Remove the delay on calling trusts after inviting a player

[radar]

If you invite a player to a party, you have to wait 4-5 minutes before you can summon trusts.

Remove this, it makes people not want to group up for job points etc

[Zenion]

It would be nice if you at least got to see how long you had left before you could call trusts.

There's a workaround for this if it's a problem for you specifically though: the player who invited a new party member is on Trust cooldown, not the party. Pass lead to somebody to invite a new party member, then have them pass lead back and you can pop your NPCs immediately.

[Alhanelem]

Yeah, I think the delay is there to make things more annoying for bots- thats why the workaround still exists lol

[Gwydion]

SE specifically called this delay when introducing trusts a method to avoid a "race condition". There's some technical limitation that requires the inviting player to wait 2 minutes.

[BobbinT]

Just recently found out about this limitation when cleaving on Escha-Zitah. While the other member can wait, it does felt a bit irritate. However, with reason being tech limitation, this reminds me on last night doing Incursion for Vanabout & strangely found that I can't enter instance & had to spam entry dozens of time before I could. Guess that's limitations 4 ya. ^^;

[radar]

SE specifically called this delay when introducing trusts a method to avoid a "race condition". There's some technical limitation that requires the inviting player to wait 2 minutes.

You can circumvent it by swapping leader, so it's just an annoyance. I have to send a tell to the other person, then ask them to invite me, then ask them to give me leader then call trusts. If they are a new player this is like teaching a cat to build a rocket ship.

[FaithfulWafa]

You can circumvent it by swapping leader, so it's just an annoyance. I have to send a tell to the other person, then ask them to invite me, then ask them to give me leader than call trusts. If they are a new player this is like teaching a cat to built a rocket ship.

Yeah, I get it where he's coming from. The race conditions exists from the perspective of just one-player, so they can't make it shorter/faster/easier in a way that is called "deterministic". For example: In this case, should SE remove the lock-out and prevent inconsistency in how party information, is synchronized? If yes, who should they change leader to? Pick a person at random? What if it is just a part of 1 actual player? etc etc.

[Alhanelem]

For those who don't know what's being talked about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition)Basically there is a potential issue with the trust system that is dependent on seperate systems, and the delay on summoning trusts after inviting party members was implemented as a measure to prevent that issue from occuring. Presumably if you summoned trusts quickly after inviting party members, it could cause undesirable/unexpected behaviors. But it seems like changing party leaders also mitigates this issue.

[Zenion]

For those who don't know what's being talked about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition)Basically there is a potential issue with the trust system that is dependent on seperate systems, and the delay on summoning trusts after inviting party members was implemented as a measure to prevent that issue from occuring. Presumably if you summoned trusts quickly after inviting party members, it could cause undesirable/unexpected behaviors. But it seems like changing party leaders also mitigates this issue.

It'd be interesting to hear what the actual conflict is. Seems like it would be between party member count and maximum trusts summonable, since party leader enmity is all that matters for trusts (so it's not checks against the new member on enmity tables), level sync dismisses trusts and should do a head count, so it shouldn't be there...

Pity all the people trying to make their own version of the server backend code hate Trust (since it came out after the 75-cap days), it would be interesting to hear if their implementation has the same issue or if it's an artifact of systems being built on top of systems with no way to know what the final result would look like. I know, I know, private servers bad, I'm not endorsing the idea of them, but why pretend they don't exist when that gives you another angle to look at a programming puzzle from?

[Catmato]

Pretty sure it's the same duration as the timeout for accepting a party invite. This way you can't invite someone, wait, fill the party with trusts, then have them accept the invite to join thus making a party with too many people.

Changing party leaders also renders previous party invites inactive which is why the workaround works.

[Zenion]

Yeah, that tracks - the delay starts on sending the invite, not on having the new member join. Though... you'd think it could have been just "you can't call trusts with party invitations pending."

[Alhanelem]

Pretty sure it's the same duration as the timeout for accepting a party invite. This way you can't invite someone, wait, fill the party with trusts, then have them accept the invite to join thus making a party with too many people.

Changing party leaders also renders previous party invites inactive which is why the workaround works.

This seems the most likely explanation. Although, it has always been possible to over-invite a party, people who accept those invitations, it's just like it timed out.