn’t have two power meters does not mean you would want to have a D rider racing with an A rider in an E category. People will still want to be matched up with people that are within some band of their strengths.
If “Restriction of what hardware can/can’t be used in a race” means enforcing “no ZPower riders” in code, it just needs implemetation, not discussion.
Other than that, fully agree with @_JamesA_ZSUNR that in a ranking-based system, cheaters and such do not make that much of a difference (apart from the top level) as long as the performances are consistent.
On these points I think Zwift need to open up results output to racing event organisers to build those meaningful scoring systems and leaderboards … in the same way as you have done with WTRL , only for a more general (individual) race format and not a team based one . , is that what you mean by “thats isnt ZP” ? If so , if you mean having someone else , maybe already mentioend , producing something for this that might well be a
I see two themes to your bullet points .
Continuing to enhance metrics for pre-organising entry and other tooling for verification around zwift useage
Introducing more feature rich capability for more different types of events
I see race ranking being firmly as a feature to deliver the second .
Both are important to a greater or lesser extend depending on what level you are racing at or personal and subjective things you want from zwift experience. I think a fair bit has been done on the former but not a lot if anything on the later so vote for some more on that as a priority.
I think it makes sense for Zwift commercially , further restrictions on racing are prohibitive , limiting hardware / requirement to get 2nd power source for example , that is already a requirement for the serious end of racing and that makes total sense, I am not sure how far down the levels that can be taken , whereas new features are very much on the enabling and customer engaging side of things and likely to bring a larger user base into wanting to take part more.
In the “category” type of events , cheating has no consequences . You do well and you can come back the next day and the next and the next doing “well” each time …
In a “ranking” type of event , cheating and doing well does have consequences ( since cheating to do badly , or even mediocre, is not a problem right ? ) means you will be getting promoted to another race level , in other words removed from spoiling the same races over and over again. The caveat is that as well as moving up the level , just like in the ZRL series as you move up you also start to have to provide more verification , at some point the cheater will meet his karma . THAT is a model I think that should be built on.
What do we do with those scores? Other than bragging rights, what incentivizes someone to pursue a top ranking?
That is an interesting question. IMHO, once you realize that you are not ever going to reach pro or semi-pro or local-pro status in bike racing, and have achieved the highest category you can compete in, you effectively stop being at the top of your category. The top of each category tends to be the people that are moving through your category on their way up, and as they leave they are replaced by people coming up and through.
Ranking then becomes an alternative way to incentivize yourself and provide a long-term way to compare yourself to the other people racing.
Much like golf, where people think in terms of their handicap. Or chess with its ranking system. You play to improve your relative position to everyone else.
Is this bragging rights? Certainly. Is that a problem? Why would it be?
It doesn’t matter. Ranking isn’t a goal, it’s a transcript of events. Think of it like a blockchain that burns calories instead of forests.
Incentives and goals are things like doing well in races or series, having fun with friends, training through racing… And Ranking is just a record of how you, in pursuit of those goals, compare to others on the platform.
Yes, you can of course also make Ranking a goal. I’m sure many do, whether it’s directly or indirectly — but that’s not the point, nor the effect of it. Maybe you want to get to the <200 bracket (or ‘Tarmac Tier’) or be in the top 1000 worldwide, and… so what, go for it! You still need to do the races and do well against competition. Ranking just puts you in the right field.
I can definitely see that confusion around this conceptual distinction could slow down adoption.
Ranking is nothing more — and nothing less — than the best way to compare riders for the purpose of creating competitive fields. It is not a tool for comparing riders for prestige.
The goals and incentives should be built separately over the foundation that Ranking provides. You get more creative freedom with those.
I think to breathe life into racing, I think you need to look at race formats if the fundamental game physics dont change, as racing in zwift is very same just slightly different each week.
I know there is a huge cry for a velodrome but that is because of the type of races it brings - could you do a zwift version of this, a 1km loop for example built into Watopia (330m is to small) could be the zwift equivalent and then the ability for live scoring, or elimination races which could be used in any world.
Ranking wise, id like to see them seasonal. Id also like to see them seed divisions over category by WKG numbers.
I still think you need to get a way of having all users in Zwiftpower so the results post race in game are the same as results in Zwiftpower.
"Yes, you can of course also make Ranking a goal. I’m sure many do, whether it’s directly or indirectly — but that’s not the point, nor the effect of it.
You are correct, but also incorrect. Ranking is used to gauge the strength of competitors, and that is used to set opponents of close to equal skill against each other.
But, if you don’t think that (for example) Chess players are not intimately aware of their rank and how they compare to other people, I would suggest you are incorrect.
Yes, the official stated goal is to rate or rank people so that they are closely matched for play. But the end-user (players) goal is to increase their rank relative to their peers. And (like bike racing in Zwift) every player cannot ever play every other player, so the only way to compare yourself to other players is to compare your rating or ranking.
This (from the Wikipedia page Chess rating system) has an interesting comment. In general, ratings go up when people do better than expected, and down when they do worse than expected.
(Internet Chess Club - Wikipedia) also implement rating systems. In almost all systems a higher number indicates a stronger player. In general, players’ ratings go up if they perform better than expected and down if they perform worse than expected. The magnitude of the change depends on the rating of their opponents. The Elo rating system is currently the most widely used.
Bang on the money IMO . This is what how ranking should be considered , enhancing dare I say it “game” experience , not as some new alternative global pen enforcement auto cat process.
There’s any number of guys in their garages on shonky miscalibrated equipment thinking they are pushing 400W (spoiler alert: they really aren’t). I don’t care so long as they end up racing against others of a similar performance level.
I’ve even spotted a B cat who claims a 20min power of 500W. He’s made himself sufficiently obese to hide in B cat. The problem isn’t his bogus power per se but the fact that he can win race after race without promotion.
That’s why it is so sad that Flint still doesn’t understand or perhaps just doesn’t agree that sorting that out is a priority. I guess he just doesn’t see zwift developing into a credible sport any time soon.
My feeling on the matter, FWIW, is that “cheating” is “cheating” whether you are “cheating Up” or “cheating down”.
Much, but not all, of what I have read this past 4-6 weeks, since finding the forum, is about stopping people from racing down either intentionally or accidentally. I believe Pen Enforcement can greatly reduce that, if not stop it altogether. Do I believe Pen Enforcement can stop “Deliberately Cheating Down” - NO not without the ability to measure and use other past metrics. I would like to think Zwift is considering what further action can be taken to reduce a racer’s ability to easily reduce their current metrics to be able to race in a lower category than their potential would otherwise suggest.
There is some talk about “Cheating Up” as not being a problem. The problem appears to go away as it takes them out of your group into a group where hopefully they will be at the bottom.
In golf there is an incentive for getting a better ranking or handicap. A lower/better handicap becomes the only way you can enter a top quality competition. The problem is 10 golfers who have “cheated up” to enter that special competition stop 10 honest golfers playing who are then balloted out of the event. ( I appreciate that Zwift racing possibly allows for any number of racers in a race but I am trying to give an example of the downside of “cheating up”)*
I feel that all forms of cheating should be considered the same and certainly not that one form of cheating is better than another.
, if you mean having someone else , maybe already mentioend , producing something for this that might well be a 
