5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
bash
3269d1a4b3 feat(Core/RPG): MoveFarTo flow, quest-pursuit at POI, MoveRandomNear retries 2026-05-30 13:53:16 +02:00
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
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
441f9f7552
Warnings PR 1: Event warnings and headers (#2106)
# Pull Request

This is the first in a series of PRs intended to eliminate warnings in
the module. The design intent is to eliminate the calling event when not
needed in the body of the function. Based off of SmashingQuasars work.

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

## Complexity & Impact

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

- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

---

## Defaults & Configuration

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

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:

- [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable

---

## AI Assistance

- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

---

## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.

---------

Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-02-14 20:55:10 +01:00
bashermens
41c53365ae
[HOT FIX] MS build issues regarding folder / command lenght usage or rc.exe (#2038) 2026-01-19 22:45:28 +01:00