I guess to an extent. Of course their are weight categories in several sports, rowing, weight lifting etc. But those are more presented as parallel streams for the most part, and within the weight categories, rankings are still based on results. You don’t move up a ranking by putting on 3 kilos. And if you’re overweight, you can’t compete. You don’t just get put into the next category automatically as far as I know.
It’d be more like Zwift having a “mid-power” category, and there being several divisions within that.
I agree with this. But this is early days for pen enforcement, and I am wondering if this won’t start to naturally happen. The limits are a bit broader and a lot harder to artificially stay just below.
I would like to see all organizers start using this new system and move away from the old system. Then we also need to see Zwift reflect your current category, CP and MAP and Also use that in Zwift power.
No, you’ll have to be a little smarter than that. I’m convinced you can. I understand it must be hard for you to even imagine a benevolent interpretation of my agenda. But if you try to overcome the apparent contradiction and instead fantasize creatively (or should I say wildly), then what could it possibly be, whether true or not, if it has to be a benevolent interpretation?
Same message as two years ago? Yes, very much so. Repetition of things that have already been said? Yes, mostly. Do we have results-based categorization yet? No. Do I think we’ll get there unless we frequently talk openly about it under the nose of Zwift? No. Do I think we’ll ever get there by asking nicely and timidly? No.
Fact: I never saw a single thread asking for results-based categorization before I began to start such threads myself quite some time ago. And that includes the FB Zwift Riders and, at the time, the FB Zwift Racers forums (I got banned from the latter for discussing forbidden topics).
I realize it doesn’t necessarily mean there were no such threads. Threads have a tendency to get deleted in here after a while. Spring cleaning, saving storage space, I suppose. But if any such threads existed, then they were extremely rare and didn’t cause much activity (well, there really wasn’t that much activity in here on the whole).
I also realize it doesn’t mean I was the first to think such thoughts. On the contrary, wouldn’t it be awfully depressing if no one else in here had had that thought before, when every other organized sport known to mankind has used results-based categorization one way or the other since… forever?
But I’m not a fan of this revisionism concerning this forum. It was was very different here back in 2020, and even more so in 2019. Comparatively very little went on in here at all. And the racing sub forum was mostly about a completely different type and level of issues.
Do I think I have had an impact over the last couple of years? Yes. Do I think I’m the only one? No, there’s been a few. Do I think the forum would be what it is today if it weren’t for those few (which, yes, includes me)? No. Am I fishing for recognition or cred? No lol. I just want zwifters to get fair racing and had to make a decision. Cred was never mentioned in the compensation package, if we put it that way.
There is another kind of revisionism that’s pretty interesting. There is a more scientific term for it in cognitive psychology, but we can call it auto-revisionism, speaking of. See, I could give several names of people who frequently post here who used to oppose a results-based system but who no longer do. And I wouldn’t be surprised if at least a few of them don’t remember it like that at all. Is that a problem? No. What matters is where they stand today.
I don’t know how many times I have openly advocated power metrics for initial seeding. I started doing that when they tested AutoKitten. Who knows, maybe if you scroll up a bit you just might find such a statement from me in this very thread?
Exactly. So apparently we aren’t done yet.
Like I said above, I have. It’s getting better, although there is still work to do for the missionaries. There are still souls to save. Especially over in Long Beach, CA.
“Zwift are also looking at it”? Hahaha! I bet they have looked at a lot of things throughout the years. What else can they do if we post about it here? The only other option is to avert their eyes (they probably do that too sometimes). But can you quote a single source indicating “looking at” means “intend to implement”, ideally one that wasn’t contradicted shortly afterwards in other communications? Giving something the stink eye isn’t really looking at in my book. I’m picky like that.
No, I partly agree. It’s trickier now to intentionally cruise and for several reasons. One is the lack of transparency. For one, the old cats have been extremely transparent, which makes it easy to game them. The increased complexity to the model per se isn’t necessarily a problem, but another reason why we will see less cruising is that it has become less “democratic”. Before, anyone above cat D could cruise if they wanted to. With the new model only some will be able to. For them it won’t be hard, just for the others. But it really doesn’t matter. Power metrics will always be exploitable. It’s an unsound and counter-intuitive foundation to build categorizations on.
Or to put it plainly, it’s just wrong. You can try to “improve” it by applying more duct tape but it will still be broken and obsolete.
No, heaven forbid! But what other options have there been? (Depending on what you mean by approach - if you just meant that I refuse to become a single cat E defaitist, then sure, there is that option, in theory.)
I recall on the Adventure Riding Forum in the off-topic free for all, a question was posted:
If someone showed up suddenly from the 50’s, what would be the most difficult thing to explain to them.
I believe it was answer #43 that said Here in my pocket, I have a device with which I can access the entirety of human knowledge. I use it to look pictures of cats and argue with people I don’t know.
@Andreas_Traff that’s pretty much the long and the short of it. Zwift is a video game essentially operated by each person’s physical effort. It is always going to be flawed in some way due to the restrictions based on the game engine and ZHQ’s lack of interest in going further than we’ve seen thus far. Your continual efforts to educate us about how NONE of us know what we’re talking about have reached the point of Comic Opera. Let’s stop there before we end in Greek Tragic Opera.
No, I didn’t read that last post and I don’t intend to as it is truly TL;DR. Obviously you have lotsa time on your hands and/or you type very quickly and accurately. Personally, I’m about 30 wpm and then I’ve got to proof it. You must be in the 80’s or so.
Ok, let’s see now, 1) You’re basically equating me with some Crazy Cat Lady, 2) there’s the “it’s just a game” argument (=there’s nothing to discuss), 3) I have to stop or we will somehow end in tragedy (what’s that, a threat?), 4) you don’t intend to read what I write and make a point of pointing it out.
Take a step back and think about it, the decision to not even try to refute any of my arguments, plus the level or flavor of your own argumentation style… Like I said above, welcome to the Call of Duty forums. Mark the teenage bully? Come on… that’s not you.
Besides, the standard low blow you’re resorting to too now, the various less curteous versions of “you seem to have too much time on your hands, you should perhaps spend it more wisely” that get tossed around in here, they are absolutely hilarious! Please, throw them at me again! Because without exception, they are always coming from people who seem to hang around in here all day long, especially weekdays. I can write something short (it happens) or something long but it doesn’t take many minutes to get a reply from the usual suspects. And they are littering the forum with one-liners all over the place. Your name implies you might be retired and it’s not for me to judge how you spend your days, but the others? Don’t they have work to do? So… right back at ya.
No way. To me personally that’s like saying until everyone in every outdoor road race in the world has access to the same expensive aero frames and special aero jersey fabrics, then it’s pointless to try run races with fair race rules. It seems completely backwards to me, if I got to prioritize.
HOWEVER, I don’t see any problem in working in parallel on race rules and game physics. I don’t see the conflict. Sure, resources matter in a company, but it’s likely not going to be the same persons within the company working on those two things anyway, provided they would at all. You don’t need to touch the game engine to address the issues I bring up. You don’t need C++ programmers to fix this, or even if you do then it’s still not going to be the same guys.
Also, I’m not jumping into your physics thread, you know the one, saying “Stop this farce! Results-based categorization must come before everything else!”. So why do you keep pointing out this imagined conflict? It’s almost as if you were using Eric Min language. You know, “I don’t want results-based categorization, over my dead body, but I’m not going to admit it, so I’ll say it’s low priority instead and point my finger at something else.” I don’t get it.