litphoria

The frequency with which a player is able to post a response in a roleplay.

Ok, I see how this would work. The issue of having more than one availability level will probably be common and potentially a source of hardship in people figuring out how to use this.

I suggest we need better names than "frequent" and "periodic" for those two steps, since those could be misinterpreted rapidly. Tentatively "multiple daily" and "multiple weekly" come to mind.

Actually, this might be throwing a spanner in the works, but here: right now my main focus is on chat roleplays, during which my post availability would be instantaneous, but I'm only available once every few days for them. Would something like being available to be present.

I'm also mindful of the fact that Litphoria, in its mission to support both chat and forum type posting, needs to fulfil both sets of users. Withdrawing vital benefits for one could be a bad thing when it strongly benefits the other.

That said, is it possible we should consider this less from a perspective of "how often can I post a week?" to "how often a week am I able to put decent energy into roleplaying here?". For me, that'd be 2-3 times a week at present.

"Would something like being available to be present." - forget this sentence, I forgot to delete it. :) Same thing I was approaching in the third paragraph though.

Instead of "immediately" it could be named "Chat". "Chat-daily", "Chat-few times a week", and "Chat-few times a month".

Yes. But since some players do chat and forum RPs something like RP-method would make more sense probably.

Do we feel enough people have a regular enough posting habit for this to be useful? I frequently move between various "posting frequencies" depending on the length of the posts in the RP and what my real life availability is. I could maybe see this being useful when we have desired traits for RPs, since then you could say "for this RP, I want to post every 15 minutes", or "for this RP, I'm not expecting to post more than once a day".

In my opinion this would be a pretty useful preference to have. Some people prefer instant RP, myself included, other may want to spend a couple of days writing a post, then there's stuff in between.

I frequently move between various "posting frequencies" depending on the length of the posts in the RP and what my real life availability is.

That is not the problem exclusively with this trait. Already existing traits may be variable. Like post perspective, atmosphere, hell, physical traits too. It is just yet another problem with one trait per category limit. Since it's not exclusive to this particular trait and since there are already traits that suffer from this, I think it's not a problem that should stop this preference from being implemented.

As for having it RP-exclusive, that is also a possibility, however, I can say that I would like to put this on my profile and I would like to search for partners with specific post frequency as well, not just have it shown in RP.

I'd love this kind of thing too, it feels important. However, no-one's going to be upset if a slow roleplay suddenly becomes a real-time chat; it's the long waits that leave people wondering, "Is he going to post again?"

Renaming it to Max Posting Time or Max Waiting Time sounds a bit awkward, but might be more accurate too. The most time that can pass between posts before growing uncomfortable. I'm not actually picky, but if it were up to me I'd go for something like that.

The discussion so far is about when I'll be available to make posts (possibly accommodating for when I'm vaguely available and when i can focus intensely). That's about finding time overlap to work together.

How long I'll wait is not "more accurate", it's an entirely different piece of information for an entirely different purpose unrelated to finding out when we can sync up.

A max wait time could be valuable (I don't need it personally), but it doesn't address what we're after here. It's solving a different problem. I suggest you may want to create your own feedback item to discuss it. It doesn't, however, accomplish what we're going for here.

I thought Rem introduced this feedback, who sounds very much focused on the time between individual posts, not time between sit-down sessions. I do see use in both too. Sorry about that!

Blagh you're right I take back what I said. Looks like I was misremembering this and confusing it with an entirely different (related) suggestion about availability. I apologise.

It's alright! I'm honestly usually the one misunderstanding these types of things, hahah.