mirror of
https://github.com/liyunfan1223/mod-playerbots.git
synced 2026-06-20 23:49:25 +02:00
51 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
kadeshar
|
19249e90a0
|
Pull strategy migration (#2310)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Pull strategy migration from cmangos for tank specializations
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
1. Invite bot tank
2. Use `reset boAI` or `nc +pull,+pull back` + `co +pull,+pull back`
3. Order bot to pull using command `pull my target` or `pull rti target`
4. Bot should run to mob, use ranged skill and back to point where he
started pull
Without `pull back` strategy bot run to mob, use ranged skill and wait
on mob until he come to bot
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Help with migration and solving some problems
<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [ ] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
Stability test after randomize new bots
<img width="465" height="172" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6e39a8c0-f23b-47cc-852a-71fa98044a31"
/>
---------
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
Crow
|
937b4903bb
|
Fix Potential Dereference in AttackAction (#2308)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
AttackAction::Attack() uses target before checking it. This has never
historically been a problem for me, but yesterday it was somehow causing
me to crash every time I ordered a bot to attack. Rebuilding didn't
solve the issue so it didn't seem to be a bad build. The problem was
fixed by moving the target check to the beginning of the function.
I restored the function to its existing ordering today and tested again,
and somehow I don't crash anymore regardless. I'm confused as hell, but
regardless, this is a fix that should be made.
## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->
<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
Order bots to "attack" a target.
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
I had GPT-5.4 try to help me identify the source of the crash. I
couldn't trace it to any particular PR, but it did identify the issue
that is the subject of this PR.
<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
53a607e147
|
Enable bots to do Outdoor pvp (#2217)
## Pull Request Description Bots will now engage with outdoor pvp targets when in an area with them. I carved this out of the guildrpg system Im working on since it should work just fine as a standalone. Note this requires a core update https://github.com/azerothcore/azerothcore-wotlk/pull/25103 ## Feature Evaluation Its not expensive. the status checks are fairly light and simple. Should be on par with current rpg system actions ## How to Test the Changes You can try to use selfbot to enable this while in EPL, or set the probability of all other rpg actions to 0. ## Impact Assessment <!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon tick) can help you here. --> - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - [ ] No, not at all - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) There is some impact, but should be minimal overall. - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (**explain why**) It will activate automatically based on default config. - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (**explain below**) ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> Nothing beyond search functionality and autocomplete. ## Final Checklist - [x] Stability is not compromised. - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> --------- Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com> |
||
|
Boidl
|
ae9b76aaa5
|
Fix Undead/Draenei bots stuck in starting zones (#2298)
## Pull Request Description
Undead and Draenei bots get stuck in an idle/rest loop in their starting
zones because the default NPC scan range (150f) and quest giver filter
(80f) are too small and not enough. NPCs fall within range for
`WANDER_NPC` to activate (requires >= 3).
This adds a configurable area-based override that increases both ranges
to 200f only in affected areas. All other zones remain at default
values.
## Feature Evaluation
- **Minimum logic**: One `std::set::count()` lookup per `Calculate()`
call to check if the bot's current area is in the override list. If yes,
scan range is 200f instead of 150f.
- **Processing cost**: `GetAreaId()` is a cached uint32 read (~1ns).
`std::set::count()` on a 2-element set is O(log n) ≈ 1 comparison.
Negligible compared to the grid scan itself (~33,000-53,000ns).
## How to Test the Changes
1. Create Undead or Draenei bots (level 1)
2. Observe that they pick up quests and start moving in Deathknell/Ammen
Vale
3. Without this fix, they sit in REST status indefinitely
4. Optionally add/remove area IDs via
`AiPlayerbot.RpgScanRangeOverrideAreaIds` in playerbots.conf
## Impact Assessment
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- [x] Minimal impact
- pmon data (500 bots, extended run):
- Default 150f: 0.033ms avg
- Global 200f: 0.053ms avg
- Area check (this PR): 0.042ms avg
- The 0.009ms increase over default is caused by bots currently in
starting zones scanning at 200f. Bots outside override areas are
unaffected.
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- [x] No
- Uses the existing `LoadSet`/`std::set` config pattern already used
throughout the codebase.
## AI Assistance
- [x] Yes
- Used AI to speed up understanding the codebase, locate relevant
functions, and compare with the cmangos playerbots implementation. All
code was reviewed and tested manually.
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
The root cause is that `WANDER_NPC` requires `possibleTargets.size() >=
3`, but sparse starting zones have fewer than 3 NPC-flagged units within
150f. Increasing the scan range to 200f brings enough NPCs into range
for the status check to pass. The override is configurable via
`AiPlayerbot.RpgScanRangeOverrideAreaIds` so server admins can add more
areas without code changes.
|
||
|
kadeshar
|
7cc00e6283
|
Focus heal targets strategy migration (#2254)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Migration for "focus heal targets" strategy which order healer to focus
only on specified targets
Commands:
`nc +focus heal targets`
`co +focus heal targets`
`focus heal +botName`
`focus heal -botName`
`focus heal ?`
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
- create bots party with at least one healer
- apply to healer strategy
- order healer focus on single bot
- start fight (for example with dummy)
- use `.damage 10000` to bots a watch which are healed directly and
which one only via aoe healing
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
focus_heal_not_healer | I''m not a healer or offhealer (please change my
strats to heal or offheal)
focus_heal_provide_names | Please provide one or more player names
focus_heal_no_targets | I don''t have any focus heal targets
focus_heal_current_targets | My focus heal targets are %targets
focus_heal_cleared | Removed focus heal targets
focus_heal_add_remove_syntax | Please specify a + for add or - to remove
a target
focus_heal_not_in_group | I''m not in a group
focus_heal_not_in_group_with | I''m not in a group with %player_name
focus_heal_added | Added %player_name to focus heal targets
focus_heal_removed | Removed %player_name from focus heal targets
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
OpenCode, to help migrate strategy
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [ ] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
From tests:
<img width="515" height="471" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ed6a2bce-e3b1-4fce-ba6f-1a2b10673c61"
/>
Its optional strategy mostly for raiders then performance is not a
issue.
---------
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
|
||
|
kadeshar
|
51a0d643b6
|
Crashfix for wait for attack (#2303)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Fixed crash related with setting height for new best safe spot.
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
1. Create raid group
2. Go to Molten Core
3. Add wait for attack strategy to bot and set time
4. Attack mob
5. If bot/bots will wait set time and server dont crash then is ok
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
To find existing method which safetly get height for specific point.
<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
|
||
|
bash
|
03db0c34b2 | improving RPG traveland minimize wierd path selections but still happen | ||
|
bash
|
cd16f6baf1 | z-axe clamping to prevent clipping throught the map | ||
|
kadeshar
|
a87999bef5
|
Berserker Rage support (#2261)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> Added Berserker Rage usage (in combat and outside combat) for Warrior (all specs) Related with: #1755 ## How to Test the Changes <!-- - Step-by-step instructions to test the change. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). - Expected behavior and how to verify it. --> - invite warrior to party - [optional] start combat (for example with dummy) - use command `.aura 6215` - bot should cast Berserker Rage ## Impact Assessment <!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon tick) can help you here. --> - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - - [x] No, not at all - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) Warriors use Berserker Rage when they got fear, sleep or sap - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> - Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> - Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> Copilot CLI to review ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> <img width="324" height="125" alt="obraz" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e502f1c1-88f4-42a1-b07b-fc9ef3fd318b" /> [Berserker Rage performance test.txt](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26333365/Berserker.Rage.performance.test.txt) |
||
|
Chris Lacy
|
579f972666
|
fix: invert NoRtiTrigger condition so mark rti strategy works (#2256)
## Summary - `NoRtiTrigger::IsActive()` returns `target != nullptr`, meaning it only fires when a raid icon is **already** assigned — creating a chicken-and-egg problem where the bot never places the first mark - Invert to `target == nullptr` so the trigger fires when **no** mark exists, prompting `MarkRtiAction` to mark the lowest-HP unmarked attacker - Once a mark is placed, the trigger stops firing until the marked target dies ## Test plan - [ ] Add `mark rti` strategy to a tank bot via `co +mark rti` - [ ] Enter combat with multiple mobs — bot should auto-mark lowest HP target with skull - [ ] Verify mark persists until target dies, then bot marks next target - [ ] Verify no marking occurs out of combat 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Crow
|
15bf0ab427
|
Fix Shaman Weapon Enchants & Cure Toxins/Cleanse Spirit (#2234)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> 1. I've been having persistent issues with Enhancement Shamans sometimes applying Rockbiter to both weapons instead of MH Windfury and OH Flametongue. Rockbiter is the alternative for Flametongue and, through Flametongue, the alternative for Windfury. But there seemed to be no obvious reason why a Shaman that had all three abilities would ever use Rockbiter, which costs more mana than Windfury and Flametongue. Claude's take on it is that there is instability from ItemForSpellValue related to its poor way of distinguishing handedness, in addition to it having a 1-second cache, which can cause in some scenarios stale caches for the action running on each hand back-to-back. I still can't say I fully understand why the issue exists, but the most straightforward fix that should prevent this from happening is to just have separate mainhand and offhand actions for each enchant. So that's what this PR does. The relevant ActionNodes are now: - The MH-specific chain for Enhancement is WF -> FT -> RB. In practice, Enhancement should never apply RB because all Shamans under level 10 (when FT is learned) are considered Elemental. The FT -> RB node is just for Elemental. - The MH-specific Resto chain (not that Resto can dual-wield) is EL -> FT -> RB. Againt, FT -> RB is just for Elemental. - OH for Enhancement is only FT. You cannot be Enhancement before level 10, nor can Enhancement dual-wield before level 40, so no alternative is needed. 3. I commented out Frostbrand Weapon actions/triggers because the ability is not included in any strategy. I didn't delete the code because in the future somebody might want to implement it as I understand it can be useful for Enhancement Shamans in PvP. 4. Shamans are coded to use "cure poison" and "cure disease", which do not exist in WotLK, having been combined into Cure Toxins. Wishmaster has PR #1844 that has been open on this for a long time, but I decided to correct the abilities here anyway as he was going for a more limited approach, and I decided to rename all the actions and redo the structure to rely on ActionNode alternatives, which is pretty much the exact framework that should be used for this type of situation w/r/t bots. Now, Shamans prefer Cleanse Spirit (Resto talent, which costs the same as Cure Toxins and also dispels curses), with an alternative of Cure Toxins (for poisons and disease only). I tested this and it seems to work well. 5. I deleted empty ActionNodes. 6. I did some cleanup of formatting and such, but this is not intended to be a comprehensive refactor. ## Feature Evaluation <!-- If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and it is very obvious it will not have any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a maintainer may ask you for them later. --> <!-- Please answer the following: --> - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior. - Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many bots. I've followed the general intended structure of class strategies with triggers and actions. The same triggers exist, just different actions are called based on the trigger that fires, so I don't think there should be any impact on performance. ## How to Test the Changes <!-- - Step-by-step instructions to test the change. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). - Expected behavior and how to verify it. --> The best way to get a grasp on if things work is probably to just do group play for a while with Shamans and make sure they apply the right enchants and properly cast Cleanse Spirit and Cure Toxins. ## Impact Assessment <!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon tick) can help you here. --> - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - - [x] No, not at all - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) Shamans previously did not cure poisons or disease at all, and now they do with the default "cure" strategy applied. - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) One might say having separate actions per hand for enchants is somewhat more complex, but ultimately I think it is less confusing to keep those paths separate. ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> I had Claude try to diagnose the weapon enchant issue. It proposed and provided the separate MH/OH WF/FT actions. The other things were easy enough for me to do. ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com> |
||
|
kadeshar
|
76dd91c4fa
|
Hand of Freedom support (#2233)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description Added Hand of Freedom action for paladin. Related with: #2002 ## How to Test the Changes <!-- - Step-by-step instructions to test the change. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). - Expected behavior and how to verify it. --> - invite paladin bot to party - start fight (can use dummy target) - apply some snare effect to bot or yourself (for example `.aura 1715`) - bot should use hand of freedom ## Impact Assessment <!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon tick) can help you here. --> - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - - [x] No, not at all - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) Yes, paladin bots start using Hand of Freedom - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> - Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> - Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> OpenCode, as helper to create and review code ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> <img width="424" height="93" alt="obraz" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3cac4454-35af-474d-8ea0-67c462973c79" /> |
||
|
Keleborn
|
7fa9ab7d34
|
Module update for CollisionChange (#2242)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Some code changes due to core update change from MMapFactory.h
->MapCollisionData.h
## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->
<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [X] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Identifying problematic areas generated by the change
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
|
||
|
bashermens
|
ac99f45696
|
Bugfix(issue-1878): floating players in certain conditions (#2245)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/1878 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-HO-OosP0oY ## Feature Evaluation <!-- If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and it is very obvious it will not have any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a maintainer may ask you for them later. --> <!-- Please answer the following: --> - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior. - Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many bots. ## How to Test the Changes <!-- - Step-by-step instructions to test the change. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). - Expected behavior and how to verify it. --> ## Impact Assessment <!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon tick) can help you here. --> - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - - [x] No, not at all - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> - Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> - Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com> |
||
|
kadeshar
|
6db44b5296
|
Will of the forsaken (#2231)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> Added Will of the Forsaken support. Made structure fix for affected files. Partially resolves: #2002 ## How to Test the Changes <!-- - Step-by-step instructions to test the change. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). - Expected behavior and how to verify it. --> - create/invite undead bot - start fight (you can use dummy target) - use `.aura 6215` to fear bot - bot should use "Will of the Forsaken" to remove debuff ## Impact Assessment <!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon tick) can help you here. --> - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - - [x] No, not at all - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) Undead bot use now "Will of the Forsaken" to remove charm, fear or sleep. - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> - Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> - Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> OpenCode to review changes ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> <img width="325" height="77" alt="obraz" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/729cfdf8-3742-457c-9278-7fcce824e6d0" /> --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
kadeshar
|
bbd9d3e37a
|
Wait for attack strategy migration (#2211)
## Pull Request Description Migration of "wait for attack" strategy from cmangos playerbots. Resolves: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/990 ## Feature Evaluation Optional strategy for bots which are in party with real player. ## How to Test the Changes - add strategy to bot "nc +wait for attack" and "co +wait for attack" - set time via command "wait for attack time x" where x is time which they wait in seconds (you should get response from bot) - attack any target (for example dummy in main city)(bot should wait with attack) ## Impact Assessment - [ ] No, not at all - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) Performance wise only bots having this optinal strategy have additional cost in multiplier which check every attack action that should be execute. - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) ## Messages to Translate Does this change add bot messages to translate? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | 1740 | Please provide a time to set (in seconds) 1741 | Please provide valid time to set (in seconds) between 0 and 99 1742 | Wait for attack time set to %new_time seconds ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> Copilot CLI - help with migration ## Final Checklist - [x] Stability is not compromised. - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> |
||
|
kadeshar
|
d0d1171e06
|
Fixed typo (#2230)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Fixed typo
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
- compile test-staging with 20260320-ac-merge
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
9f875a7c81
|
CoreUpdate - ThreatMgr (#2228)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Modification to threat system required for current core update PR.
## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->
<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Claude. Module search for changes made. It also identified a section of
dead code in EnemyPlayerValue due to incorrect ref that was fixed.
## Final Checklist
- - [X] Stability is not compromised.
- - [X] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [X] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [X] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
|
||
|
kadeshar
|
98395a1090
|
Added cancellation druid form actions (#2194)
# Pull Request Added new (for now manual) actions to cancel druid forms. Resolve: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/1788 --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - order bot enter some form like `do travel form` - order bot cancel form like `do cancel travel form` --- ## How to Test the Changes - order bot enter some form like `do travel form` - order bot cancel form like `do cancel travel form` ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) - --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- |
||
|
kadeshar
|
c6a07ad012
|
Every Man for Himself racial support (#2198)
# Pull Request Added Every Man for Himself racial support Partially resolves: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/2002 --- ## How to Test the Changes - when human bot is in combat apply aura via command `.aura 20066` - bot should use "Every Man for Himself" to remove aura ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) Human bots now using "Every Man for Himself" by default where in combat If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Copilot CLI to review changes --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Test result: <img width="358" height="97" alt="obraz" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/66044a93-d73b-4706-ae2f-ea8ae6e25438" /> |
||
|
Crow
|
cba6af27ad
|
Fix Assassination Rogue Finishers and add Cold Blood (#2215)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
**Note for reviewers**: The Rogue files are very confusing, so for
background, there is DpsRogueStrategy, which is for all Rogues and
represented by the “dps” strategy in game, and there is also
AssassinationRogueStrategy, which is for Assassination and Subtlety
specs and represented by the “melee” strategy in game. So Combat has
only the dps strategy, while Assassination and Subtlety have the dps and
melee strategies.
- The main focus of this PR is to fix an issue with Assassination Rogues
that caused them to use Eviscerate instead of Envenom about 1/3 of the
time they should have been using Envenom, which was significantly
reducing their DPS. See the bottom of this post for an explanation for
why this was happening and why the fix works. Well, LMK if you think
it's wrong, but this is how I am understanding things, and my
back-of-the-envelope math (also below) supports it.
- After this PR, Assassination Rogues will use Eviscerate only if they
are unable to use Envenom (don't have the ability learned or no Deadly
Poison on the target) or if they don’t have Rank 3 in Master Poisoner.
- Additionally, Assassination Rogues previously would use
Envenom/Eviscerate at 3 or more combo points. This is suboptimal so I
created a new “combo points 4 available” trigger that will fire at 4 or
5 combo points only. They will still use the finisher at 3 combo points
if the mob is almost dead (via the existing “target with combo points
almost dead” trigger).
- I then added Cold Blood, which Rogues previously would not use at all.
Now there is a ColdBloodAction(), and Cold Blood is used when a Rogue
has at least 4 combo points, right before using Envenom (or Eviscerate).
I implemented it as a standard BuffTrigger so they’ll just use the
ability off cooldown.
- While looking at the combo point triggers, I thought it was confusing
that the “combo points available” trigger actually meant 5 combo points
(presumably because the default parameter for combo points in
ComboPointsAvailableTrigger() is 5). I changed the string to “combo
points 5 available” so it’s less confusing going forward. This
necessitated some changes in the Druid files too.
- Next, I cleaned up DpsRogueStrategy a bit. Not a lot to say, just some
duplicative or useless logic was removed. There shouldn’t be any impact
on gameplay from the changes.
- In the process of making the edits in the Druid files, I noticed that
the trigger for Tiger’s Fury in OffhealDruidCatStrategy was “low
energy,” which does not exist (there is a “light energy available,” but
the EnergyAvailable triggers are for when energy is AT LEAST the
designated level, not AT MOST the designated level). So I replaced the
trigger with the already-existing “tiger’s fury” trigger, which I think
is just a generic BuffTrigger so I don’t actually know why it exists
(i.e., Druid will use the spell off cooldown). But this particular
change is just a quick fix and not intended to be thoughtful (that would
be outside the scope of this PR).
## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->
<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
There should be no relevant impact on performance. This PR adds one new
action triggered by the standard BuffTrigger. Otherwise, these are just
fixes to existing logic.
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
The easiest way to test is to fight a boss that doesn't tend to result
in downtime (since downtime can lead to the loss of deadly poison
stacks, in which case Eviscerate will (and should be) used by
Assassination Rogues). You can use a damage meter such as Skada to track
ability use. You should see:
- Assassination Rogues don't use Eviscerate at all, or very few times.
- Assassination Rogues use Cold Blood.
- Offheal Cat Druids use Tiger's Fury.
- Otherwise, Rogue and Cat Druid behavior should remain the same.
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- [x] No, not at all
- [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [ ] No
- [x] Yes (**explain why**)
Default behavior for Assassination Rogues was broken, as explained
above.
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [ ] No
- [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
I had Claude help me diagnose the initial issue and help me understand
the queue system. And I had it implement the changes that were just
busywork (like combo point triggers).
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
The reason for why Assassination Rogues were using Eviscerate so
frequently is due to the fact that Envenom and Eviscerate were part of
the same TriggerNode. When actions are part of the same TriggerNode,
they're processed together, and the actions are queued by priority. When
the higher-priority action is executed, the lower-priority action is not
cleared--it remains in the queue for expireActionTime from the config,
which is 5 seconds by default. Then, as soon as the lower-priority
action can be executed (without regard for triggers because it is
already triggered, just sitting in the queue), it will execute.
This pattern of code works fine ingame if (1) you are actually trying to
queue actions, like what I did with Cold Blood -> Envenom, (2) there are
other guards like IsUseful() and IsPossible() that keep unwanted actions
from executing, or (3) the trigger is just constantly firing so the
higher-priority action is always evaluated. But TriggerNode isn't really
the right way to implement action priority--that's through ActionNode.
AssassinationRogueStrategy had Envenom and Eviscerate in the same
TriggerNode, and then the corresponding ActionNode had Rupture as a
fallback. Now, I changed it so Eviscerate is instead a fallback in the
Envenom ActionNode (and Rupture is removed entirely because
Assassination Rogues just shouldn't be using it, except maybe on very
high-armor targets that are immune to poison, but that is very niche).
~
I did some back-of-the-envelope math to check this pattern. Say we're in
a situation where Deadly Poison is up so ideally the Rogue should use
Envenom 100% of the time. Through the old system, what would happen when
the trigger fired?
- Rogue uses Envenom since it's the higher-priority action.
- Due to the Ruthlessness talent, Rogue has a 60% chance of having 1
combo point after the finisher, 40% chance of 0 combo points. If it has
1 combo point, it uses Eviscerate immediately.
- If it has 0 combo points, it uses Mutilate. Mutilate grants 2 combo
points, unless it crits, in which case it grants 3 due to Seal Fate. If
Mutilate doesn't crit, the Rogue has 2 combo points, and it uses
Eviscerate. If Mutilate does crit, the Rogue has 3 combo points, and it
uses Envenom.
- So let's assume Mutilate has a 55% crit chance (very reasonable for a
Rogue in entry-level raid gear with raid buffs due to Opportunity giving
+20% crit chance to Mutilate). Mutilate hits twice, and if either hit
crits, Seal Fate Procs. The chance of at least one crit with two hits at
a 55% crit chance is ~80%. That means if Ruthlessness doesn't give a
combo point, there is an 80% chance that Envenom will be used and a 20%
chance that Eviscerate will be used.
- Combine the above, and the result of one trigger firing is you get 1
guaranteed Envenom + 0.6 Eviscerates (Ruthlessness proc path) + 0.32
Envenoms (No Ruthlessness proc but Seal Fate proc path) + 0.08
Eviscerates (No Ruthlessness proc and no Seal Fate proc path) = 1.32
Envenoms to each 0.68 Eviscerates, or a 1.94:1 ratio of Envenoms to
Eviscerates. That is basically identical to what I saw in practice of
roughly a 2:1 ratio of Envenoms to Eviscerates.
- I understand the above is simplistic and it assumes that the Rogue
gets a combo point within 5 seconds following using Envenom (very
likely) and that there are not two opportunities to use Envenom or
Eviscerate in the 5-second queue period after using Envenom (it can
happen but is uncommon). That's all at the margins and isn't going to
impact the math very much.
---------
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
957eca0263
|
Feat. Enable multi node flying, and refactor into travel manager (#2156)
# Pull Request Feature - Enable multi node flying for bots - Bots currently only do node to node flying. This PR makes it so they can connect multiple noted. -- This is enabled by sending a vector containing the node sequence instead of a single destination node -- To minimize the run-time cost of searching for available nodes and connection, a cache of all possible connections is prepared at start up using a BFS search algorithm. Refactor - Move all world destination logic (cities, banks, inns) to existing Travel manager - Eliminate flightmastercache and integrate to new manager - replace SQLs calls with in-memory data search by core - Add in new map that stores creature areas by template. Clean up - Move other rpg files to related folder. (Next steps) The selection for where bots fly to should be smarter than it is. Instead of trying to determine where a bot can go, it should first decide where it should go, and then identify the correct way to get there. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x[ No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) The call itself is fairly infrequent, and although now there are a greater number of paths available for the bots, I dont think it would be significant. ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Gemini first suggested the use of a BFS algorithm. This was rewritten by me to actually work as intended. Verification by additional logging not present in final code. Claude code converted the SQL filtering to the atrocious if statements found in PrepareDestinationCache, but after verifying them it works. If there are better ways to do this Im open to it. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
2ce8993986
|
Correct Loot rolling behavior (#2190)
# Pull Request This fixes the loot rolling behavior issue created by #2068 . Introduce the ability for enchanter bots to disenchant items they dont need, and roll need on recipes they also need. Make it so ITEM_USAGE_AH ensures the item is not BOP. Try to reduce the call for item_usage in CalculateRollVote by passing usage if available. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? -- Add a new check that downgrades greed rolls to desired levels, or bools for the other two options. - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? -- As implemented. - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? -- Same as before. Item usage is the heaviest part, and that hasnt changed to accommodate this. --- ## How to Test the Changes - multiple bots in a group with group loot on, do a dungeon or something. One bot should be an enchanter. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [X] Yes (**explain why**) - - - Corrects the looting behavior to original design. If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [X] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
ca19548cc5
|
Fix transport boarding when master is on a transport (Zep/Boats) (#1830)
Summary This PR improves Follow related behaviour when the master is on a transport (zeppelin/boat). It makes follow actions safer and less disruptive by: Detecting when the master is on a transport and handling boarding correctly Avoiding teleport-under-floor issues by using a small positional offset when teleporting the bot near the master Preventing movement conflicts between MoveSpline/MotionMaster and the transport driver by forcing a MotionMaster cleanup and MoveIdle after boarding Clearing movement flags (forward / walking) after boarding so the bot does not remain in a walking/march state Next-check delay after boarding to allow the server to update transport/position state Before this change, bots get stuck when attempting to board Fight the server-side transport movement because local MoveSpline/MotionMaster was still active Repeatedly attempt movement on every follow tick while already a passenger, causing jitter and CPU/noise This PR reduces stuck/jitter cases, avoids conflicting movement commands, and makes boarding more robust. **Key changes** Check master->GetTransport() and handle three main cases: If bot already passenger of same transport: stabilize (StopMoving, Clear(true), MoveIdle, StopMovingOnCurrentPos) and set a longer next-check delay; return false (no new movement in theory). If bot passenger of another transport: do nothing (avoid conflicting behaviour). If bot not a passenger of master transport: teleport bot near master (with offsets) and call Transport::AddPassenger(bot, true), then force: bot->StopMoving() bot->GetMotionMaster()->Clear(true) bot->GetMotionMaster()->MoveIdle() Remove movement flags MOVEMENTFLAG_FORWARD and MOVEMENTFLAG_WALKING SetNextCheckDelay to random 1000–2500 ms Log boarding with bot name, transport GUID and coordinates Preserve earlier follow logic when master is not on a transport Tests performed Manual tests on a local server: Master on boat/zeppelin -> bot teleports to a safe offset position and becomes a passenger without getting stuck Bot already passenger on same transport -> bot no longer issues movement commands and stabilizes Bot on a different transport -> no boarding attempt for master's transport (no interference) Movement flags cleared after boarding; bot stops local movement and does not fight server transport movement Now the bots follow their masters in the zeppelins and boats, although sometimes they move around a bit inside when the zeppelin starts (they must have smoked something bad). --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
NoxMax
|
ca9f23a8e3
|
Fix/Defensive: Prevent division by zero in MovementActions (#2185)
Added a check to prevent division by zero for orphaned raid groups. # Pull Request If a bots somehow ends up alone in a raid group, this can divide by zero and freeze the server. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? This is the simplest and cheapest way to implement this fix. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it The fix is a self-evident defensive measure. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Core dump logs analysis to find this problem. If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
18bd655869
|
Restore Naxx Strategies without core dependencies (#2031)
### Summary This PR restores the Naxxramas raid strategies that were removed in commit 686fe513b25bbb20ccfcc89f08ee8c4b498a263e . The reintroduced logic is core‑friendly (no AzerothCore script headers or internal boss AI/EventMap dependencies), and the Naxxramas actions have been refactored into per‑boss files for better maintainability. ### Motivation The previous removal was meant to avoid core modifications and unblock upstreaming. This PR brings the strategies back while adhering to that requirement, using only observable state and mod‑playerbots helpers. ### What’s included - Re‑enabled the Naxxramas strategies previously removed. - Replaced core script header dependencies with observable checks (auras, casts, unit flags, flight state, etc.). - Split the Naxxramas action logic into per‑boss source files to avoid a “god file” and ease future maintenance. - Minor, non‑intrusive behavior improvements aligned with existing helpers. ### Future work Some strategies may still require refinement or more advanced handling later. This PR focuses on restoring the baseline logic without core dependencies, while keeping changes minimal and safe. **Any contributions are welcome to further improve and fine‑tune the Naxxramas strategies.** ### Testing Tested in some Naxx boxx. No server crash and boss killed :D Note: I'll make another PR with revised scripts when this one are merged --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com> |
||
|
NoxMax
|
b7b67e0fd9
|
Feat/Fix: Expand follower bot flightmaster distance search and use correct config patterns (#2140)
# Pull Request Feat: A common problem I have with follower bots is that if I quickly run up to a flightmaster and select a destination, as I go on my way, the bots can't get on a damn bird and say "Cannot find any flightmaster to talk". Guy was 8 yards away and they're completely blind to him. This is because when you select a destination, at that moment the bot would check `GetNPCIfCanInteractWith` from core, which uses `INTERACTION_DISTANCE`, which is defined as 5.5 yards. So the bot has to have caught up with you to be within 5.5 yards of the flightmaster. This PR expands that distance to use our own `sPlayerbotAIConfig.farDistance`, which is by default set to 20 yards. So just as long as bots have caught up to be within 20 yards from the flightmaster, they will follow you. Fix: While I was doing this, I noticed that the timings for bot flight staggering (introduced in #1281) are defined in TaxiAction and PlayerbotAIConfig. So I removed their definitions from TaxiAction, made proper calls to the configs, and renamed them to similar format that other configs use. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? Changes here use a minimal amount of code to accomplish the objective, including using pre-defined distance values rather than creating new ones. Changes have no effect on processing. --- ## How to Test the Changes For expanding flightmaster search distance: You will be using the `stay` command. A bot commanded to `stay` will still take a flight with you, if it is near a flightmaster. So you can use the command to position the bot exactly where you want it to be 1. Place your follower bot immediately next to the flightmaster 2. Take a flight and the bot should follow. Nothing new here 3. Place the bot about 12 yards away from flightmaster. 4. Take a flight and the bot should follow. Same as before. 5. Repeat again, but this time place the bot 22 yards away. It should not follow you and instead say "Cannot find any flightmaster to talk" 6. The change should work correctly with `InstantFlightPaths = 0` in worldserver.conf, or if it's set to 1/2 and bots can instantly fly. For the config of staggering: 1. Make sure `InstantFlightPaths = 0` in worldserver.conf. 2. Change the timings in playerbots.conf under the `# FLIGHTPATH` section. 3. Changes should be correctly reflected in world. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) Follower bots search a slightly bigger distance for nearby flightmasters. If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
8519b10d39
|
Fix movenearwateraction isUseful (#2168)
# Pull Request Minor sign change to make check work properly. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
439293e100
|
Warnings PR 2 clean unused variables (#2107)
# Pull Request
Removed unused variables and fixed styling issues.
## How to Test the Changes
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
This was filtered from the code provided by SmashingQuasar. Eliminated
variables were confirmed to be not used, but unclear at times if that is
due to mistakes in writing.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
killerzwelch
|
e7d5eaabac
|
Make playerbots compatible with latest refactoring done on azerothcore (#2158)
# Pull Request When integrating latest changes from https://github.com/azerothcore/azerothcore-wotlk into https://github.com/mod-playerbots/azerothcore-wotlk/tree/Playerbot you will face some compiling issues due to refactoring. That PR does not change any of the logic, but implements needed changes to be compatible again --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ X] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [ X] Stability is not compromised - - [ X] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [ X] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [ X] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Please doublecheck if none of the timing-logic (migration from uint32 to microseconds) has been changed --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
1f3d11d1c4
|
Stage2 refactor switch custom calculations by core helpers clean (#2127)
# Pull Request This change replaces a few manual distance calculations in `WorldPosition` with AzerothCore distance helpers. The goal is to reduce duplicated math, keep behavior consistent with core utilities, and avoid reimplementing logic that already exists in the core. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? Use existing core distance helpers instead of manual math, keeping the logic localized to `WorldPosition`. - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? Directly call `GetExactDist`, `GetExactDist2d`, and `GetExactDist2dSq` where appropriate. - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? No additional cost; the helper calls replace equivalent math and avoid extra intermediate objects. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Build the module and run existing bot scenarios that rely on `WorldPosition` distance checks. - Verify no behavioral regressions in travel-related logic. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Standard server + mod-playerbots setup. - Expected behavior and how to verify it - Distances computed in travel logic remain identical; no gameplay change expected. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [ ] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers This is a localized refactor that replaces manual distance math with core helpers for consistency and maintainability. No behavioral change is expected. --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
dillyns
|
629aa19dbd
|
Add aggressive non combat targeting strategy (#2117)
# Pull Request Tired of failing that escort quest because your bots stood and watched while the escort npc got swarmed and killed? Tired of your bots standing around doing nothing while the npc you are supposed to be guarding for 5 minutes is getting attacked? Don't want to use the grind strategy because it is too heavy-handed and has too many restrictions? Look no further! Just do "nc +aggressive" and your bots will pick a fight with anything they can in a 30 yard radius. The aggressive targetting is a stripped down version of the grind target. ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? Add a strategy, action, and targetting that will cause bots to attack nearby enemies when out of combat. - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? Hopefully this is the cheapest. - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? Minimal runtime cost as this strategy needs to be added specifically to bots. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Add a bot to party, or use selfbot - Give them the aggressive strategy via "nc +aggressive" - They should attack anything within 30 yards. - If it is a bot with a master, the 30 yards should be centered around the master not the bot (prevent chaining from enemy to enemy) ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? ``` [] No [x] Yes (**explain below**) Only for bots that have the added strategy, adds decision to attack nearby targets when out of combat. ``` Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? ``` [] No [x] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Minimal increase to only bots that have this strategy added. ``` Could this logic scale poorly under load? ``` [x] No [ ] Yes (**explain why**) ``` --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? ``` [x] No [ ] Yes (**explain why**) ``` If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: ``` [x] Lightweight mode remains the default [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable ``` --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? ``` [ ] No [x] Yes (**explain below**) ``` Claude is used to explore the codebase to find similar implementations to be used for examples. --- ## Final Checklist - [x] Stability is not compromised - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
privatecore
|
2f7dfdbbfc
|
Fix rest of trainers' related stuff + codestyle changes and corrections (#2104)
# Pull Request
* Fix the rest of the trainer-related functionality: list spells and
learn (cast vs. direct learn) spells.
* Rewrite `TrainerAction`: split the logic between appropriate methods
(`GetTarget`, `isUseful`, `isPossible`) instead of pushing everything
inside a single `Execute` method.
* Change method definitions to remove unnecessary declarations and
parameters overhead.
* Move the `Trainer` header into the implementation. Rewrite
`RpgTrainTrigger` to fit the original logic and move all validation to
`RpgTrainAction` (`isUseful` + `isPossible`).
* Implement "can train" context value calculation to use with
`RpgTrainTrigger`.
* Update and optimize "train cost" context value calculation -- it
should be much faster.
* Replace `AiPlayerbot.AutoTrainSpells` with
`AiPlayerbot.AllowLearnTrainerSpells` and remove the "free" value
behavior — please use `AiPlayerbot.BotCheats` if you want bots to learn
trainer's spells for "free".
* Add `nullptr` checks wherever necessary (only inside targeted
methods/functions).
* Make some codestyle changes and corrections based on the AC codestyle
guide.
---
## Design Philosophy
We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.
Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.
Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.
Principles:
- **Stability before intelligence**
A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.
- **Performance is a shared resource**
Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.
- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.
- **Complexity must justify itself**
If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.
- **Defaults must be cheap**
Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.
- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**
The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.
Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.
---
## How to Test the Changes
Force bots to learn spells from trainers using the chat command `trainer
learn` or `trainer learn <spellId>`. Bots should properly list available
spells (`trainer` command) or learn them (based on configuration and
command).
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
If yes, please specify:
- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
d1cac8d027
|
Bug fix. Equip Action triggered action (#2142)
# Pull Request Brighton caught a mistake I made changeing the action registry, so the correct action was no longer triggering. I cleaned that up, and renamed the action. ## How to Test the Changes - This was tested by adding logging to both equip actions. But to test this without that, the best way to verify the fix is to stop alts from auto upgrading via config. Then they should correctly follow the configured behavior. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x ] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
441f9f7552
|
Warnings PR 1: Event warnings and headers (#2106)
# Pull Request
This is the first in a series of PRs intended to eliminate warnings in
the module. The design intent is to eliminate the calling event when not
needed in the body of the function. Based off of SmashingQuasars work.
---
## How to Test the Changes
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
bashermens
|
80aeeda0e8
|
Flying, waterwalking, swimming movement optimizations and transition fixes. (#2134)
# Pull Request **Fixes and optimizations for flying, water walking, swimming**: * optimized triggers * ensuring movement flag updates only happen between actual transitions states * fly bug fix; fly with bots following with stay command midair, fly down and dismount yourself, follow command and now the bots fall instead of lingering around in the air) * updated z-axes correction for water walking and bots (for real players this is handled client-side) * added lift off movement for more stabile transition from ground(level) to flying **Tested**: * Test all transitions; water walk, swimming, swimming, walking, mounting while water walking etc. * Flying with bots and fly master routes * Movement flag updates only occur during transitions **Known issues**: transition between water walking, swimming and back again, in most cases the bots will stay under the waterline instead of jumping on the z axes on water level. (will fix that another time) --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it Apply water walking effect on your bots, shaman or dk, and test all possible transitions and follow actions of the bots. water walking, swim, walk on land, swimming and walk without water walking effect/aura, fly mount from water, from ground, etc. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
NoxMax
|
25800f54e8
|
Fix/Feat: PVP with master and PVP probablity system (thread-safe remake) (#2008)
This is a remake of #1914 that had to be reverted. Original PR had a thread-safe issue where a crash happens if multiple threads access the cache at the same time. Unfortunately this problem was not caught in earlier testing. I don't know if because I was testing on a month old branch, if my settings had only ~2000, or if I needed test runs longer than an hour to find out. Regardless, this has all been addressed. Test have been run on the latest commits from today (2026/1/11), with all 7500 of my bots active, with a test run that lasted 15 hours. All stable and bots are following the probability system without issue. ~~The new edit uses mutex locking, preventing simultaneous access of the cache by multiple threads.~~ The new edit uses deterministic hashing, thereby not having issues with cache thread safety to begin with. Thank you @hermensbas for catching and reverting the original problem PR. Apologies for not catching the issue myself. --- Original PR description: There are two related PVP components in this PR. First is the simple yet fundamental change to bot behaviour when they are in party. Right now bots with a master will go into PVP when there's a nearby PVP target, even if master is not in PVP. This absolutely should not happen. Bots should not consider PVP at all if master is not in PVP. The fix is only 3 lines in EnemyPlayerValue The second component is introducing PVP probabilities, to make decisions more realistic. Right now even a level 1 bot will 100% go into PVP if it sees a level 80 PVP target. They can't help themselves. So the change here addresses that insanity. Several thresholds (subject to community review) are introduced: 1. Bots will not fight a target 5 or more levels higher than them 2. Bots have a 25% chance starting a fight with a target +/- 4 levels from them. 3. Bots have a 50% chance starting a fight with a target +/- 3 levels from them. 4. Bots have a 75% chance starting a fight with a target +/- 2 levels from them. 5. Bots have a 100% chance starting a fight with a target +/- 1 level from them. 6. Bots have a 25% chance starting a fight with a target 5 or more levels below them (ganking. thought it would be funny, and technically realistic of player behaviour) Exception of course exist for BG/Arena/Duel, and in capitals where bots will always PVP. Also bots will always defend themselves if attacked. Few notes: 1. The if/ else if logic can be further simplified, but only if we use thresholds that are different by one. So current logic allows for flexibility of using values like 10/7/5/3 instead of 5/4/3/2. 2. The caching system is per-bot basis. So for some target X, if some bot decides to attack it, another bot will make its own decision. At first I used a simplified global system (thinking there might be performance concerns) where if one bot decides to attack a target then they all do, but when I switched to the more realistic per-bot basis, I didn't see an effect on performance. 3. Variables are obviously not configurable right now. I'm starting to see Bash's POV that maybe we have too many configs 😬 Still, they can be easily exposed in the future, and if someone is reading this then, remember to change constexpr to const. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
17b8d7f68b
|
Stage1 refactor world position method names (#2126)
# Pull Request This change replaces the non‑standard WorldPosition::getX/getY/getZ/getO/getMapId wrappers with the core getters (GetPositionX/Y/Z, GetOrientation, GetMapId) and removes the redundant wrappers. Goal: align the module with AzerothCore conventions, reduce local adapters, and improve long‑term maintainability. --- ## Design Philosophy This is a structural cleanup only (coordinate access) and does not alter any AI behavior or decision logic. It follows the stability/performance-first philosophy and does not add branches or extra runtime work. Before submitting: yes, this change aligns with the principles of stability, performance, and predictability. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Minimum logic required: use core getters (GetPositionX/Y/Z, GetMapId, GetOrientation) wherever coordinates are needed. - Cheapest implementation: direct call replacement and removal of redundant wrappers. - Runtime cost: negligible (same data access, no additional logic). --- ## How to Test the Changes - No functional testing required (behavior‑neutral refactor). - Recommended: compile the module and run a normal server startup as validation. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used: Copilot - Purpose of usage: Translate this PR text from french to English --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers This is a core-friendly cleanup only, with no behavioral change. No additional logic or CPU cost is introduced. |
||
|
privatecore
|
a0a50204ec
|
Fix action validation checks: isUseful -> isPossible + codestyle fixes and corrections (#2125)
# Pull Request Fix the incorrect logic flaw when processing actions from different sources. It should be: `isUseful` -> `isPossible`. The original logic is based on the Mangosbot code and the impl presented inside `Engine::DoNextAction`. This should fix all wrong validation orders for triggers and direct/specific actions. Code style is based on the AzerothCore style guide + clang-format. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
80b3823f12
|
Warnings PR 3, remove std::move when not necessary. (#2108)
# Pull Request
std::move was being used in a few places to return a vector. Its not
necessary. A direct return allows for some optimizations that moving
wouldnt.
## How to Test the Changes
-Bots should initialize correctly
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [ ] Stability is not compromised
- [ ] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [ ] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [ ] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
ee2a399ac8
|
Refactor newrpginfo data union to std::variant (#2079)
# Pull Request
As I began modifying the newrpginfo to change the types of data it
stored, or add new data I found myself with the issue of ending up
either with garbage memory if the information wasnt properly stored on
status change, or needing complicated destructor patterns for non
trivial data sets.
---
## Design Philosophy
Make rpginfo able to handle more complicated information in a strongly
---
## Feature Evaluation
No Feature changes
---
## How to Test the Changes
- Server should be stable for an extended period of time.
- Bots should be able to complete quests, fly, etc as they did before.
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [X ] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [ ] No
- [ X] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
Potentially as there can be more memory involved in the object.
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [X ] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [ X] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [ ] No
- [ X] Yes (**explain below**)
If yes, please specify:
- Gemini suggested the use of std::variant as an alternative data
structure. I found additinal external references that correlated with
the same suggestion of moving away from a union.
- Implementation was performed manually with Co-pilot auto-complete
---
## Final Checklist
In progress.
- [ ] Stability is not compromised
- [ ] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [ ] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [ ] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Im not 100% sure if this is a good design choice. There are some things
I didnt quite like by the end of this, specifically having to double
check whenever accessing data whether exists or not even though an
action has already been triggered. But I have a PR in the works where I
want to store a full flight path vector, and the union was giving me
issues. (It appears that state changes may be occuring in the same tick
between RPG status update and the stated action, leading to incorrect
data gathering.
I ended up solving it by first checking a pointer to the object, and
then getting the reference.
```c++
auto* dataPtr = std::get_if<NewRpgInfo::DoQuest>(&info.data);
if (!dataPtr)
return false;
auto& data = *dataPtr;
```
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
privatecore
|
610fdc16d7
|
Fix bug with GetCreature + GetGameObject = use ObjectAccessor's methods instead (#2105)
# Pull Request https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/equal_range.html > second is an iterator to the first element of the range [first, last) ordered after value (or last if no such element is found). The original code uses `return bounds.second->second`, which causes the wrong creature/gameobject to be returned. Instead, both methods (`GetCreature` and `GetGameObject`) now utilize ObjectAccessor's methods to retrieve the correct entities. These built-in methods offer a safer way to access objects. Additionally, `GetUnit` no longer includes redundant creature processing before checks and now has the same logic as the `ObjectAccessor::GetUnit` method. Furthermore, `GuidPosition::isDead` method has been renamed to `GuidPosition::IsCreatureOrGOAccessible` and updated, as it is used only for creatures (NOT units) and gameobjects. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## How to Test the Changes The behavior has not changed after all. ## Complexity & Impact - Does this change add new decision branches? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) - Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) - Could this logic scale poorly under load? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance - Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - [x] Stability is not compromised - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Hokken
|
e9e79ad696
|
Fix LootRollLevel=1 to match documented 'greed' behavior (#2068)
## Summary
Fixes `AiPlayerbot.LootRollLevel = 1` to actually behave as "greed" mode
per the config documentation.
## Problem
The config documentation states:
```conf
# Bots' loot roll level (0 = pass, 1 = greed, 2 = need)
# Default: 1 (greed)
AiPlayerbot.LootRollLevel = 1
```
However, level 1 was converting **all GREED votes to PASS**, causing
bots to pass on almost everything:
| Item Type | AI Decision | Level 1 Behavior (Before) | Expected |
|-----------|-------------|---------------------------|----------|
| Gear upgrade | NEED | GREED ✓ | GREED |
| Usable gear (not upgrade) | GREED | **PASS** ✗ | GREED |
| Crafting materials | GREED | **PASS** ✗ | GREED |
| Recipes, consumables | GREED | **PASS** ✗ | GREED |
The only items bots would greed on were direct gear upgrades (originally
NEED, downgraded to GREED).
## Root Cause
In `LootRollAction.cpp`, lines 104-107 were converting GREED to PASS:
```cpp
else if (vote == GREED)
{
vote = PASS; // This breaks "greed" mode
}
```
## Fix
Remove the GREED→PASS conversion. Level 1 now only downgrades NEED to
GREED (as intended), preserving GREED votes for useful items.
## Behavior After Fix
| Level | Description | Behavior |
|-------|-------------|----------|
| 0 | Pass | Always pass on all items |
| 1 | Greed | Greed on useful items, never need |
| 2 | Need | Full AI logic (need/greed/pass) |
## Test Plan
- [ ] Set `AiPlayerbot.LootRollLevel = 1`
- [ ] Kill mobs that drop crafting materials, recipes, or non-upgrade
gear
- [ ] Verify bots greed on useful items instead of passing
- [ ] Verify bots still pass on junk items
- [ ] Verify bots never roll need (only greed)
Co-authored-by: Hokken <Hokken@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
3db2a5a193
|
Refactor of EquipActions (#1994)
#PR Description The root cause of issue #1987 was the AI Value item usage becoming a very expensive call when bots gained professions accidentally. My original approach was to eliminate it entirely, but after inputs and testing I decided to introduce a more focused Ai value "Item upgrade" that only checks equipment and ammo inheriting directly from item usage, so the logic is unified between them. Upgrades are now only assessed when receiving an item that can be equipped. Additionally, I noticed that winning loot rolls did not trigger the upgrade action, so I added a new package handler for that. Performance needs to be re-evaluated, but I expect a reduction in calls and in the cost of each call. I tested with bots and selfbot in deadmines and ahadowfang keep. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
76b6df9ea3
|
Extend SummonWhenGroup to auto-added bots (#2034)
### Summary Extend AiPlayerbot.SummonWhenGroup to apply when bots are auto-added to a group (e.g., addclass bots or raidus style auto invites). ### Motivation Bots added automatically to a group never accept a normal invite, so they do not trigger the summon-on-accept path. When SummonWhenGroup is enabled, these bots should also be teleported next to the master to match expected behavior. ### Implementation details Hook the summon behavior right after automatic group addition. |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
ba835250c8
|
New whisper command "pvp stats" that allows players to ask a bot to report its current Arena Points, Honor Points, and Arena Teams (#2071)
# Pull Request
This PR adds a new whisper command "pvp stats" that allows players to
ask a bot to report its current Arena Points, Honor Points, and Arena
Teams (name and team rating).
Reason:
Due to a client limitation in WoW 3.3.5a, the inspection window does not
display another player's Arena or Honor points , only team data.
This command provides an easy in-game way to check a bot’s PvP
currencies without modifying the client or core packets.
---
## Design Philosophy
Uses existing core getters (GetArenaPoints, GetHonorPoints,
GetArenaTeamId, etc.).
Fully integrated into the chat command system (ChatTriggerContext,
ChatActionContext).
Safe, no gameplay changes, purely informational.
No harcoded texts, use database local instead
---
## How to Test the Changes
/w BotName pvp stats
Bot reply:
[PVP] Arena Points: 302 | Honor Points: 11855
[PVP] 2v2: <The Fighters> (rating 2000)
[PVP] 3v3: <The Trio> (rating 573)
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
Multibot already ready
Here is a sample of multibot when merged:
<img width="706" height="737" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5bcdd9f8-e2fc-4c29-a497-9fffba5dfd4e"
/>
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
Crow
|
6ee1684e9b
|
Fix WSG graveyard camping by flag carrier (#2086)
Quick fix for a very annoying error identified by SmashingQuasar. In WSG, bots will camp the opposing graveyard if up 2-0. This is supposed to exclude the flag carrier, but a logical error has resulted in the flag carrier being excluded for Alliance camping only, meaning the Horde flag carrier will camp the GY with the rest of the team if up 2-0 and thus refuse to end the game. |
||
|
bashermens
|
13fff46fa0
|
Improper singletons migration to clean Meyer's singletons (cherry-pick) (#2082)
# Pull Request
- Applies the clean and corrected singletons, Meyer pattern. (cherry
picked from @SmashingQuasar )
Testing by just playing the game in various ways. Been tested by myself
@Celandriel and @SmashingQuasar
---
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: Nicolas Lebacq <nicolas.cordier@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
dillyns
|
a92886032c
|
Summon Logic Tweaks (#2049)
Issues: - When you have selfbot enabled and use summon command, you will summon yourself. This causes odd movement if you summon while moving, and can sometimes lead to falling through the floor. - When using the summon command on bots with pets/guardians from a medium distance (like jumping down a ledge then commanding summon), the pets will pathfind run to catch up. This causes them to aggro everything on the way. Solution: Fix summon logic to prevent selfbot summon and ensure pets are teleported with bots. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
bashermens
|
3d467ce3bb
|
Added some additional defense checks around isHostile and unit/target (#2056)
Needs second pair of eyes, they appear in crash logs here and there. Its merely a patch on a open wound. ---- As in aslong there multithreads in mapupdate, which we need for decent performance and core calls are not done correctly due various reasons. These type of issues remain. Although i am planning to experiment a little with threadsafe execution of our strategies vs performance. The most effective thing we could do is check every single action and check its stateless and where it does effect the state or read the state of a core object its done in the safest way. flags, worldthread where possible and/ot simply taking into account the state might be invalid. |