211 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Ivan Novokhatski	8caf37af97	Add EnableAutoTradeOnItemMention config option (#2323) ... ## Pull Request Description This PR adds a config parameter `AiPlayerbot.EnableAutoTradeOnItemMention` that controls whether trade dialogues and inventory listings will be triggered for messages that contain keywords anywhere in their text (for example "got some food?"). The default value is `1/true`, so for existing installs there will be no change. This is useful for other mods that could utilise game chats for other purposes, specifically my [mod-playerbots-characters](https://github.com/deseven/mod-playerbots-characters) and @DustinHendrickson 's [mod-ollama-chat](https://github.com/DustinHendrickson/mod-ollama-chat). Individual users might also benefit from the ability to disable this functionality. ## Feature Evaluation N/A ## How to Test the Changes 1. Start the server with default config and join the game. 2. Get into a party with one or more bots. 3. Write `got some food?` to the party chat. 4. A trade dialogue along with the whispers from the bots should pop up. 5. Stop the server, change `AiPlayerbot.EnableAutoTradeOnItemMention` to `0`. 6. Start the server, join the game. 7. Get into a party with one or more bots. 8. Write `got some food?` to the party chat. 9. Nothing should happen. > [!NOTE] > In both cases the commands `t something` and `c something` should still work. ## Impact Assessment - 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 Was AI assistance 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] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers N/A	2026-05-08 22:39:55 -07:00
ThePenguinMan96	605f1d7aaa	PvP Gear, Autogear Tuning, and Stat Weight Corrections (#2322) ... <!-- 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 --> Hello playerbots community! I have been working diligently whilst on vacation to help get pvp gear up and running for pvp specs. Throughout this process, I have looked at our current autogear system, tested it through and through, and made some changes to make gearing more appropriate per spec. _I am going to have my description of the changes in italics_, **and the AI description overview will be bolded.** Let's begin! **This PR makes some improvements to the bot autogear system across item scoring, spec tracking(pvp specs and gear), and stat weights. Changes are split between those that are always active and those controlled by new config options.** **Mandatory Changes:** **PvP Spec Detection (IsSpecPvp) A new method RandomPlayerbotMgr::IsSpecPvp(botGuid, cls) checks the bot's stored specNo against the spec name string defined in config. If the name contains "pvp", the bot is treated as a PvP spec throughout the entire gear pipeline. This is the single source of truth used by both InitEquipment() and ItemUsageValue. In the future this detection can be expanded to drive bot behavior decisions — such as prioritizing dueling players in the world, joining Wintergrasp, or preferring BG and Arena queues over PvE content.** _This is scalable, so if someone were to create their own pvp spec in the config, it would still be tracked if the name contains "pvp". I like the idea of pvp specced random bots having an identifier for pvp events._ **PvP Weights Applied During Loot Evaluation ItemUsageValue::QueryItemUsageForEquip() now calls IsSpecPvp() before scoring a looted item. If the bot is on a PvP spec, it passes SetPvpSpec(true) to the StatsWeightCalculator, ensuring looted items are evaluated with PvP stat priorities (including resilience weighting) rather than PvE weights. Previously, a PvP-specced bot would score loot identically to a PvE bot.** _So, during autogear and upgrade equips, pvp specced bots will now heavily prioritize resilience. On the flip side, pve bots really don't want resilience gear, so a negative weight modifier (penalty for resilience items) has been applied to pve autogearing and upgrade equips. This is important, because you can switch a bot from a pve spec to a pvp spec, and it will automatically consider resilience items in it's inventory as upgrades, and equip them. Same for when you switch a bot from a pvp spec back to a pve spec - the resilience penalty will encourage the bot to switch back to the best available pve gear._ **Resilience Weighting After all per-spec weights are generated in GenerateBasicWeights(), a global resilience modifier is applied unconditionally:** **PvP specs: +7.0 resilience weight — strongly prioritizes resilience gear Non-PvP specs: −3.0 resilience weight — actively discourages resilience gear Resilience is additionally excluded entirely from trinket slot scoring via SetExcludeResilience(true), preventing the PvP resilience bonus from inflating the scores of non-CC trinkets.** _I tried several different numbers here - as high as 10 and as low as 3 for resilience. I ended up with 7 so nearly all specs will slot resilience in every slot EXCEPT for trinkets. I stopped weighing resilience on trinkets because they ended up being garbage trinkets for the most part - other endgame pve trinkets were way more impactful. In my testing, the only class/specs that wont use 100% resilience gears are the tanks, since defense rating/parry/block/dodge weights are so high._ **CC-Break Trinket Cache At server startup, PlayerbotFactory::BuildCcBreakTrinketCache() queries the world database for all trinkets (InventoryType=12, Quality≥2) whose spell IDs include spell 42292 — the CC-break / PvP trinket effect shared by items like Medallion of the Alliance/Horde. Results are sorted by item level descending and cached in a static vector, ready for fast lookup during gearing.** _This creates a cache of cc trinkets on startup, for this:_ **CC-Break Trinket Force-Equip During InitEquipment(), PvP-specced bots at level 50 or higher (level minimum for autogear to apply trinkets) run a pre-selection pass over ccBreakTrinketCache to find the best CC-break trinket they meet the level requirement and quality limit for. Human and Undead bots are excluded from this — they have racial abilities (Every Man for Himself, Will of the Forsaken) that share the PvP trinket cooldown, making a dedicated trinket redundant.** **If a suitable trinket is found, it is stored as pvpTrinket1 and force-equipped into TRINKET1 before the main gear loop runs. If an item already occupies the slot, it is moved to bags first. The second-chance pass also skips TRINKET1 when pvpTrinket1 is set, so the CC trinket is never overwritten.** _This is the catch-all forced pvp trinket for trinket slot 1. In my testing, I really found out how few cc trinkets there are - most of them are epic, and blue ones start showing up super late in the game. An heirloom patch would really help the lower levels, being able to equip a pvp trinket at level 10 or something. Keep in mind, that if your bot isn't getting a pvp trinket with autogear, make sure they aren't human or undead, and check your config for what quality items are allowed with autogear. NOTE - PVP TRINKET STRATEGIES ARE NOT CURRENTLY CODED, SAME WITH CC RACIALS. They will not break out of stun/cc currently. This is for future updates if/when I make a trinketstrategy._ **Enhancement Shaman Dual Wield Fix Classes like Rogues, Frost DKs, and Fury Warriors have their dual wield capability established through class initialization code in the core. Enhancement Shamans acquire Dual Wield only through a specific talent (spell 30798, learned around level 40), and the bot factory had no code to detect and apply this. The result was that Enhancement Shaman bots would sometimes have their offhand weapon unequipped — despite having the talent. After talents are applied in both InitTalentsTree() and InitTalentsBySpecNo(), the code now checks for spell 30798 and explicitly grants SKILL_DUAL_WIELD and SetCanDualWield(true) when present.** _When testing the weapon speed preferences, I noticed that randombot enhancement shamans were unequipping their offhand randomly. They would just walk around with a single 1-hand weapon. This is because they were not considered in the system as dual wielding, so when initequipment or autoequipupgrades was ran, it would unequip the offhand through a function, despite having the dual wield talent. Looking at the code, the other classes already have this flag (warriors, rogues, dks, hunters) because they didn't acquire it through talents._ **CalculateItem() Slot Awareness StatsWeightCalculator::CalculateItem() now accepts an optional slot parameter (default -1). When provided and the item is a weapon, ApplyWeaponSpeedGovernance() can be called. Both item scoring calls inside InitEquipment() — the candidate scoring loop and the incremental old-item comparison — now pass the current equipment slot.** _This change allows the calculate item function to know what slot it's working with, and that's how it modifies it's decision making for some of the optional features below._ **Holy Paladin Weapon Scoring Fix Prior to this change, Holy Paladin could end up equipping 2H weapons because haste and crit sticks (2H weapons) were outscoring appropriate 1H caster weapons — the item type penalty was not catching them correctly. Holy Paladin is now explicitly added to the dual-wield penalty group (preventing 2H weapons from being viable), excluded from the generic caster 1H penalty (since they use 1H + shield rather than a staff), and given a 0.8x soft preference for 1H weapons.** _In autogear testing, sometimes 2h weps with high crit/haste would win over caster gear - this is especially noticeable at lower levels, with shallower item pools (greens only). You'd hit autogear and the holy paladin would equip a 2h axe with crit :( So this makes it so holy paladins only use 1h weapons. They can use either a shield or an offhand, depending on stat weights._ **PvP Spec Slots Added for All Classes The existing RandomClassSpecProb / RandomClassSpecIndex config entries control what percentage of random bots in the world are assigned each spec. Previously only PvE specs (indices 0–2, or 0–3 for Druids) were defined, giving server operators no way to introduce PvP-specced random bots into the world population. This PR adds PvP spec slots for every class (indices 3–6 depending on class), all defaulting to 0 probability. Server operators can raise these values to spawn PvP-specced random bots — e.g., setting RandomClassSpecProb.1.3 = 20 would make 20% of Warrior bots run Arms PvP. Two additional PvE specs have also been added: Death Knight index 3: Double-aura Blood (a hybrid Blood/Frost PvE tank variant) Mage index 3: Frostfire (a PvE hybrid spec) All existing spec entries have been annotated with comments identifying each one (e.g., # arms pve, # holy pve) for readability.** _This change was actually added at the start - I realized that there was no way for pvp-specced randombots to spawn naturally, so I added optional probabilities to the config. They are currently set at 0% by default, but giving the user the option I feel is necessary. Also, it would have been impossible for me to test the init on randombots with pvp gear otherwise. Also, I noticed that the frostfire mage and the dual-aura dk didn't have an option, so I added them in as well, as well as names above each option for quality of life._ **Stat Weight Corrections The following per-spec stat weights were adjusted to better reflect actual WotLK priorities. Entries marked NEW did not previously exist; unmarked rows show old → new values.** <img width="795" height="268" alt="arms warrior" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/cb0deb00-a985-432d-81a1-133fc953088b" /> _Arms warriors would prefer leather/ap gear about half of the time - the combined weights of both would often beat strength gear, especially at lower levels, or where the item pool was shallow. Also, they continued to spawn with spell power gear and defense gear occasionally, especially on gear with resilience (resilience, spell power, crit, haste, stam items)._ <img width="796" height="301" alt="fury warrior" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/715ff3a3-3d20-4e0e-a953-7ed6fd9386db" /> _Fury warriors had the same issues as arms warrior, but really can't afford to lose a strength item - beserker stance increases strength by 20%. Also had to reduce haste here because haste really isn't nearly as important as strength, crit, arp. Haste items would win often over strength/crit/arp gear._ <img width="796" height="300" alt="prot tanks" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/624de09a-2506-4aee-95aa-c49cbc5b85d3" /> _So, prot paladins and prot warriors currently are weighed identically fyi. Look at that whopping 2.0 agility - twice as important as strength? I noticed that my prot paladins/warriors were equipping agility/haste/crit items instead of defense gear on their neck, rings, trinkets, and back. This adjustment pretty much ensures that defense gear takes those slots if it's available. Removed the crit/haste weightings, because realistically if a tank wants more damage, it will just get strength. Lastly added the spell power penalty because prot paladins would spawn in fully holy gear if they were pvp specced (resilience is weighted so high, resilience/spellpower/stam/haste gear would often win). This aims to prevent that._ <img width="802" height="421" alt="dps dks" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/371d1344-2382-4460-b3a7-f38b33025b73" /> _Same issue with plate dps as the warriors had. Spell power gear would occasionally spawn on crit/hit items in pve, and a ton of spell power resilience gear would spawn. There is no scenario where a DK wants spell power, this isn't patch 3.0.1..._ <img width="796" height="447" alt="blood dk" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c84a2bbf-7daa-4805-acf3-cd3bf815eda4" /> _Similar issues to prot paladin/warrior. I was really tired of seeing block rating/value gear as a result of getting gear with defense/stam. This results in a lot more defense rating/expertise/hit/dodge/parry gear, and basically makes shield stats nearly non-existent (unless the upgrade is good enough, it could still win)_ <img width="794" height="226" alt="ret paladin" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b09f40ed-b25f-4945-940c-2ce92f81c7c4" /> _Prior to this PR, the positive spellpower and int weights were enough for ret paladins to spawn with spellpower/int/haste/crit gear. This is unlikely now. And agility/ap was reduced to favor more strength gear._ <img width="795" height="306" alt="Enhancement Shaman" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1e5231fd-36ea-4b7e-a546-cf0075d17bd4" /> _While spell power is a decent stat on enhancment shamans, it was appearing on too much gear, especially on items that were haste/crit/spell power. And for elemental shamans, they were getting agi/haste/crit gear, so this aims to get rid of those items entirely without reducing haste/crit._ <img width="800" height="119" alt="shaman pally" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6ea3300a-effd-4a03-8f6f-4ae13c5383a5" /> _Holy paladins and resto shamans are scored the same, but this prevents attack power/haste/crit gear, since haste and crit are weighted high._ <img width="1025" height="385" alt="mage" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/03191dfd-dc09-477d-8424-8fd56f3e0d71" /> _Prevents mages from equipping/autogearing items with attack power, some attack power/crit/haste/hit items were winning with shallow item pools._ <img width="1022" height="502" alt="hunter rogue" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/06fa67c9-7709-4ee8-a0e2-34de18594018" /> _Prevents hunters and rogues from getting spell power leather gear with hit/crit. Crit is very heavy for hunters so this was decently common._ **Optional Changes (Config-Controlled)** **AiPlayerbot.PreferClassArmorType (default: 0) Applies a 3x score multiplier to armor matching the bot's class-appropriate type (plate/mail/leather/cloth). A significantly better off-type item can still win — this is a soft preference, not a hard filter.** _Are you tired of your fury warrior being a leather daddy? Are you tired of your holy paladin running around in cloth lingerie? This will fix that. For mail classes (hunters/shamans) and plate classes, this only kicks in after level 40. But it really helps adhere to the highest armor class available. This would be the perfect solution to the quarterly question "Why is my paladin wearing leather?". This definitely should remain optional, as quite a few BIS lists would disagree with it. Leather at certain stages is great for hunters/shamans/warriors/dks._ **AiPlayerbot.AutogearAllowsQuestRewards (default: 0) Builds a cache of equippable armor and weapon quest rewards at startup. Bots can then equip these items during autogear, using the quest's minimum level as the effective required level gate.** _So, I noticed that autogear didn't allow items without a level requirement (quest rewards), because it didn't know how to handle that when giving out gear. It would previously just flat out reject all quest rewards, as they wouldn't be a part of the item pool. This option enables quest rewards to be considered in the item pool, and the level correlates to the lowest level you could get the quest. I have tested this for about 3 hours across all specs and using blue/green gear, it seems like a really nice bonus. Keep in mind that I do 0 quests on my way to 80, so players like me could still benefit from those items. I think this should remain optional._ **AiPlayerbot.EquipAllSlotsAtAnyLevel (default: 0) Bypasses the low-level slot restrictions in InitEquipment(): Trinkets normally locked until level 50 Head/Neck until level 30 Rings until level 20 All other non-weapon slots until level 5** _Autogear currently has level floors for slots - they will not ever give items below the above thresholds. This config option bypasses that. I have not tested this as much as I should have, so as people test this, they could let us know of items that should be blacklisted._ **AiPlayerbot.WeaponSpeedGovernance (default: 0) When enabled, ApplyWeaponSpeedGovernance() applies a 3x score multiplier to weapons matching the spec's ideal attack speed profile. Applies to mainhand, offhand, and ranged slots only. Per-spec preferences: Arms Warrior: Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand; poleaxes and axes preferred (Axe Specialization) Ret Paladin / Blood & Unholy DK: Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand Prot Warrior & Paladin: Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in mainhand Fury Warrior dual wield: Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands Fury Warrior titan's grip: Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in both hands Frost DK: Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands; 2H excluded Enhancement Shaman (dual wield): Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands; synchronized MH/OH speeds for flurry procs Enhancement Shaman (pre-dual wield): Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand Combat Rogue: Slow MH (>=2600ms) + Fast OH (<=1500ms) Assassination / Subtlety Rogue: Slow dagger MH (>=1700ms) + Fast dagger OH (<=1500ms) Hunter: Slow ranged (>=2600ms); melee is a stat stick, speed ignored Feral Druid: No preference (forms normalize attack speed)** _Besides pvp gearing for pvp specs, I feel like this is one of the nicest additions. It was really frustrating to see an enhancement shaman put windfury on a 1.5 dagger. Without this, weights for melee dps are calculated on dps alone, not weapon speed. You'll see 2h specs use fast 2h weapons (3.0), rogues use 2 fast weapons or slow weapons, frost dks occasionally using 2h weapons while having dual wield talents. I tested this for about 6 hours across all mentioned specs at levels 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80, with 3 quality types (greens, blues, purples). I would actually consider making this mandatory, simply because of the impact I saw in the dps charts. Super happy and proud of this._ <img width="1021" height="470" alt="files changes" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f55d955c-8760-4adf-b4d9-84797da2dc65" /> ## 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. _Two caches are built upon startup - the pvp trinket cache and the quest reward cache. From there, this directly modifies the stat weight calculations involving initequipement (autogear) and autoequipupgrades, as both go off of stat weight calculations. I tried to implement these changes with as little custom functions and coding as possible, and relied as much as I could on the pre-existing framework._ - Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many bots. _Fortunately most of the gates are boolean so it shouldn't impact performance much at all. I ran these changes on my local server with stock 500 bots, noticed no pmon difference from the main branch. Did a 24h stress test on my server yesterday, stats looked consistent with the stress test I did prior to making any changes on 3-31-26._ _It helps that it uses pre-existing functions such as initequipment and autoequipupgrades, and it really just modifies them with slightly more logic. That being said, autogear didn't lag my server at all, nor did the bots equipping upgrades._ ## 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. --> _So, with the basic stock playerbots config (do not forget to copy the new config!), the only thing that should change is the pvp gear appearing on pvp specs, and the classes preferring more appropriate stats across the board. You can load into the game, level a bot to 20, autogear, and notice the difference. Same at level 40, 60, 75, or whatever. You could add in the optional config settings to further streamline the gear you want. I currently run with all 4 enabled, 2 of which increase the item pool, and 2 of which help guide them to more appropriate gear (armor/weps)._ ## 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**) _The code is only used on startup (cache generation) and when autogear/autoequipupgrades is called. Not all the time, and not per tick. I noticed no performance impact after these changes._ - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) _It modifies the decision making as far as equipment goes, but as far as priority/strategies, this does not affect that._ - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) _Not to my knowledge, but I'll rely on testers and the community to let me know if it does._ ## 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. --> _AI was used in the research of the initequipment system, stat weights, and cache building. As far as generating the code, using AI was 2 steps forward, 1 step back. I used Claude Code with Sonnet 4.6 (high) and had gemini/copilot review the work. **AI did generate a large portion of the code being used.** I have personally reviewed every line, and a lot was removed out of being obsolete/new system that copied an old one/too many comments. I don't think anything else can be trimmed, though. I also used AI in the PR description, and made my own comments in italics below each entry. I hate explaining/writing._ <!-- 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. --> _I would like atleast 5-10 people to review this over the next 1-6 months. The big problem I used to have with my PRs was I was acting like they were a sprint, when it's really a marathon - good changes take time, and I was too quick to bust out new content. The old PRs I made introduced just as many new bugs as they did features. I learned my lesson, and have tested this extensively (code was pretty much complete on 4-10-26, been testing alone for the last 11 days) and it's ready for the test realm for others to try out. I think it's going to be a good step forward when it comes to gear decision making for bots as a whole. PvPers have come and gone too much from this project due to the lack of options, and this helps captivate that audience. Please reach out to me on discord at Zhur#4391, I am happy to hear results/suggestions there as well as here._ --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-04-24 23:22:52 +02:00
Scarecr0w12	c0c2b6ab5b	feat(Core/Playerbots): Initialize bot professions and specializations (#2287) ... ## Pull Request Description Initialize random bot professions from the factory using class-matching or weighted-random profession pairs, respect the active primary profession cap, and restore required profession tools during bot init/refresh. This PR also initializes profession specializations for eligible bots so crafted professions are not left in an unspecialized state after profession assignment. Supported specialization families include: - Alchemy: Transmute / Elixir / Potion - Engineering: Goblin / Gnomish - Leatherworking: Dragonscale / Elemental / Tribal - Tailoring: Spellfire / Mooncloth / Shadoweave - Blacksmithing: Armorsmith / Weaponsmith, plus Hammersmith / Axesmith / Swordsmith for eligible Weaponsmith bots Specialization choices are stored in bot values so they remain stable across later refreshes. Required tool items are also restored for relevant professions during maintenance. ## Feature Evaluation - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior. - Select one or two professions during factory initialization from a small weighted list. - Clamp the assigned professions to the configured primary profession limit. - Learn the profession starter spell and set skill to the bot’s profession cap. - For professions with supported specialization branches, assign exactly one valid specialization when the bot meets the same level/skill gates used by AzerothCore profession scripts. - Persist the specialization selection in stored bot values so the choice is stable and does not need to be recalculated repeatedly. - Restore missing profession tools only when the bot has the related profession and the tool is absent. - Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many bots. - The added logic executes only during bot init/refresh, not as part of per-tick combat or trigger evaluation. - Runtime cost is limited to a few small switch statements, stored value lookups, spell checks, and item presence checks. - No expensive repeated searches, map scans, or per-trigger decision trees were added. - The design keeps specialization selection deterministic after first assignment by storing the result, avoiding repeated random branching later. ## How to Test the Changes 1. Build and restart the server with this branch. 2. Trigger random bot creation, refresh, or level-based reroll for multiple bots. 3. Verify in `Playerbots.log` that bots receive profession pairs and, when eligible, profession specializations. 4. Check that low-level bots do not receive specializations before the required thresholds. 5. Check that eligible bots do receive one specialization for supported profession families. 6. Verify that specialization choices remain stable across subsequent refreshes. 7. Verify that profession tools are restored when missing: - Mining Pick - Blacksmith Hammer - Arclight Spanner - Runed Arcanite Rod - Skinning Knife 8. For a few bots, inspect in game or via debug tooling that profession spells/specialization spells are present as expected. Expected behavior: - Bots receive professions that respect the configured primary profession limit. - Profession skill values are initialized to the level-based cap. - Eligible bots receive exactly one valid specialization for supported profession families. - Specialization assignments are logged and persist across refreshes. - Profession tools are restored only when required. ## Impact Assessment - 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**) Explanation: - The added work runs during initialization/refresh rather than normal per-tick behavior. - Logic is bounded, data-local, and based on direct skill/spell/value checks. - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) Explanation: - Bots can now start with initialized professions, required tools, and eligible profession specializations instead of remaining partially configured or unspecialized. - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Explanation: - The factory now contains specialization assignment branches for supported profession families. - Complexity is intentionally limited to init-time switch-based logic with stored specialization values to preserve predictability. ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) AI assistance was used for: - code generation and refactoring in `PlayerbotFactory` - drafting and refining profession/specialization initialization logic - PR description preparation All generated and suggested code was reviewed, adjusted, built locally, and validated before submission. ## 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 - Target branch is `test-staging`. - Profession/specialization logic is intentionally limited to init/refresh paths to avoid per-tick cost. - Specialization selections are stored to keep bot behavior stable across later refreshes. - Recent changes also add debug logging for assigned specializations and save the bot after specialization learning so assignments are visible and persisted. --------- 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>	2026-04-17 13:54:36 -07:00
Crow	d01316fe64	Exclude Isle of Quel'danas Areas From PvP (#2304) ... <!-- 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 --> Adds the vendor/quest hub areas of the Isle of Quel'danas to excluded PvP areas (Shattered Sun Staging Area, Sun's Reach Sanctum, Sun's Reach Harbor, Sun's Reach Armory). Otherwise, bots attack each other and piss off all the Shattered Sun Offensive guards and NPCs. ## 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. --> Go to one of the above-mentioned areas while PvP flagged (or on a PvP server, like me). See if bots attack. ## 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? - - [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. --> <!-- 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>	2026-04-17 11:26:53 -07:00
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>	2026-04-10 22:16:58 -07:00
bashermens	c0390a24fd	feat(Performance): BotActiveAlone activity interval fixes and default settings for avg player (#2250) ... <!-- 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 - Bugfix the jittering on/off of botAlone activity - BotActiveAlone activity duration configurable - Updated the default config values for general user for a smoother experience - Added offset jittering for the check allowedActivity and check next AI delay to prevent cpu spikes (disabled WhenIsFriend can cause race conditions) ## 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? - - [ ] No, not at all - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - - [x] Moderate impact (**explain below**) In a positive way, bots in your zone and 150 radius will always be active, meanwhile other bots will be active 40% of the time with intervals for 60 seconds per bot. With much lower latencies. All configurable without say. 40% and 60 seconds for more balance for those who seek bots create world feel more natural and live vs bots leveling without killing the server performance. Why not 50 due activity of bots itself 40% will result more into 45-50% like behavior and 50% prolly more 55%-60%. This it not something we want incorporate when calculating the value since it depends on various config and situation. But 40% is good base with default config. - 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>	2026-04-03 14:54:46 -07:00
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.	2026-03-20 20:39:53 +01:00
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.	2026-03-20 20:37:02 +01:00
Rikus Louw	ed81a43403	Added all TBC attunement quests (#2179) ... # Pull Request Added all TBC attunement quests to conf --- ## 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 Run maintenance on bots - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) This only applies to Individual Progression mod, since attunements aren't required in base AC - Expected behavior and how to verify it Bots should be able to enter: - The Eye (Tempest Keep) - Mount Hyjal - Black Temple ## 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**) All attunements for TBC are now added on 'maintenance' command 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.	2026-03-06 07:58:32 -08:00
kadeshar	28a888b6e0	Added unobtainable items to config (#2133) ... # Pull Request Moving hardcoded values to config ## How to Test the Changes - use maintenance command - unequip and destroy item get from this command - turn off server - add item to config - turn on server - use maintenace command - check that different item was provided ## 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	2026-03-06 07:56:53 -08:00
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.	2026-02-27 16:07:42 -08:00
Rikus Louw	ea60b38eb9	Add Serpentshrine Cavern attunement quest to bot factory (#2136) ... # Pull Request I've being getting ready to test Serpentshrine Cavern strategy on `test-staging`, but noticed the bots don't currently have attunement setup. Added attunement quest. --- ## 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 - Add bots and convert to raid - Make sure you have attunement by completing [this](https://www.wowhead.com/tbc/quest=13431/the-cudgel-of-kardesh) quest - Teleport to SSC and summon bots. The bots should appear in the raid. ## 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**) This adds the attunement quest for SSC by default 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.	2026-02-23 11:02:11 -08:00
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>	2026-02-23 11:00:24 -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
bashermens	a1137dbddc	[FIX] Folder restructure (#2018) ... As requested Poll ``` 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Maybe, but yes ``` --------- Co-authored-by: Celandriel <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-01-17 10:34:58 +01:00
Keleborn	83c6977de5	Refactor guild managment into a singleton (#1913) ... The idea is to centralize the creation, assignment, and management of bot guilds into a single class that can be referenced. The way this is intended to work. when the manager is created, if the config option to delete guilds is set, then it deletes all bot guilds. On startup 1. Load all guild names from database. Shuffle keys for some randomization. 2. Load Guilds from database 3. For existing guilds, identify the guild faction, number of members, and assess if the guild is 'full' based on the number of bots set in config. 4. Determine if the leader of the guild is a real player based on the leader account. 5. Mark any playerbot guild names as not available (false). The validation process (2-5) is set to run once an hour. Guild Creation. Now guild creation occurs on an as needed bases during the initialization process. Previously, all of the guilds would be created at once, and then randomly assigned. When a bot is not in a guild during initialization, it will check if there are any partially filled guilds of that bots faction where the bot can be assigned to. If not, and the cache of bot guilds is less than the set number in config, it will randomly return the available name. This then goes to the CreateGuild function where the core guild manager creates a guild, the guild emblem is set, and the cache updated. If a bot is assigned to guild, but fails to join then it throws an error. Checking for real player guilds function now lives in the guild manager. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-01-03 15:15:28 +01:00
Keleborn	9917863ca1	Feat. Add Fishing action and fish with master. (#1433) ... ### Update :Thank you to @notOrrytrout from prompting me to work on this. Its been a huge learning experience. With @notOrrytrout I started working on enabling bot fishing with master, but also on their own. The first commit didnt crash, showing that it was possible to have a bot cast when master does. Currently it compiles but crashes when you try to fish with a bot in the group, whether the bot has fishing or not. It makes me think that the check in FishingValues is broken somehow, but I cant figure out how. --------- Co-authored-by: bash <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2025-12-27 19:50:18 +01:00
Crow	934e73ae20	Add Ogri'la and Blackwind Landing to PvP Restricted Areas (#1915) ... This PR adds a couple of neutral quest hubs in Outland to PvP restricted areas (and makes a couple of very minor formatting fixes to the Karazhan files). 3786: Ogri'la 3973: Blackwind Landing (Sha'tari Skyguard quest hub in Skettis)	2025-12-15 15:26:38 +01:00
blinkysc	10213d8381	Add thread safety for group operations (#1816) ... Fixes crashes and race conditions when bots perform group/guild/arena operations by moving thread-unsafe code to world thread. Potentially fixes #1124 ## Changes - Added operation queue system that runs in world thread - Group operations (invite, remove, convert to raid, set leader) now queued - Arena formation refactored to use queue - Guild operations changed to use packet queueing ## Testing Set `MapUpdate.Threads` > 1 in worldserver.conf to enable multiple map threads, then test: - Group formation and disbanding - Arena team formation - Guild operations (invite, promote, demote, remove) - Run with TSAN cmake ../ \ -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="-fsanitize=thread -g -O1" \ -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS="-fsanitize=thread -g -O1" \ -DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS="-fsanitize=thread" \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/path/to/install \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo build export TSAN_OPTIONS="log_path=tsan_report:halt_on_error=0:second_deadlock_stack=1" ./worldserver The crashes/race conditions should no longer occur with concurrent map threads. ## New Files - `PlayerbotOperation.h` - Base class defining the operation interface (Execute, IsValid, GetPriority) - `PlayerbotOperations.h` - Concrete implementations: GroupInviteOperation, GroupRemoveMemberOperation, GroupConvertToRaidOperation, GroupSetLeaderOperation, ArenaGroupFormationOperation - `PlayerbotWorldThreadProcessor.h/cpp` - Singleton processor with mutex-protected queue, processes operations in WorldScript::OnUpdate hook, handles batch processing and validation --------- Co-authored-by: blinkysc <blinkysc@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: SaW <swerkhoven@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>	2025-11-21 21:55:55 +01:00
nick	a37dd2b9ae	Clarify random bot timing configuration section and parameter descriptions (#1826) ... This update reorganizes and rewrites the random bot timing configuration section for clarity and accuracy. The previous section was mislabeled as "INTERVALS" and lacked precise descriptions. The new version: 1. Renames the header to RANDOM BOT TIMING AND BEHAVIOR 2. Adds concise, standardized comments for each parameter 3. Corrects misleading terminology (not all values are intervals) 4. Documents defaults and actual behavior clearly for easier tuning and maintenance 5. No functional code changes — documentation and readability only. Note, this is derived information from reading the code. Please double check if I have captured each param accurately!	2025-11-11 09:21:13 +01:00
Crow	f874d2c79e	Fix typo in server loading message (#1742)	2025-10-20 01:05:45 +02:00
Crow	f791ab61c4	Update server loading message	2025-10-16 22:43:49 +02:00
Crow	3260ca1429	Cleanups to config and source (#1720) ... * general edits * Clarify comment for bot teleportation map IDs	2025-10-14 15:43:18 +02:00
bash	377ac199a7	Revert "Feat: Filter bot logins by level range" (#1705)	2025-10-03 22:58:30 +02:00
IainD92	f2b5580495	Maintenance config for altbots (#1693) ... * Maintenance config controls bools in config * Update TrainerAction.cpp removed some note-to-selfs (personal config preferences) * Set default to true Also tidied up some comments * Update playerbots.conf.dist * Reorganised Changed the description in conf to be less conversational. Rearranged the order that options are arranged, grouping by what made sense to me (the type of gameplay made easier/skipped by the option being enabled). Rearranged the order the variables and method calls are listed in the code to match the order they are presented in the conf to make future maintenance of maintenance (:P) more intuitive. * Update playerbots.conf.dist Revert previous commit (change to call order in MaintenanceAction::Execute) conf settings grouped	2025-10-03 11:56:16 +02:00
kadeshar	1ea17e593a	Merge pull request #1499 from NoxMax/login-range ... Feat: Filter bot logins by level range	2025-10-01 17:42:39 +02:00
bash	0cc15411c1	license update (#1674)	2025-09-30 15:19:44 +02:00
Iain Donnelly	6f79193d7a	Config option to set max number of guild members in random bot guilds	2025-09-28 14:04:09 +01:00
bash	c8f32569a8	Merge branch 'master' into login-range	2025-09-28 00:27:05 +02:00
Revision	ace813516d	Replaced tabs with spaces	2025-09-19 21:00:09 +02:00
Alex Dcnh	e175eb1178	Paladin buff logic: Sanctuary+Kings synergy, role-aware targeting, safer Greater buffs (#1603) ... * Paladin buff logic: Sanctuary+Kings synergy, role-aware targeting, safer Greater buffs * Update PaladinActions.cpp * Update PaladinActions.cpp * All configs should be implement into PlayerbotAIConfig and sPlayerbotAIConfig used in code * added: prayer of fortitude * Magic number removed * Update PaladinActions.cpp * Update PaladinActions.cpp * Update PaladinActions.cpp * Update PaladinActions.cpp * Update PaladinActions.cpp * Add patch for solo paladin in group * Correction review * Update PaladinActions.cpp * Add harcoded text to DB	2025-09-18 19:52:26 +02:00
St0ny	2c383339d8	Update playerbots.conf.dist (#1635) ... * Update playerbots.conf.dist Added Half-Burried Bottle to the list of dissallowed GO's * Update PlayerbotAIConfig.cpp Added Half-Burried Bottle to the list of disallowed GO's in the standard values of the source to complete this PR	2025-09-15 20:26:36 +02:00
kadeshar	20025b7dfa	- Added quests ending death knight questline to by default enable LFG for them (#1633)	2025-09-14 10:48:47 +02:00
zeb139	bf56154eee	Add weighted bot to banker teleport logic and config (#1615) ... * add weighted bot to banker teleport logic and config * moved banker location lookup tables to top of file	2025-09-06 16:10:56 +02:00
Spargel	c218dbe653	Fix uses of restrictHealerDPS and randomBotCombatStrategies. (#1570)	2025-09-01 19:05:07 +02:00
NoxMax	02343edc46	Merge branch 'master' into login-range	2025-08-26 22:50:29 -06:00
kadeshar	bc737ecc68	- Changed standalone config on cheat (#1585) ... - Changed drink condition	2025-08-26 18:28:42 +02:00
Crow	704e02e9cc	Add SMV area IDs to PvP Prohibited Areas (#1589) ... * Add SMV area IDs to PvP Prohibited Areas Sanctum of the Stars and the Altar of Sha’tar * Update source default pvpProhibitedAreaIDs * Update source default pvpProhibitedAreaIDs Now with Sanctum of the Stars & Altar of Sha'tar as well	2025-08-26 18:27:57 +02:00
HennyWilly	957a60cd1d	Ignore GameObject IDs from vanilla dungeons (#1518) ... * DisallowedGameObjects for vanilla dungeons * Bots ignore trap crates in Stratholme -> Remove * Updated AiPlayerbot.DisallowedGameObjects default value in source code * Removed duplicate * Added 123329 * Added 123329 and removed duplicated * Update playerbots.conf.dist 153464 - no reason to ignore it * 153464 - no reason to ignore it --------- Co-authored-by: bash <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2025-08-20 18:24:00 +02:00
NoxMax	0c3a799aae	Merge branch 'liyunfan1223:master' into login-range	2025-08-18 03:48:11 -06:00
ThePenguinMan96	c5010b3809	Merge branch 'liyunfan1223:master' into Tame-Chat-Action-/-Pet-Chat-Action-(stances/commands)	2025-08-10 09:59:34 -07:00
NoxMax	0cf41ad690	Merge branch 'master' into login-range	2025-08-09 16:56:39 -06:00
brighton-chi	13fca4398d	Remove EPL from pvp prohibited zones (#1511) ... * Remove EPL from pvp prohibited zones * fixed unrelated error in comments * Update default value	2025-08-09 20:59:55 +02:00
Your Name	3900237ffd	Filter bot logins by level range	2025-08-03 17:36:02 -06:00
ThePenguinMan96	8545225923	Merge branch 'master' into Tame-Chat-Action-/-Pet-Chat-Action-(stances/commands)	2025-08-01 23:30:23 -07:00
brighton-chi	e950f65a83	Add config to disable hunters from generating specified pet families (#1485) ... * Add config to disable hunters from generating specified pet families * Fixed unrelated typo in config	2025-08-01 19:29:51 +02:00
ThePenguinMan96	aa6f8153a1	Tame Chat Action / Pet Chat Action (stances/commands) ... Hello everyone, I am on a quest to make bot's pets completely functional, focuses on solving issues #1351 , #1230 , and #1137 . This PR achieves the following: 1. Changes the current "pet" chat command to "tame", which is more intuitive that only hunters can use it. The modes are "tame name (name)", "tame id (id)", "tame family (family)", "tame rename (new name)", and "tame abandon". Tame abandon is new - it simply abandons the current pet. Also, now, if you type in "tame family" by itself, it will list the available families. See pictures below for examples. 2. Added new "pet" chat command, with the following modes: "pet passive", "pet aggressive", "pet defensive", "pet stance" (shows current pet stance), "pet attack", "pet follow", and "pet stay". Previously, the pet's stance was not changeable, and there were some less than desired effects from summonable pets - see the issues above. 3. New config option: AiPlayerbot.DefaultPetStance, which changes the stance that all bot's pets are summoned as. This makes sure when feral spirits or treants are summoned by shamans and druids, they are immediately set to this configured stance. Set as 1 as default, which is defensive. (0 = Passive, 1 = Defensive, 2 = Aggressive) 4. New config option: AiPlayerbot.PetChatCommandDebug, which enables debug messages for the "pet" chat command. By default it is set to 0, which is disabled, but if you would like to see when pet's stances are changed, or when you tell the pet to attack/follow/stay, and when pet spells are auto-toggled, this is an option. I made this for myself mainly to test the command - if anyone notices any wierd pet behavior, this will be an option to help them report it as well. 5. Modified FollowActions to not constantly execute the petfollow action, overriding any stay or attack commands issued. 6. Modified GenericActions to have TogglePetSpellAutoCastAction optionally log when spells are toggled based on AiPlayerbot.PetChatCommandDebug. 7. Modified PetAttackAction to not attack if the pet is set to passive, and not override the pet's stance to passive every time it was executed. 8. Modified CombatStrategy.cpp to not constantly issue the petattack command, respecting the "pet stay" and "pet follow" commands. Pets will still automatically attack the enemy if set to aggressive or defensive. 9. Warlocks, Priests, Hunters, Shamans, Mages, Druids, and DKs (all classes that have summons): Added a "new pet" trigger that executes the "set pet stance" action. The "new pet" trigger happens only once, upon summoning a pet. It sets the pet's stance from AiPlayerbot.DefaultPetStance's value.	2025-08-01 01:18:16 -07:00
kadeshar	f76435b4c4	Merge pull request #1473 from Tierisch/master ... Add option to remove 'healer dps' strategy based on specified map.	2025-07-31 16:50:06 +02:00
kadeshar	eef2e8c1ef	Merge pull request #1456 from brighton-chi/worldbuff ... Make world buff strategy conditions configurable	2025-07-27 12:32:26 +02:00