7 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>
2026-04-17 14:07:47 -07:00
Crow
f5363c9465
Fix Warrior Battle Shout Spam (#2259)
<!--
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 -->
There is a known problem that Warriors will repeatedly spam Battle Shout
(BS) if there is a stronger Blessing of Might (BoM) present that they
cannot override. It has been long known that the issue arises from the
lack of a BS trigger. It was not a problem in the past because BS and
BoM used to (erroneously) stack, and that was eliminated when AC ported
TC's stacking rules.

This PR adds a trigger for BS that prevents the bot from attempting to
cast it if a stronger BoM (or Greater BoM) is present. To do this, it
compares the AP bonus of any BoM/GBoM applied to the Warrior bot, and
then will attempt BS only if the Warrior has a stronger one.

I also did some minor reformatting of the other Warrior triggers, mostly
just deleting comments and extra braces.

## 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.

The trigger is fairly complicated because it uses an AP comparison and
takes into account spell ranks and the talent Commanding Presence (which
increases the strength of BS). The bug could be solved by a very simple
aura check for BoM/GBoM. That's suboptimal though because BS will be
stronger if the Paladin has a lower rank of BoM or the Warrior has
Commanding Presence and the Paladin does not have Improved BoM.

At the end of the day, this is a new trigger that runs every tick, but
it's not really more expensive than generic BuffTriggers, which all do
this. And it is needed to solve a very annoying bug that essentially
renders Warriors useless in any optimized raid unless BS is disabled.

I don't believe this more robust trigger (as opposed to just calling
BuffTrigger and additionally checking for any BoM/GBoM aura) has any
further impact on performance--any added logic is practically free AFAIK
(e.g., checking if the bot has a particular talent is just an integer
lookup).


## 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.
-->

Form a group with a Warrior and Paladin bot, with the Warrior bot having
a weaker BS than the Paladin's BoM (this is naturally the case at max
level, unless the Warrior has Commanding Presence and the Paladin does
not have Improved BoM). Have the Paladin cast BoM on the Warrior if it
has not done so automatically. Enter combat and see if the Warrior uses
BS. Try again with the Warrior having a stronger BS.



## 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**)

As noted above, this is a new BuffTrigger that runs every tick.

- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Default behavior was broken.

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

This is, with respect to the code, a pretty complex trigger. But that
should not impact other logic, and if need be, there is a very simple
version that could be implemented that would at least fix the bug, as
noted above.

## 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 used Claude Sonnet 4.6. This is essentially the first PR that I
entirely vibe coded. I knew what the problem was and how to fix it,
including the conditions I wanted in the trigger, and the LLM did the
rest. I can tell you what each block does and why that's needed, but I
can't tell you how they all work technically.

I tested this ingame in scenarios where the available BS was stronger
and not as strong, and in each case, the correct behavior was observed.
I've since run several raids without BS disabled on my Warriors, and
they are correctly not using it (as my Ret Paladin is applying a
stronger BoM). The trigger does not show up as an expensive one with
pmon (unlike, say, VIgilance, which is probably the most expensive class
trigger in the mod (excluding any DK triggers just because I've never
used one so I have no idea)).

## 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>
2026-04-04 12:59:45 +02:00
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)
2026-04-03 22:32:32 -07:00
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>
2026-02-14 20:55:10 +01:00
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.
2026-02-13 09:24:11 -08:00
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>
2026-01-30 21:49:37 +01:00
bashermens
41c53365ae
[HOT FIX] MS build issues regarding folder / command lenght usage or rc.exe (#2038) 2026-01-19 22:45:28 +01:00