mirror of
https://github.com/liyunfan1223/mod-playerbots.git
synced 2026-02-20 18:10:02 +01:00
17 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. |
||
|
bashermens
|
41c53365ae
|
[HOT FIX] MS build issues regarding folder / command lenght usage or rc.exe (#2038) |