Waxahachie
 member, 144 posts
 The horn that wakes
 the sleepers
Tue 24 Jan 2017
at 13:47
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Alternatively, you could specify your desired posting rate in your game ad and RTJ. It would attract players who your pace appeals to, and discourage players who are too slow for that. You may get a few who think they can handle the pace but can't, but that will sort itself out soon enough.
Mr Crinkles
 member, 1128 posts
 Spectaculorum procedere
 debet.
Tue 24 Jan 2017
at 15:03
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
   Plus One from me. I'm not a highly active poster, and it has caused problems in games I've joined. I think it would benefit everyone if both the GM and the Players knew upfront what sort of posting rate was expected.
bigbadron
 moderator, 15261 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Tue 24 Jan 2017
at 15:08
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
One alternative would be to consider asking the GM about his expected posting rate before doing a full RtJ.  After all, the two of you need to start communicating at some point...
Houdini
 member, 62 posts
Tue 24 Jan 2017
at 22:03
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
-1 to the original suggestion.

+1 to BBR's suggestion to try communicating with the GM.  ;)
horus
 member, 41 posts
 Wayfarer of the
 Western Wastes
Wed 25 Jan 2017
at 00:53
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
In reply to Houdini (msg # 20):

Wasn't the original suggestion to be able to filter games in a search by expected posting rate (e.g., "highly active" games) before joining?

From what I'm reading it seems the definition of "highly active" varies from person to person.  This presents an impediment to ever developing an effective filter unless it is rules-based, and a rules-based filter can be a headache to a developer for many reasons I won't get into here.

Bigbadron has the right of it - communication between GM and potential players prior to joining is the best means to understand what expectations are set for a game.

Just to use my game for an example, I expect players to post at least once a week, and advise them I intend to post on Thursday evenings to resolve any results, but more often when I can.  So far, we've not had a problem with pacing because everyone playing understands the amount of "flex" in the expectation.

To me, being "highly active" means more than just posting at a high rate, but others may feel differently.  Knowing more about what DeadSlayer54 wants to accomplish with this suggested feature might help.
Skald
 moderator, 757 posts
 Whatever it is,
 I'm against it
Wed 25 Jan 2017
at 12:52
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Talking with the GM is absolutely fine, and unless it's a very strange game indeed, is bound to happen sooner or later ... but it'd still be easier if that information was available without every person who lodges an RTJ having to ask and the GM having to reply to each.  Can't be too many players or GM's who are indifferent to a fast or slow posting rate.  :>

The original discussion moved away from slow/fast terminology and went for ranges of number of times per day/per week.  Thus 2-3 times per week might be slow for one person and fast for another, but acceptable to both (or not).

For the record, and taken from the linked thread, this was what was proposed (ahem, disclaimer: admittedly by myself):

Not specified
multiple per day
1 per day
3-4 per week
2-3 per week
1 per week
Other
To be agreed


And of course, I'm a +1 to that. ;>
Utsukushi
 member, 1400 posts
 I should really stay out
 of this, I know...but...
Wed 25 Jan 2017
at 16:11
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
But what, exactly, does it count?

Someone's posting rate on RPoL, generally, doesn't really reflect their posting rate for single games.  If someone is in, say, fourteen games, and posts in two of them each day, that means they're posting twice a day on RPoL, but once a week in each game.  So is that "multiple per day", or "1 per week"?

On the other hand, if we try to take an `average' of the games they're in, we're going to have a whole new debate about player's being able to remove themselves from games -- because if the GM disappears and you have a game sitting there for a year and a half with no posts, that's going to pull your posting rate down.  And of course, we could just have more people pestering the Mods to remove them the first time the GM blinks, but what if someone just wants to keep an inactive game for, well, whatever reason?  Possibly because it was awesome.  I have five of those on my stickylist right now, plus one "game discussion forum" that, just because of its nature, gets a small flurry of posts, like... quarterly, and which I actually post in maybe once a year.

Clearly, those are going to drag my average down -- so an average number of posts-per-game also doesn't reliably reflect someone's posting rate for single games.

I'm also in games that have, you know, different posting rates.  I mostly like what I consider medium-paced games, but considering that's 1-2/week, that seems to be near the bottom of your list.  I find that having a number of those generally gives me, you know, things to do, but without the constant pressure of knowing the other players are having aneurysms refreshing every 30 seconds waiting for my input*.  BUT, I have found, over the last couple years, that when there's a fast paced game that looks especially cool... I really can keep up with one without feeling stressed about it.  I mean, I am on RPoL daily.  Now, could I convince a GM of that when my `average' is clearly at the bottom of the list?  Probably not, and that would have locked me out of some pretty awesome games with GMs who, I am pretty sure, did not regret including me.

Self-identification is the only thing I can even see, and we all know that an "Opt-in" system is only going to get a handful of people actually marking themselves -- and almost all of those will be at the top end of the scale, because those are the people actually stressing about this.  And if you're self-identifying anyway, why not just self-identify yourself when you send an RtJ, and more accurately describe your situation right now?  ("Normally I post daily, but with finals/holidays/etc. coming up, I might be a bit slow this month," is pretty common at certain times of year, but suspiciously absent from your list.)  And of course, it relies on people to be both honest and accurate, and keep it updated when their life changes.

The only thing that really does reflect a particular player's posting rate for a particular game is their posting rate for that game.  And... by the time you have that, it's too late.  The GM has already let them in, they've been there for like a year, and you probably don't need the system to tell you if they've been posting or not.

Plus, if you do, it's already right there in the Cast List.



*-Though, who can blame them? Could be awesome!
Skald
 moderator, 759 posts
 Whatever it is,
 I'm against it
Fri 27 Jan 2017
at 04:37
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Hoping Utsukushi was responding to earlier threads, not my msg above (#22) - but just to clarify to easy my confusion, those proposed posting rate categories are intended only for a GM to set in relation to a particular game.   So game, not players.   :>

Thus if GM is looking for 1-2 posts for week, you know how many posts that is ... if you think that's fast and another player thinks that's medium and yet another player thinks it's slow, it doesn't matter - everyone knows the rate required.
Vinny
 member, 557 posts
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 14:16
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
As the player who started the post linked to, it was a little frustrating that people got hung up on "Medium? One per day? That's fast/slow for me". As you say, specifying the number of posts expected, without any qualifying adjective, would work fine.

Since in my experience the mismatch of posting speeds is one of the main reasons for player/GM attrition, I fail to see the problem with allowing a GM to set his preferred posting speed. If you made it searchable this would be even better.

As it is I just make sure I qualify my posting speed in my Player Wanted posts. A lot of GMs don't do this though...
steelsmiter
 member, 1688 posts
 AWE, BESM, Fate, Indies
 NO FREEFORM! NO d20!
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 14:25
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Vinny:
A lot of GMs don't do this though...

Some of us have found that if you don't read it in the RTJ information, you probably aren't going to be that attentive to the rest of the game's needs. Some like me have medical situations that make pinning down a specific level of posts impractical as some weeks are better than others. My common statement is that I'll try for a minimum of 2/week, but my medical situation may not even facilitate that. But as the system currently is, I have the ability to make that statement, rather than just clicking a box and (potentially) ruining everyone's expectations. And judging by a lack of response in some of the discussions I have set up, I probably have already ruined a few expectations.

This message was last edited by the user at 14:26, Sun 05 Feb.

Vinny
 member, 558 posts
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 14:27
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
That's fine. People in your situation can just not use this completely optional feature, just like some GMs fill in the system box and some don't.
bigbadron
 moderator, 15269 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 14:36
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Yes it's an optional feature, and it already exists for those who want to use it it.

A GM who wants to specify a posting rate simply includes it in his game ad and/or game info page, emphasising it as he sees fit (bold/italics/coloured text).
steelsmiter
 member, 1689 posts
 AWE, BESM, Fate, Indies
 NO FREEFORM! NO d20!
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 16:07
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
bigbadron:
Yes it's an optional feature, and it already exists for those who want to use it it.

Thanks, I was trying to imply that with my comment, but I suppose sometimes an outright statement is necessary.
Vinny
 member, 559 posts
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 16:26
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
That would also have been an argument against introducing the game system and genre information too. I am glad jase did.
jase
 admin, 3527 posts
 Cogito, ergo procuro.
 Carpe stultus!
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 16:56
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
I've certainly got nothing against providing as much helpful information to members as possible, but careful consideration must be given before a new option is implemented.  More information is, as a standalone consideration, a good thing, but we could end up with a clutter of too much information and too many options.

Sure there's room now but, in my opinion, that alone is not enough reason for something to be added.  There will come a time when we've got too many options and/or information and end up with cluttered and confusing screens.

So when considering this request my hesitation comes from the fact that it's very easily replicated within the message text.  Does it really need to be an option?  What will making it an option do other than to make something that some people want being what all members would then have?  Is it an improvement for the people posting in this thread or is it an improvement for all members?

There's lots of information that a GM should supply for their game.  Posting rate, type of game, what resources are allowed, how many spots free/in total, the list goes on.  They all can't be options.  There should be a certain... affinity for the written word when using a site such at this, do we really need a checklist instead?

The flip side brings in the one piece of game information I avoided above, and that's game systems.  That was added as an option as there was a massive demonstrated need (not just want) for games to have their system mentioned, so much so that there was a whole abbreviation list that BBR maintained that a lot of GMs used (prefixing their game name with the system abbreviation).  "MERP: There and back again", "DnD: Pool of Radiance" etc etc would be on the main menu.  I'm not convinced that posting rate is so desperately wanted and needs to be searchable.  You're welcome to try and convince me otherwise but that's my gut feeling on the matter.
bigbadron
 moderator, 15270 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 17:04
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
The difference being that game system and genre make a difference as to whether or not a player even looks at an ad.  Once they see that the system/genre are of interest to them they look at the ad to find out further information.

While they might search for "all Traveller games", or "all westerns" in order to determine which ads to read, I don't believe anybody would search for "all games with posting rate X", without regard to system or genre.

Bearing in mind that you can't put ALL information on the W-P menu page, there has to be some selectivity on what information is displayed.

Some things, such as the posting rate ("I'm looking for players who can post at least 4 times per week, more if there's an action scene, but less over holiday periods") are much better placed in the ad itself.
Vinny
 member, 560 posts
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 17:16
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Although I would not search exclusively for games posting X times a week, I would certainly include posting speed as one of my search criteria, especially as, according to this poll (/rpoll.cgi) 78.5% of the games returned by my search are going to be too fast for me.

Honestly Ron, it feels like we have been having this argument for over I decade and I still don't understand why you are so dead set against such an innocuous and helpful addition to the multiple ways we can already classify our games :(
Vinny
 member, 561 posts
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 17:19
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Apols jase, hadn't noticed you also posted a lengthy answer already. All I can say is, for me posting speed would be at least as useful as genre (although not at useful as system).

But that may be because my slow posting speed is in the minority :)
bigbadron
 moderator, 15271 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 17:28
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
quote:
I still don't understand why you are so dead set against such an innocuous and helpful addition to the multiple ways we can already classify our games

As I said, there is only a certain amount of information that will fit on the menu screens, and some things are, in my opinion, better suited to being placed elsewhere.  Simple as that.
Vinny
 member, 562 posts
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 17:33
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Fair enough. I cast Dispel Vinny... until the stars are right again :)
Utsukushi
 member, 1402 posts
 I should really stay out
 of this, I know...but...
Sun 5 Feb 2017
at 17:41
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
OK -- first, quick apology to Skald.  You're right, I hadn't quite caught the shift of focus.  This take on this idea really started with the idea of the system somehow analyzing people and kind of enforcing their posting rate.  Yours (and Vinny's) is just to create a place for a GM to show what they're expecting somewhere, and I agree, most of what I said just doesn't apply to that.

Except, as BBR brought back up, the more realistic variability I see in almost all games, and the fact that while there isn't a window anywhere that says, "Posting Rate:", there already are several places for a GM to include this in whatever detail they want without us having to pre-define anything for anybody.

Also... posting rates change.  Game system and genre rarely change.  But posting rates... I mean, not only are they fluid in that, `except on the holidays' kind of way, but a lot of GMs, when setting up their games, expect to move much faster than ends up happening.  It's an exciting time, you know?  But will they update it in the second month when things slow down?  A few, of course, but not most.  Most people will set that when they're creating the game, and then forget about it.

Granted, that's equally true whether they've put it in a searchable field or just written, "And I'll be updating every three minutes!" in their Game Info field.  But a frequently-inaccurate searchable field sounds like more trouble to me.

jase:
I'm not convinced that posting rate is so desperately wanted and needs to be searchable.

I will agree with Vinny that posting rate is pretty much the second thing I think about.  That's not exactly what he said.  I will say all for myself that posting rate is pretty much the second thing I think about, and agree with Vinny that an unclear posting rate is probably the biggest potential problem that can knock single players out of a game, in either direction.

Yes, system is absolutely first.  Who the GM is might be first-and-a-half -- I mean, if I happen to recognize the GM as one I've played with before, then whether they were good or bad totally trumps posting rate.  But that's rare and... coincidental, really.  But once I've found a game that looks interesting, posting rate is next.

...But then, of course, I want fields for How Long Is This Game Going To Last (1 year, 2 years, 5 years, Until The Stars Dim), Grammar Skills (Y/N), and No, Seriously, How Long Will It Really Last (2 days, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, Until The Stars Come And Pry It From Our Cold Dead Hands).


..And seeing the three posts that came in since I started writing this, it kind of doesn't apply anymore, but it amuses the heck out of me that Vinny and I were talking about stars at the same time, so I'm going to post anyway.
Skald
 moderator, 762 posts
 Whatever it is,
 I'm against it
Mon 6 Feb 2017
at 12:56
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
And my axe ! ;>

Yes, posting rate is a very important consideration for me, just after system (genre less so, because the systems I prefer don't generally allow enough genre variation to matter).  Won't even look at it if I'm not interested in the system ... and after that the first thing I look for is posting rate.  I absolutely wouldn't commit to a game that required a posting rate I couldn't maintain, no matter how good it sounded otherwise - because if I'm posting too slowly I'm putting the other players and the GM out (and feeling horribly guilty about it).

Yes posting rates are fluid, but my impression is that most games settle down to slower than expected, not faster (and slower works for me too).

Certainly GM's could include that information in the text of the advert or elsewhere ... but at least in the games I'm looking at they don't.  The idea behind setting a standard and an option is that it becomes a quick click for the GM so it is easier for them to do it and to remember to do it.

Yes I can always ask if the information isn't in the advert or game information or RTJ threads, but it would definitely be easier for me if that information was available up front, and I've argued above that it's better for other players and GM (former don't all have to ask separately, latter doesn't have to answer everyone) ... but if it's not something that enough people worry about, then absolutely the feature isn't worth the time to add if it's only going to be useful to the few not the many.

"type of game, what resources are allowed, how many spots free/in total ?" nope, none of those are particularly important to me - I'll work with whatever sourcebooks are allowed, I'll put up a character if there's one spot or twenty if it sounds interesting enough ... "How Long Is This Game Going To Last ?" I'll be there as a player until it dies (actually for a long time after in some cases) but I won't be there at all if I can't maintain the posting rate.
Sir Swindle
 member, 143 posts
Mon 6 Feb 2017
at 13:11
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Having just a "special posting requirements" as a genre checkbox would be easy, no? Would be searchable that way and you can put the details in the description, or the title. Get on it and develop a shorthand to put in titles for stuff like that (not that that last part would be a dev responsibility).

Like the OP mentioned that he sits and clicks the button every 5 seconds. He didn't mention that he sleeps and goes to visit his mima on Wednesdays and eats dinner and poops out dinner. So you can't just have Extremely active as a 'thing' anyway, you would have to say extremely active between 10 and 2 eastern time or something like that. Which just doesn't seem to be in the cards as far as an inherent game option.

It is however a standard thing on roll20 which you should probably just be using if you are expecting to have a consistent real time dialogue rather than waiting for forum posts.

Sorry I didn't read all of everything for this discussion. But I only got bored enough to care recently.
Alex Vriairu
 member, 396 posts
Tue 7 Feb 2017
at 00:51
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
Perhaps everyone is looking at this the wrong way, or backwards.

We already have a System that won't let you Post an Advert if your not flagged as looking for players, and a system that coppies a request to join message to the top of any post when requesting to join?

why not when posting said advert we have a nice big Red message that says please include a posting rate in your ad.  Thereby reminding Gms to do it, and/or adding a check box on the post message saying "Yes I did in fact include a post rate."


This wouldn't be searchable persay.. but it would get the information out there.
Sir Swindle
 member, 144 posts
Tue 7 Feb 2017
at 01:03
Re: Suggestion: Requesting Highly Active Players option
If you care about it you will put it in you ad. The issue is you can't filter ones that have particular posting requirements. That is why I just said add a single box to the list of boxes we already have.