mirror of
https://github.com/liyunfan1223/mod-playerbots.git
synced 2026-06-20 15:39:25 +02:00
220 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
bash
|
86f0be5b08 | feat(Core/Travel): Align MoveFarTo and probe pipeline with cmangos | ||
|
bash
|
8033691888 | feat(Core/RPG): MoveFarTo flow, quest-pursuit at POI, MoveRandomNear retries | ||
|
Crow
|
92fa97c3aa
|
Rewrite Equipment-Randomization-Related Configs (#2409)
<!--
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 -->
The main focus on this PR is to clarify and eliminate overlap between
three very confusingly described yet important config options:
AutoUpgradeEquip, EquipmentPersistence, and IncrementalGearInit.
For context, after initialization, randombots generally get randomized
each time after logging in and periodically between
MinRandomBotRandomizeTime (configurable, default 2 hours) to
MaxRandomBotRandomizeTime (configurable, default 14 days). This
randomization happens only when the bot is idle.
Now let’s look at what those three config options currently say.
- AutoUpgradeEquip: Randombots automatically upgrade their equipment on
levelup.
- EquipmentPersistence: Enable/Disable bot equipment persistence (stop
random initialization) after certain level (EquipmentPersistenceLevel).
- IncrementalGearInit: If disabled, random bots can only upgrade
equipment through looting and quest
None of those descriptions are accurate.
- AutoUpgradeEquip determines if randombots, upon leveling up, refresh
ammo, reagents, food, consumables, potions, and, ONLY IF
IncrementalGearInit is also enabled and EquipmentPersistence is
disabled, upgrade equipment (yes, three config options required for this
one thing).
- EquipmentPersistence affects both equipment and talents.
- Disabling IncrementalGearInit does not prevent randombots from
changing their equipment through the login/periodic randomization
process unless EquipmentPersistence is enabled.
These config options shouldn’t overlap with or be dependent on each
other, and their names and descriptions should reflect what they
actually do. Thus, this PR does the following:
- AutoUpgradeEquip solely controls whether or not randombots
automatically upgrade their gear upon level up. No other config option
is involved for this purpose, and AutoUpgradeEquip no longer impacts
inventory items. This does mean that it is no longer possible to stop
randombots from being given ammo, potions, etc. when they level up. I
tend to think that randombots as they currently are cannot fully
function otherwise so I have no issue with the loss of this ability, but
if there is disagreement, then we need to introduce a new config option.
AutoUpgradeEquip is also now set to true in PlayerbotAIConfig to reflect
that the default is true in the .dist.
- I originally wanted to combine EquipmentPersistence and
EquipmentPersistenceLevel into a single config option that also included
talents in the name, but EquipmentPersistence is used in the level
brackets mod so I don’t want to make a breaking change there. I settled
for making EquipmentPersistence enabled by default and also reducing
EquipmentPersistenceLevel to 1 by default, in effect entirely disabling
periodic/login randomization of randombot talents and gear by default. I
only see people complain about these features so I think unless there is
some compelling performance or structural reason to the contrary, the
default should be that randombots do not continuously randomize their
talents and equipment.
- IncrementalGearInit is eliminated. There are two real functional
impacts: (1) as noted above, randombots cannot be blocked from receiving
standard inventory items upon level-up (though the way it is currently
being gated does not make sense anyway), and (2) you can no longer have
equipment persistence for equipment only but not talents (I cannot
imagine anybody would ever want to do that, and I don't think it was
even intended given the strange interaction between config options that
was needed to even accomplish that before).
- For all these settings, the config descriptions are updated to try to
be clear about what the player is actually configuring.
Beyond that, I made some clean-up changes to the config to fix some
typos and try to shorten it in places, and I also deleted a few config
options that do not appear in operative code anymore (and any
corresponding references in PlayerbotAIConfig). I also deleted some
comments and made some minor style changes in
AutoMaintenanceOnLevelupAction.cpp.
## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->
<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
The main substance of the PR consists of changes to checks in
PlayerbotFactory and AutoMaintenanceOnLevelupAction.
## 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.
-->
- To test AutoUpgradeEquip, use the gm command .level 1 while targeting
an rndbot.
- To test EquipmentPersistence, the only way I could find to force an
incremental randomization was to use .playerbots rndbot level BotName.
This will do an incremental randomization and a level up. However, this
level does not go through the AutoMaintenanceOnLevelupAction path so
just disregard the +1 level aspect and consider it a pure test of
EquipmentPersistence.
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
I had GPT-5.4 review my changes and come up with the testing method.
<!--
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>
|
||
|
Mat
|
ff001afd46
|
Reset instance ID via existing cmd refresh=raid for alt bots (#2422)
<!--
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 -->
Alt bots can now use refresh=raid cmd if cfg is set to 1.
`AiPlayerbot.ResetInstanceIdForAltBots = 1`
## 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.
-->
Add alt bot, use .playerbots bot refresh=raid and it should say ok after
reseting instance.
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)
Alt bots will now reset instance ID if cfg is set to 1.
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
It will check if cfg is set to 1 to enable alt bots to reset instance
id.
## 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>
|
||
|
Crow
|
32d10080a4
|
Improve bot trinket usage and fix related bugs (#2425)
<!--
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 -->
This PR makes three changes to UseTrinketAction:
1. It adds health and mana gating (based on existing config thresholds)
for bots to activate mana recovery, mana efficiency, and defensive
trinkets. The thresholds are mediumMana (default 40%) for mana recovery
trinkets, highMana (default 65%) for mana efficiency trinkets, and
lowHealth (default 45%) for defensive trinkets.
2. It removes the old overinclusive procflag/specproc gate introduced by
PR 1385, which prevents bots from using dozens of valid trinkets,
including some extremely powerful ones (such as Skull of Gul’dan, the
iconic TBC expansion BiS trinket for all casters), and replaces it with
a narrower exclusion that still addresses the original issue.
- Regarding PR 1385, focusing on liyunfan’s post specifically, I
interpet the issue to be relating to trinkets where the item data is
screwed up such that a passive effect was implemented as an on-use
spell. I had AI do a scan, and it seems that issue impacts only 2
trinkets in the game, Oracle Talisman of Ablution and Frenzyheart
Insignia of Fury, and specifically only the versions of those items that
are not legitimately obtainable (unclear why they exist at all). I’ve
excluded those trinkets from bots via the config now, and this PR
maintains the guards against those trinkets regardless but does so in a
narrower fashion. PR 1385's approach of using ProcFlags != 0 (i.e.,
excluding all on-use trinkets with non-zero ProcFlags) works only if
proc metadata can be used to distinguish between active/passive
trinkets, and that’s not even close to being the case. AI came up with
44 false positives, including many significant trinkets beyond Skull of
Gul’dan such as the ZG Hakkar quest trinkets, Badge of the Swarmguard,
Petrified Scarab, Scarab Brooch, Eye of the Dead, Essence of the Martyr,
Abacus of Violent Odds, Ribbon of Sacrifice, and Pendant of the Violet
Eye (and I’m not mentioning WotLK trinkets only because I don’t know
anything about what is relevant for that expansion).
3. It fixes an issue where bots were not respecting trinket cooldowns in
some cases. This resulted because trinkets with shared cooldown
categories (i.e., those that are not stackable) would substitute the
individual trinket cooldowns with shared category cooldowns, which let
bots spam usages of trinkets, by tracking per-item and per-category
trinket cooldowns locally. The root of this is based in AC; I don't know
if it should be considered a bug or not, but regardless it doesn't
impact players, presumably because cooldowns are enforced on the client
side.
- Here’s an illustration to explain the issue in practice. Skull of
Gul’dan has a 240s cooldown and Shifting Naaru Sliver has a 180s
cooldown, and they share a cooldown category so their usages cannot be
stacked. The shared cooldown matches the length of the on-use effect (so
20s for Skull and 15s for Sliver). The below is what can happen without
this PR (and is what I observed in testing).
- t = 0s: Shifting Naaru Sliver used, writes its 90s personal cooldown
and 15s shared category cooldown.
- t = 15s: Skull of Gul’dan used, writes its 120s personal cooldown and
20s shared category cooldown. Skull’s shared category cooldown
overwrites Sliver’s spell-cooldown entry, giving Sliver 20s left on its
personal cooldown instead of 75s.
- t = 35s: Sliver incorrectly appears ready and can be used again (55s
sooner than should be possible). Then Sliver’s shared category cooldown
in turn overwrites Skull’s longer personal cooldown.
- t = 50s: Skull incorrectly appears ready and can be used again (85s
sooner than should be possible).
- Repeat.
## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->
<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
The logic runs through the existing trinket use code. Specifically:
- Helpers are used to classify on-use trinket effects into mana
restoration, mana efficiency, and defensive/tank categories using
spell-effect checks
- Existing configured mana and health thresholds are applied to those
trinkets
- The old procflag gate is replaced with a one-time cached set of mixed
ON_USE/ON_EQUIP trinket spell ids
- Two small cooldown maps per bot are tracked in UseTrinketAction: one
for item cooldowns and one for shared category cooldowns
## 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.
-->
I did all of these things, but verification is always good. Overall, I
think it is worth running with this PR merged into test-staging if/when
that happens and keeping an eye on overall performance.
1. Equip a bot with a trinket referenced above, such as Skull of
Gul'dan, and confirm it is now used in combat.
2. Test mana-based classes with mana recovery and mana-efficiency
trinkets and confirm they are used only when below the applicable
configured mana threshold. An easy one to check is Glimmering Naaru
Sliver because it is a channel.
3. Test defensive on-use trinkets and confirm they are used only when
health is below the configured low-health threshold. Something like
Shadowmoon Insignia, which increases maximum health, is pretty obvious.
4. Confirm that the error versions of Oracle/Frenzyheart don’t stack
auras on bots (i.e., the bug addressed in PR 1385 has not returned). You
can do this by having a bot kill mobs and check .listauras, though I
checked through logging in the code because auras are noisy as hell.
5. Equip a bot with two trinkets that have shared cooldowns. I used
Skull of Gul’dan and Shifting Naaru Sliver. Go fight a mostly
tank-and-spank boss, such as Gruul. Use an add-on like Skada that tracks
buffs. You should see that before this PR, bots will use the trinkets
multiple times in one cooldown period, and after, they observe the
actual cooldowns.
## 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**)
Any additional impact is confined to UseTrinketAction. The exclusion of
the busted trinkets uses a cache that is built once per server process
followed by constant-time lookups. The per-bot trinket cooldown maps
also use constant-time lookups and store only a few timestamp entries
per bot.
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
Sort of--trinkets previously didn't have any consideration for effects
with respect to usage so that is new. I think it is necessary though to
have half-decent bot trinket usage, and there could be further
refinement for how bots decide to use trinkets based on this structure.
## 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.
-->
GPT-5.4 was used for investigation and root-cause analysis and
assistance with drafting. All resulting code and the PR rationale was
validated through in-game testing.
<!--
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.
-->
Bots also suck at using DPS trinkets properly, but I don't think there's
a simple way to address that unlike with mana recovery or defensive
trinkets. So that's to consider another day.
---------
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
28ec9b34b8
|
add conf option for disabling send mail (#2411)
<!--
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 -->
Fixes exploit in multiplayer servers where players can ask bots to mail
them items.
## 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.
Conf.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
Cheap bool checkl
## 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.
-->
Use send mail command to try to get a bot to send you mail. Should
follow bool setting.
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
CLaude Make do.
simple enough one even AI can do it.
<!--
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.
-->
|
||
|
NoxMax
|
0afaf753c6
|
Clarifies BG bracket auto-join comments and configs (#2417)
<!--
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 -->
playerbots.conf.dist:
1. Updated and clarified comments. At best they were misleading, at
worst they were wrong.
2. Reordered brackets configs top to bottom, from Warsong to IOC.
3. No config values have actually been changed.
PlayerbotAIConfig.cpp:
1. Made sure the config values actually match the .dist file.
2. Reordered brackets configs top to bottom, from Warsong to IOC.
## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->
<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [x] No, not at all
- - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## 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.
-->
Bracket ranges are from `pvpdifficulty_dbc`
|
||
|
Crow
|
9bba4b78dd
|
Overhaul party buff/greater blessing system (#2358)
## Pull Request Description
These changes I originally made for myself because as a person who
really likes to raid with bots, I felt like the current group buff
system is fundamentally broken, and I needed something more consistent
and optimal. I debated a lot whether to PR this because it's such an
extensive overhaul that was almost entirely reliant on AI, and I know
that wishmaster still has a PR open regarding the greater blessings. I
decided to after a couple of conversations so at least people can look
at it and see if it's something that they want.
The tl;dr version is that this PR overhauls buff handling in two related
areas:
1. It adds a dedicated greater blessing assignment system.
2. It generalizes party/raid reagent-buff handling for Paladins, Druids,
Mages, and Priests.
Under this PR, greater blessings are determined by assignments for the
current group, and those assignments are determined based on:
1. a hardcoded priority list of blessings for each spec;
2. the number of Paladins in the group; and
3. whether any Paladins have talents for Blessing of Sanctuary, Improved
Blessing of Might, or Improved Blessing of Wisdom.
Assignment determinations are cached in a value to avoid constant
reevaluation.
The exact priority list is:
- All casters: Kings, Wisdom, Sanctuary, Might
- Physical-only DPS (Rogues, Warriors, DKs): Might, Kings, Sanctuary,
N/A
- Hybrid DPS (Enh, Ret, Hunters, Cats): Might, Kings, Wisdom, Sanctuary
- Druid tanks: Kings, Might, Sanctuary, Wisdom
- Warrior and DK tanks: Kings, Might, Sanctuary, N/A
- Paladin tank: Sanctuary, Might, Wisdom, Kings
Note that Sanctuary is preferred over Kings for Paladin tanks because of
the mana regen component but deprioritized for other tanks because Kings
provides Agility. The extra 3% damage reduction from Sanctuary does not
stack with Disc Priests’ Renewed Hope, which will have 100% uptime.
For group buffs, logic is centralized so that class triggers use the
same gating and upgrade rules for Gift of the Wild, Arcane Brilliance,
Prayer of Fortitude, Prayer of Spirit, and Prayer of Shadow Protection.
Also, Shadow Protection is now a default strategy for Priests (rshadow,
which existed before but wasn’t added by default).
I’ve added a config setting for the greater blessing system and adjusted
the current config setting for group buffs. In each case, you can pick
whether to disable the feature entirely, use it in all groups, or use it
only in raid groups. The default is raid only for greater blessings and
all groups for group buffs. Note that for group buffs, even if the
config is enabled, they will be used only if at least 3 group/raid
members on the same map are missing the buff family. This is mainly to
stop group buff spamming during wipe recovery as bots are revived
one-by-one.
I renamed the Paladin buff strategies to align them with the actual
blessing names:
- `bhealth` -> `bsanc`
- `bmana` -> `bwisdom`
- `bdps` -> `bmight`
- `bstats` -> `bkings`
This is an intentional breaking change for saved strategy strings. Bots
will need a one-time strategy reset after update.
I removed bots telling you when they are out of reagents for greater
blessings. If people like that though, I can add it back.
A small cleanup is also included in TankPaladinStrategy: Holy Shield was
subject to three overlapping health triggers with the same priority; I
removed the two lower health thresholds which have no purpose.
## Feature Evaluation
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
I’m going to let the AI answer this one.
> The minimum logic is:
> - a shared config-gated check for whether group/raid buff variants are
allowed
> - a shared way to treat single and group variants as equivalent aura
families
> - a shared upgrade path from single-target buff to group buff when the
group variant is appropriate
> - a Paladin-only cached assignment model that decides which blessing
family each Paladin should cover for the current group
> - trigger/action wiring that only attempts casts when a group member
is actually missing the assigned buff
>
> This avoids scattering separate per-class heuristics across many
triggers and actions.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
Processing cost should be minimal but non-zero. The general party buff
changes are limited to existing buff trigger paths and mostly replace
duplicated checks with shared helpers. They do not add expensive default
per-tick behavior outside those existing trigger evaluations.
The Paladin greater blessing logic does add extra decision-making, but
it is limited to Paladins, gated by config and group eligibility,
subject to a delayed trigger evaluation of only once per 4s, and cached
per group assignment set instead of recomputing the full assignment
model on every action attempt.
This PR also increases the throttle duration for group buff triggers to
limit performance impact; I’m open to adjustments to these durations:
- Mark of the Wild triggers were increased from 4s to 8s
- Arcane Intellect triggers were increased from 4s to 8s
- Priest buff triggers were increased to 8s (previously, Fortitude was
6s, Spirit was 4s, and Shadow Protection had no throttle)
- There is now a 5s delay on buffing (greater blessings and group buffs)
after bots log in—I was getting bots spamming buffs as soon as they
logged in even when it was not necessary
I’ve tested with pmon, and the impact is minimal—these are very cheap
triggers even compared to standard bot rotational ability triggers.
## How to Test the Changes
1. Try different config settings to confirm that they work to
enable/disable greater blessings/group buffs in the configured scenarios
2. For greater blessing changes:
- test with one Paladin in a party/raid
- test with multiple Paladins in a party/raid
- confirm the Paladins divide blessing coverage instead of repeatedly
overwriting each other
- include at least one Paladin with Improved Blessing of Might and make
sure it casts Might over Paladins without the talent; check the same
with a Paladin with Improved Blessing of Wisdom
- do not include a Paladin that knows Sanctuary, confirm any Paladin
tank receives Kings instead (you’ll need a low-level Paladin for this
since Sanctuary is a prot talent)
- confirm bots cast blessings only when a member is actually missing the
relevant blessing family
- confirm there is a 5s delay on buffing when bots log in
3. For group buff changes:
- confirm there is a 5s delay on buffing when bots log in
- confirm that single buffs are used when there aren’t at least three
unbuffed members in the same map, even if group buffs are enabled in the
config
4. For all buffs, test with reagents missing to confirm fallback to
single-target buffs and single blessings
5. Confirm the Paladin buff strategy names are changed after resetting
AI
## 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**)
Discussed above in processing costs.
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)
Yes—that is the purpose of this PR, to change default buffing behavior.
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
Yes, but I think it’s inevitable to add complexity to get greater
blessings to function consistently, given the challenges brought by
their mechanic of applying across each class.
## AI Assistance
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
I used GPT-5.4 extensively for this overhaul. It’s much more complicated
than I could handle on my own. I’ve done a lot of testing and have
reviewed the code and provided plenty of revisions, but I cannot say I
can perfectly explain each addition and how it works, not even close.
## 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
---------
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>
|
||
|
Mat
|
c7b4b9aa80
|
ICC V2, Autogear BiS cmd (#2363)
## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> Big thanks to @kadeshar for providing the bis list for many raids and ilvls :D Video demo for ICC 25HC: https://studio.youtube.com/video/nACyjn817iQ/edit Video demo for autogear bis chat command: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YqyVBaSb2g split main IccActions.cpp into sperate per boss .cpp files changed style to be more aligned with https://www.azerothcore.org/wiki/cpp-code-standards (WIP) added bisicc chat command for bots to gear with ICC bis gear if autogear and bisicc is enabled in cfg https://gist.github.com/metal0/0bb094bf65d27e17044308ad0646cae1 bis list used LM Added multiple spike marking and focus for faster spike clearing, each spike will get its own kill group, tank spike will never get melee bots (only assist tank and ranged dps) Added coldflame detection so that melee bots dont go for spikes that are in flames During bonestorm assist tank will go far away spot so that once bonestorm is fixed, LM will bounce back and forth from MT to AT (atm it targets randomly, it should always pick furthest target) Coldflame avoidance is handled by avoid AOE, important to keep it on in cfg Tested on ALL diffs LDW Improved skull marking of adds, add handling by tanks and dps Changed 1st position for ranged bots for easier adds handling in HC and NM Improved tanking logic for tanks, assist tank will focus on collecting adds and bring them near boss Real players will also get cyclone aura when mind controlled Improved ranged position during 2nd phase, they should not get stuck in corners/walls anymore Tanks will remove LDW ToI aura in HC (really hard to tank with it since many things are happening at once) Added Cheat for LDW fight to help tanks with agro in 2nd phase of heroic modes Changed tank position in phase 2 closer to pillars opposed to stairs (bots love to fall thru floor and run thru walls if near them) this fixed the issue Fixed edge case for escaping from shades, it could happen that multiple shades would target bot, and it was running from 1st one he found, now it will run form all that are targeting it Hunters will cast viper sting now, to increase shield draining speed Tested on ALL diffs Edit 19.5. : Tested 25hc with autogear bis gear, playebots cfg ICC cheats off, world cfg ICC buff on max (30%) In short cleared LDW without ICC cheats with bis gear but unoptimized enchants, talents, gems. I still recommend using ICC cheats for better and fun experience. GS Changed triggers and actions to enable cross faction play Assist tank will now actually tank adds on friendly ship Dps will properly jump to attack mage and go back to their ship, if stuck on enemy ship /p reset, /p summon or /p follow fixed trigger for cannons, if cannons are frozen bots wont try to mount them anymore which prevented them from attacking mage properly bots will use rocket packs to jump to and from enemy ship instead of teleporting Main tank will now jump 1st. tank enemy boss and wait until all bots have jumped back before he jumps back All bots will wait for main tank to engage enemy captain before jumping to enemy ship Cannons will focus rockets 1st, then other adds now (for when gs gets scripted) Rdps will focus nearby adds on enemy ship and mark with star rti icon when there is no deep freeze todo: remove tanking bypass when core fixes enemy ship boss threat reseting Tested crossfaction on horde with single ally bot, ally bot did everything right, need to test more. note horde side is heavily bugged due to threat issue of adds, tanks cant take threat, on ally its somewhat ok, on horde rip. Horde is doable, but annoying cus of threat issue. Tested on ALL diffs DBS Remade tank taunt logic, tanks should now properly taunt boss and let other tank taunt it if they get rune of blood Tanks will tank adds better now, no loose adds anymore Tested on ALL diffs Dogs Remade tank taunt logic, tanks should now properly taunt boss and let other tank taunt it if they get 8 mortal wounds stacks Tanks will tank adds better now, no loose adds anymore Tested on ALL diffs Festergut Hunters sometimes populated row 0 which would make them in melee range of the boss (bad for dps). They should pick correct rows now Healers will populate row 0 1st then other rows for optimal healing position Ranged bots should properly choose unique spots to avoid stacking when there is no spore present Remade tank taunt logic, tanks should now properly taunt boss and let other tank taunt it if they get 6 gastric bloat stacks Changed ranged spore position closer to boss Spore bots should be able to attack/do non movement action when they have spore and are in position Solved malleable goo detection via direct boss hooks to detect boss targets! Tested on ALL diffs Rotface Tanks should not fight over big ooze anymore Improved big ooze kiting Improved small ooze stacking logic (when no big ooze present, stack at small ooze position, when big ooze is present move to it) Fixed edge cases when main and assist tank get small ooze (they used to move to big ooze, that was really bad since main tank would start to tank big ooze and get hit by big ooze, assist tank would stop kiting and get hit by big ooze) stopped mutated plague from dispelling instantly (as fight goes on, rotface cast mutated plague more and more, thus making it impossible to pass due to sheer numbers of small oozes and big oozes on the map, this will delay their spawning and give enough time for bots to handle them properly) Fixed edge case of multiple small oozes and big oozes being alive at same time (bots would detect wrong oozes and wipe raid or get stuck) Improved flood avoidance Improved ranged positioning in heroic mode, instead of letting them choose positions (which is a nightmare on dynamic fight as rotface, they now will choose 1 spot of 22 premade ones and populate them based on guid and adopt spot based on flood position) Improved Explosion avoidance by making bots remember their starting position so that they can return to it after big ooze explode, their movement is not chaotic anymore, and improved timers, they will wait 2 sec at new position before returning to starting position so that they can avoid explosion projectiles properly, they should also avoid moving to other bots starting positions. These changes ensure minimal movements so that bot can do maximum dps possible. Tested on ALL diffs PP Fixed many logic conflicts that caused bots to freeze, do bad dps to ooze/clouds Fixed triggers and multipliers Improved Gas Cloud avoidance, bloated bot will now remember its previous position to avoid backtracking/getting stuck in corners Added boss hooks to finally detect malleable goo, it is not an npc, object or creature and PP doesn't target anyone, bots will flee from it now Boss stacking now only in last phase Added cheats for players also (if enabled in cfg) only bots used to get auras Fixed tank switching in last phase, atm PP doesn't apply aura, but it should work, since same logic works for dogs, festergut and dbs Assist tank will now become abo if there is no abo before first puddle appears Abo will during puddles, slow oozes, slash boss & oozes In last phase assist will return to normal Tested on ALL diffs Edit 19.5. : Tested 25hc with autogear bis gear, playebots cfg ICC cheats off, world cfg ICC buff on max (30%) Tanks switched in last phase flawlesly and shared stacks as they should (mutated plague got fixed in core) In short cleared PP without ICC cheats with bis gear but unoptimized enchants, talents, gems. I still recommend using ICC cheats for better and fun experience. BPC Added center position to prevent bots from pulling BQL or other adds when they glitch thru walls/floor and thus resetting raid back to icc entrance teleporter Added additional z axis resetting since bots like to "fly" up in the air when attacking kinetic bombs. using cheat bypass for ball of inferno flames (atm bugged, doesn't shrink), bots will simply kill them when they spawn. Improved tanking for main tanks, improved collection of dark nuclei for assist tank Improved kinetics bomb handling Improved shock vortex spreading Improved valaran spreading for ranged Added shock vortex (non empowered) detection to avoid it while moving into safe positions Fixed jittery movement Tested on ALL diffs BQL Removed center position block so that bots can spread our easier in 25 mode, not ideal but makes 25hc easier Replaced repulsion based spreading, now each bot will have its own spot and move if needed to new spot Improved air phase spreading Fixed assist tank taking 1st bite Tested on ALL diffs VDW Due to recent core changes bots got bugged in portals if no real player entered and changed Z axis, if there was no z axis change bots would chill under the cloud on the ground and do nothing. I could not figure out how to fix this (thus breaking immersion) without force teleporting them to the clouds. Bots that go into portals will now teleport at the same time to clouds instead of following leader bot. Added feature that if players enter the portal, player with lowest guid will become bot "leader" and they will follow that player so that there is at least a little bit of immersion left. Fixed cloud collection for Heroic Mode, bots will now time clouds more precisely to avoid loosing stack due to not picking them up Improved RTI marking Improved group splitting Improved zombie kiting and avoiding explosion Tested on ALL diffs Sindragosa Bots will mark tomb positions with red smoke bomb in air phase so that real player know where to go with when beacon on them in last phase they will mark with blue smoke tomb position Fixed tank positioning Fixed wrong tomb choice and positioning Fixed tomb marking In last phase healers will stack with melee to allow boss healing In last phase when waiting for mystic debuff to pass, bots will damage tomb like in air phase to speed up the kill todo: tank switch to reset mystic buffet stacks Tested on ALL diffs Edit 19.5. : Tested 25hc with autogear bis gear, playebots cfg ICC cheats off, world cfg ICC buff on max (30%) In short cleared LDW without ICC cheats with bis gear but unoptimized enchants, talents, gems. I still recommend using ICC cheats for better and fun experience. LK Changed add gathering logic for 1st phase and winter phase, instead of tank moving to shamblings, he will keep taunting until they agro him. necrotic plague is easy now, ditched complex timing logic for a simple logic ( move to shambling, wait until dispeled, go back. Healers dont dispel until defile ally is near shambling ) Fixed winter phase gathering logic, assist tank will now properly move to raging spirits asap and bring them to main tank, melee dps will no properly move behind/flank spirits and shamblings to avoid instant death. Rdps will now properly focus frost orbs and adds, Transition should also be smoother now, but still needs /p reset if they get stuck. Other phases are ok, LK fight is now even better than before, but player still need to know tactics and use multibot addon to help out bots when needed, especially during defile phase since its random and position matter for valkyrs and future defiles Non winter phase AT will collect raging spirits and move them to main tank, ranged bots will keep distance, melee bots will flank them to avoid aoe Defile, ditched complex spreading which was mostly gamble with boss hooks to detect defile victim. If bot, bot will move away from raid, if real player main tank will yell Player name move away defile. bots will stay in center now if safe from defile, raging spirits or vile spirits Vile spirits soaking by assist tank. Assist tank will stand between spirits and raid and chase spirits. healers are allowed to move from position to heal assist tank. one hunter if alive will be at center position to place traps to slow down spirits HC Real players will also get buffs if cheats are enabled now Assist tank will now never move towards the raid to gather adds, instead it will taunt them instead so that they come to it Assist tank will rotate shamblings at all times away from raid Assist tank will stun shamblings before transition to avoid shockwave wipe Winter phase ice sphere location changed, ranged will focus sphere faster and better now Fixed jittery movement and low dps during winter phase Fixed most of the bots getting stuck during winter phase Valkyrs will be properly marked now, one by one, in hc bots will now ignore low hp valkyrs and focus on grabbing valkyrs or boss After winter raging spirit will have top priority for killing After winter ranged bots will 1st handle ice spheres then skull targets Spirit bomb avoidance improved, main tank should not back track into unsafe positions anymore Since real player is leader its crucial that player know the tactics, bots can not handle edge cases during the fight alone, they need some of reset, follow, summon here and there since its a long fight and things can go wrong. Tested on ALL diffs NOTE: If server crash, bots will sometimes drop ICC strategy even though they are in ICC, simply re enter or write /p nc +ICC to re enable. NOTE: addons that mark icons during fight could break bots, since icons are used for RTI by bots NOTE: I did not use any raiding addons besides unbot and multibot to control bots NOTE: In theory everything should work wihout ICC buff from world cfg, and ICC cheats from playerbots cfg, didnt test it, didnt try, its too hard core for hc mode to go raw, but it should be possible good luck :) NOTE: For normal about 5k gs should be enough to do most bosses. For HC T10 set + ICC 25 nm or HC gear + gems + enchants + buffs from cfg for fun experience. NOTE: As player its good to know every strategy for Bosses, so that you can spot and help out with reset, follow, summon if bots seem stuck or are doing something strange, a lot of stuff is happening on most fights so expect some intervention with reset, summon, follow. 10 MAN 2-3 Healers, 2 Tanks, at least 1 hunter, at least one druid for bress (its not set in stone, but most success with this setup) 25 MAN 6-7 Healers, 2 tanks, at least 1 hunter, at least 3-4 druids for bress (its not set in stone, but most success with this setup) GL & HF, happy raiding :D Closes #1421 #2120 Fixes #1219 NOTE: Not all of them, I have updated affected changes in #1219. Trash, quest, cheats are still nice to haves, but I don't see working on that in near future. Before posting bugs check #1219 and write there. As I said, I dont plan to implement certain things in near future, but I am more than willing to fix bugs that crash server if they happen ASAP. <!-- 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. --> ## 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. Enter ICC Test Bosses bis ICC command type bisicc into party chat or whisper and bots will reply and equip gear - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). NOTE: If server crash, bots will sometimes drop ICC strategy even though they are in ICC, simply re enter or write /p nc +ICC to re enable. NOTE: addons that mark icons during fight could break bots, since icons are used for RTI by bots NOTE: I did not use any raiding addons besides unbot and multibot to control bots NOTE: In theory everything should work wihout ICC buff from world cfg, and ICC cheats from playerbots cfg, didnt test it, didnt try, its too hard core for hc mode to go raw, but it should be possible good luck :) NOTE: For normal about 5k gs should be enough to do most bosses. For HC T10 set + ICC 25 nm or HC gear + gems + enchants + buffs from cfg for fun experience. NOTE: As player its good to know every strategy for Bosses, so that you can spot and help out with reset, follow, summon if bots seem stuck or are doing something strange, a lot of stuff is happening on most fights so expect some intervention with reset, summon, follow. 10 MAN 2-3 Healers, 2 Tanks, at least 1 hunter, at least one druid for bress (its not set in stone, but most success with this setup) 25 MAN 6-7 Healers, 2 tanks, at least 1 hunter, at least 3-4 druids for bress (its not set in stone, but most success with this setup) - Expected behavior and how to verify it. If requirements are met, bots should not struggle with killing bosses Compare to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nACyjn817iQ&t=460s --> ## 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**) In theory it should not impact, didnt test with hi bot count or large player count - - [ ] 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? - - [ ] No - - [X ] Yes (**explain below**) Impacts in raid, new actions, triggers Impacts with new bisicc cmd that will gear bots Everything should make it easier for maintenance since each boss is in seperate file now ## 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 for analyzing code for ac code standard violations, edits were made by me. It was used for fixing bugs, brainstorming and code generation (for complex math problems, such as dynamicaly kiting oozes around, assiging positions during multiple complex situations in rotface encouter. Everything was checked and tested multiple times until it was polished (to my abilites and understanding). It helped me to solve Malleable goo detection, defile, by hooking directly to boss in order to detect it, since it was detectable only by split second since it was not npc, spell or object. <!-- 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 have not tested with multiple players, or large servers or with 3k+ bots --------- 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> |
||
|
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 |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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>
|
||
|
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>
|
||
|
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> |
||
|
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>
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
957eca0263
|
Feat. Enable multi node flying, and refactor into travel manager (#2156)
# Pull Request Feature - Enable multi node flying for bots - Bots currently only do node to node flying. This PR makes it so they can connect multiple noted. -- This is enabled by sending a vector containing the node sequence instead of a single destination node -- To minimize the run-time cost of searching for available nodes and connection, a cache of all possible connections is prepared at start up using a BFS search algorithm. Refactor - Move all world destination logic (cities, banks, inns) to existing Travel manager - Eliminate flightmastercache and integrate to new manager - replace SQLs calls with in-memory data search by core - Add in new map that stores creature areas by template. Clean up - Move other rpg files to related folder. (Next steps) The selection for where bots fly to should be smarter than it is. Instead of trying to determine where a bot can go, it should first decide where it should go, and then identify the correct way to get there. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x[ No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) The call itself is fairly infrequent, and although now there are a greater number of paths available for the bots, I dont think it would be significant. ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Gemini first suggested the use of a BFS algorithm. This was rewritten by me to actually work as intended. Verification by additional logging not present in final code. Claude code converted the SQL filtering to the atrocious if statements found in PrepareDestinationCache, but after verifying them it works. If there are better ways to do this Im open to it. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
2ce8993986
|
Correct Loot rolling behavior (#2190)
# Pull Request This fixes the loot rolling behavior issue created by #2068 . Introduce the ability for enchanter bots to disenchant items they dont need, and roll need on recipes they also need. Make it so ITEM_USAGE_AH ensures the item is not BOP. Try to reduce the call for item_usage in CalculateRollVote by passing usage if available. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? -- Add a new check that downgrades greed rolls to desired levels, or bools for the other two options. - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? -- As implemented. - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? -- Same as before. Item usage is the heaviest part, and that hasnt changed to accommodate this. --- ## How to Test the Changes - multiple bots in a group with group loot on, do a dungeon or something. One bot should be an enchanter. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [X] Yes (**explain why**) - - - Corrects the looting behavior to original design. If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [X] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
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. |
||
|
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 |
||
|
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. |
||
|
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. |
||
|
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>
|
||
|
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>
|
||
|
bashermens
|
41c53365ae
|
[HOT FIX] MS build issues regarding folder / command lenght usage or rc.exe (#2038) | ||
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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) |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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! |
||
|
Crow
|
f874d2c79e
|
Fix typo in server loading message (#1742) | ||
|
Crow
|
f791ab61c4
|
Update server loading message | ||
|
Crow
|
3260ca1429
|
Cleanups to config and source (#1720)
* general edits * Clarify comment for bot teleportation map IDs |
||
|
bash
|
377ac199a7
|
Revert "Feat: Filter bot logins by level range" (#1705) | ||
|
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 |
||
|
kadeshar
|
1ea17e593a
|
Merge pull request #1499 from NoxMax/login-range
Feat: Filter bot logins by level range |
||
|
bash
|
0cc15411c1
|
license update (#1674) | ||
|
Iain Donnelly
|
6f79193d7a | Config option to set max number of guild members in random bot guilds | ||
|
bash
|
c8f32569a8
|
Merge branch 'master' into login-range | ||
|
Revision
|
ace813516d | Replaced tabs with spaces | ||
|
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 |
||
|
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 |
||
|
kadeshar
|
20025b7dfa
|
- Added quests ending death knight questline to by default enable LFG for them (#1633) | ||
|
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 |
||
|
Spargel
|
c218dbe653
|
Fix uses of restrictHealerDPS and randomBotCombatStrategies. (#1570) | ||
|
NoxMax
|
02343edc46
|
Merge branch 'master' into login-range | ||
|
kadeshar
|
bc737ecc68
|
- Changed standalone config on cheat (#1585)
- Changed drink condition |
||
|
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 |
||
|
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> |
||
|
NoxMax
|
0c3a799aae
|
Merge branch 'liyunfan1223:master' into login-range |