mirror of
https://github.com/liyunfan1223/mod-playerbots.git
synced 2026-06-20 15:39:25 +02:00
71 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
bash
|
cd16f6baf1 | z-axe clamping to prevent clipping throught the map | ||
|
kadeshar
|
4c9b0adb72
|
Fire mage cc (#2281)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Added support for fire mage cc spells like: Dragon's Breath (disorient)
and Blast Wave (knockback)
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
1. Invite fire mage to party
2. Add strategy `nc +duel`
3. Start duel and go near bot
4. Bot should use frost nova/dragon's breath/blast wave depends of
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?
- - [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**)
Mages cc by default
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
OpenCode, for research differences between CcStrategy implementation
between cmangos and ac playerbots
## 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.
-->
|
||
|
dillyns
|
4ba05962c9
|
Add fireball fallback for frostfire bolt for frost mage (#2271)
<!--
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 -->
Low level frost mages who do not yet have Frostfire Bolt never use Brain
Freeze procs, since it is trying to use Frostfire Bolt. This adds
Fireball as the fallback for Frostfire Bolt, so frost mages without
frostfire bolt will still use Fireball when they get Brain Freeze
## 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.
-->
Get a frost mage without Frostfire Bolt who has the Brain Freeze talent.
A level 60 frost mage works for example.
Have them attack something until Brain Freeze procs. They should now use
Fireball instead of ignoring 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**)
## 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.
-->
|
||
|
Crow
|
f5363c9465
|
Fix Warrior Battle Shout Spam (#2259)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
There is a known problem that Warriors will repeatedly spam Battle Shout
(BS) if there is a stronger Blessing of Might (BoM) present that they
cannot override. It has been long known that the issue arises from the
lack of a BS trigger. It was not a problem in the past because BS and
BoM used to (erroneously) stack, and that was eliminated when AC ported
TC's stacking rules.
This PR adds a trigger for BS that prevents the bot from attempting to
cast it if a stronger BoM (or Greater BoM) is present. To do this, it
compares the AP bonus of any BoM/GBoM applied to the Warrior bot, and
then will attempt BS only if the Warrior has a stronger one.
I also did some minor reformatting of the other Warrior triggers, mostly
just deleting comments and extra braces.
## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->
<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
The trigger is fairly complicated because it uses an AP comparison and
takes into account spell ranks and the talent Commanding Presence (which
increases the strength of BS). The bug could be solved by a very simple
aura check for BoM/GBoM. That's suboptimal though because BS will be
stronger if the Paladin has a lower rank of BoM or the Warrior has
Commanding Presence and the Paladin does not have Improved BoM.
At the end of the day, this is a new trigger that runs every tick, but
it's not really more expensive than generic BuffTriggers, which all do
this. And it is needed to solve a very annoying bug that essentially
renders Warriors useless in any optimized raid unless BS is disabled.
I don't believe this more robust trigger (as opposed to just calling
BuffTrigger and additionally checking for any BoM/GBoM aura) has any
further impact on performance--any added logic is practically free AFAIK
(e.g., checking if the bot has a particular talent is just an integer
lookup).
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
Form a group with a Warrior and Paladin bot, with the Warrior bot having
a weaker BS than the Paladin's BoM (this is naturally the case at max
level, unless the Warrior has Commanding Presence and the Paladin does
not have Improved BoM). Have the Paladin cast BoM on the Warrior if it
has not done so automatically. Enter combat and see if the Warrior uses
BS. Try again with the Warrior having a stronger BS.
## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [ ] No, not at all
- - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
As noted above, this is a new BuffTrigger that runs every tick.
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)
Default behavior was broken.
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
This is, with respect to the code, a pretty complex trigger. But that
should not impact other logic, and if need be, there is a very simple
version that could be implemented that would at least fix the bug, as
noted above.
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
I used Claude Sonnet 4.6. This is essentially the first PR that I
entirely vibe coded. I knew what the problem was and how to fix it,
including the conditions I wanted in the trigger, and the LLM did the
rest. I can tell you what each block does and why that's needed, but I
can't tell you how they all work technically.
I tested this ingame in scenarios where the available BS was stronger
and not as strong, and in each case, the correct behavior was observed.
I've since run several raids without BS disabled on my Warriors, and
they are correctly not using it (as my Ret Paladin is applying a
stronger BoM). The trigger does not show up as an expensive one with
pmon (unlike, say, VIgilance, which is probably the most expensive class
trigger in the mod (excluding any DK triggers just because I've never
used one so I have no idea)).
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
|
||
|
kadeshar
|
a87999bef5
|
Berserker Rage support (#2261)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> Added Berserker Rage usage (in combat and outside combat) for Warrior (all specs) Related with: #1755 ## How to Test the Changes <!-- - Step-by-step instructions to test the change. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). - Expected behavior and how to verify it. --> - invite warrior to party - [optional] start combat (for example with dummy) - use command `.aura 6215` - bot should cast Berserker Rage ## Impact Assessment <!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon tick) can help you here. --> - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - - [x] No, not at all - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) Warriors use Berserker Rage when they got fear, sleep or sap - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> - Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> - Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> Copilot CLI to review ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> <img width="324" height="125" alt="obraz" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e502f1c1-88f4-42a1-b07b-fc9ef3fd318b" /> [Berserker Rage performance test.txt](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26333365/Berserker.Rage.performance.test.txt) |
||
|
kadeshar
|
30c142aaca
|
Challenging Roar support (#2238)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> Added Challenging Roar support to druid taunt spell Related with: #2002 ## 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. --> - run dungeon with druid tank and monitor spell usage ## 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**) Druid also use Challenging Roar as taunt spell - 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. --> |
||
|
kadeshar
|
d07ddb14d0
|
Paladin use bubble heal strategy (#2244)
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.
Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.
Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->
## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Added support for bubble heal strategy.
Adjusted emergency action order
## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
- invite paladin bot to party
- check that bot dont have `healer dps` strategy
- start combat (with for example dummy)
- use `.damage 20000` where 20000 is near max health of bot
- use `.unaura 25771` until bot use Divine Shield
- bot should heal himself
## 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**)
Paladin bot heal himself without `healer dps` while Divine Shield
- 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.
-->
<img width="297" height="142" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5e35341b-2b23-4d34-b0c6-dc228823850f"
/>
|
||
|
Chris Lacy
|
579f972666
|
fix: invert NoRtiTrigger condition so mark rti strategy works (#2256)
## Summary - `NoRtiTrigger::IsActive()` returns `target != nullptr`, meaning it only fires when a raid icon is **already** assigned — creating a chicken-and-egg problem where the bot never places the first mark - Invert to `target == nullptr` so the trigger fires when **no** mark exists, prompting `MarkRtiAction` to mark the lowest-HP unmarked attacker - Once a mark is placed, the trigger stops firing until the marked target dies ## Test plan - [ ] Add `mark rti` strategy to a tank bot via `co +mark rti` - [ ] Enter combat with multiple mobs — bot should auto-mark lowest HP target with skull - [ ] Verify mark persists until target dies, then bot marks next target - [ ] Verify no marking occurs out of combat 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Crow
|
15bf0ab427
|
Fix Shaman Weapon Enchants & Cure Toxins/Cleanse Spirit (#2234)
<!-- 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 --> 1. I've been having persistent issues with Enhancement Shamans sometimes applying Rockbiter to both weapons instead of MH Windfury and OH Flametongue. Rockbiter is the alternative for Flametongue and, through Flametongue, the alternative for Windfury. But there seemed to be no obvious reason why a Shaman that had all three abilities would ever use Rockbiter, which costs more mana than Windfury and Flametongue. Claude's take on it is that there is instability from ItemForSpellValue related to its poor way of distinguishing handedness, in addition to it having a 1-second cache, which can cause in some scenarios stale caches for the action running on each hand back-to-back. I still can't say I fully understand why the issue exists, but the most straightforward fix that should prevent this from happening is to just have separate mainhand and offhand actions for each enchant. So that's what this PR does. The relevant ActionNodes are now: - The MH-specific chain for Enhancement is WF -> FT -> RB. In practice, Enhancement should never apply RB because all Shamans under level 10 (when FT is learned) are considered Elemental. The FT -> RB node is just for Elemental. - The MH-specific Resto chain (not that Resto can dual-wield) is EL -> FT -> RB. Againt, FT -> RB is just for Elemental. - OH for Enhancement is only FT. You cannot be Enhancement before level 10, nor can Enhancement dual-wield before level 40, so no alternative is needed. 3. I commented out Frostbrand Weapon actions/triggers because the ability is not included in any strategy. I didn't delete the code because in the future somebody might want to implement it as I understand it can be useful for Enhancement Shamans in PvP. 4. Shamans are coded to use "cure poison" and "cure disease", which do not exist in WotLK, having been combined into Cure Toxins. Wishmaster has PR #1844 that has been open on this for a long time, but I decided to correct the abilities here anyway as he was going for a more limited approach, and I decided to rename all the actions and redo the structure to rely on ActionNode alternatives, which is pretty much the exact framework that should be used for this type of situation w/r/t bots. Now, Shamans prefer Cleanse Spirit (Resto talent, which costs the same as Cure Toxins and also dispels curses), with an alternative of Cure Toxins (for poisons and disease only). I tested this and it seems to work well. 5. I deleted empty ActionNodes. 6. I did some cleanup of formatting and such, but this is not intended to be a comprehensive refactor. ## 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. I've followed the general intended structure of class strategies with triggers and actions. The same triggers exist, just different actions are called based on the trigger that fires, so I don't think there should be any impact on performance. ## 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. --> The best way to get a grasp on if things work is probably to just do group play for a while with Shamans and make sure they apply the right enchants and properly cast Cleanse Spirit and Cure Toxins. ## 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**) Shamans previously did not cure poisons or disease at all, and now they do with the default "cure" strategy applied. - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) One might say having separate actions per hand for enchants is somewhat more complex, but ultimately I think it is less confusing to keep those paths separate. ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> I had Claude try to diagnose the weapon enchant issue. It proposed and provided the separate MH/OH WF/FT actions. The other things were easy enough for me to do. ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com> |
||
|
kadeshar
|
76dd91c4fa
|
Hand of Freedom support (#2233)
<!-- 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 Added Hand of Freedom action for paladin. Related with: #2002 ## How to Test the Changes <!-- - Step-by-step instructions to test the change. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). - Expected behavior and how to verify it. --> - invite paladin bot to party - start fight (can use dummy target) - apply some snare effect to bot or yourself (for example `.aura 1715`) - bot should use hand of freedom ## 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**) Yes, paladin bots start using Hand of Freedom - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> - Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> - Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> OpenCode, as helper to create and review code ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> <img width="424" height="93" alt="obraz" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3cac4454-35af-474d-8ea0-67c462973c79" /> |
||
|
dillyns
|
496d6c9e4c
|
Blood dk rotation update (#2227)
<!--
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 -->
Improve the blood DK rotation, add hysteria use, improve blood pact use.
Basic Blood priority should be:
1. Keep diseases up
2. Use rune strike whenever possible
3. Use frost and death runes on Icy Touch (highest threat ability)
4. Use unholy runes on death strike to trigger more death runes
5. use blood runes on heart/blood strike
Hysteria should be used on a physical dps, or a tank if no physical dps
is available. Never a caster or healer.
Summon ghoul should be saved for death pact usage. They are honestly a
liability that aggros everything in range without the unholy talent that
turns them into a pet anyways.
## 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.
Removed plague strike from the general rotation. It should only be used
for disease application.
Added death strike on "high unholy rune" trigger instead.
Remove raise dead from generic dk. Only cast it right before death pact.
Add hysteria to bloods default actions.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
Minimal change
## 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 rotation changes:
Use a combat parsing addon such as Details! or watch the combat log of a
Blood DK bot.
They should now use death strike instead of using unholy runes on plague
strike.
To test hysteria:
Ungrouped blood dk bots can be observed using it on themselves.
Create a group with the blood dk + casters/healers only. Observe that
they never use hysteria on the casters.
Create a group with blood dk + physical dps. Observe that they use
hysteria on a dps and not themselves.
To test blood pact:
I used GM command .damage to get my Blood DK bot into "critical health"
trigger. They will use raise dead then blood pact.
## 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**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Used for brainstorming and exploring the codebase to find similar
patterns.
## 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.
-->
|
||
|
Crow
|
79562be2e5
|
Fix Hunter Aspect Switching + Trigger Cleanups (#2203)
# Pull Request Note: When I reference Aspect of the Hawk below, it also means Aspect of the Dragonhawk (the code will use Dragonhawk if the Hunter has it, Hawk if not, they share actions, triggers, and strategies). Hunter Aspects are currently bugged. All Hunters, regardless of spec or strategy, are hardcoded to use Aspect of the Hawk when mana is at 70%+ and Aspect of the Viper when mana drops to "lowMana" from the config (default is 15%), divided by 2. This means the following: - Hawk (bdps) and Viper (bmana) strategies are useless - Pack (bspeed) and Wild (rnature) strategies are applied, but bots will rapidly switch back and forth between Pack/Wild and Hawk/Viper, depending on strategy and mana level. This PR addresses the issues by doing the following: - Global Hawk strategy is removed. Now you need to set bdps for Hunters to use Hawk, but bdps remains the default Aspect strategy for all Hunters. - Dedicated Viper strategy is removed, leaving the global strategy. However, Viper will be used (when lowMana/2) ONLY if the bot is set to bdps. If the bot has the Wild or Pack strategy, they will not switch to Viper at all. I did this because I am assuming if you are using Wild or Pack, you need them for reasons other than to pump DPS. - The threshold to switch back to Hawk is lowered from 70% to 60%. The gap between lowMana/2 and 60% is now filled--if bdps is on, Hunters will switch to Hawk whenever above the Viper threshold, _except_ for when they have the Viper aura, in which case they will not switch to Hawk until 60% mana. This lets the Hunter build back mana before swapping back to Hawk (more like general player behavior) while still letting them swap from other Aspects to Hawk without needing to be all the way at 60% mana. - Gets rid of a weird condition in the Hawk trigger that would make it so that Hunters would switch to Hawk when at exactly 0 mana. I'm not sure what the point of that is. Also, I refactored the triggers a bit because I noticed there was some dead code in there. I didn't do a comprehensive refactor, but there was a lot of stuff that clearly didn't make sense even to my eyes, like back-to-back returns. I think there's more unnecessary code even just in the triggers, but I didn't want to get too into the weeds with this PR. --- ## 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? I don't expect there to be any impact on costs, and if anything this PR removes some unneeded checks from triggers. --- ## 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 The easiest way is to go shoot a dummy with Volley until low on mana and then toggle on selfbot. You can do this with various Aspects active to test. ## 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**) Described above. Default behavior is broken. 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**) I asked Claude some questions about the triggers to make sure I didn't screw anything up. 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: 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
|
7fa9ab7d34
|
Module update for CollisionChange (#2242)
<!--
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 -->
Some code changes due to core update change from MMapFactory.h
->MapCollisionData.h
## 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**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [X] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Identifying problematic areas generated by the change
## 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.
-->
|
||
|
bashermens
|
ac99f45696
|
Bugfix(issue-1878): floating players in certain conditions (#2245)
<!-- 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 https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/1878 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-HO-OosP0oY ## 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**) ## 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> |
||
|
kadeshar
|
6db44b5296
|
Will of the forsaken (#2231)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> Added Will of the Forsaken support. Made structure fix for affected files. Partially resolves: #2002 ## 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. --> - create/invite undead bot - start fight (you can use dummy target) - use `.aura 6215` to fear bot - bot should use "Will of the Forsaken" to remove debuff ## 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**) Undead bot use now "Will of the Forsaken" to remove charm, fear or sleep. - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) ## Messages to Translate <!-- Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the translations here. You only need to make sure the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the message_key and the default English message. Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples. --> - Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | | | | | | | ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> - Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> OpenCode to review changes ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> <img width="325" height="77" alt="obraz" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/729cfdf8-3742-457c-9278-7fcce824e6d0" /> --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
FutterSillo
|
45aa6f2f8e
|
Update valid targets for Hunter Talent: "Improved Tracking" (#2218)
<!--
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 -->
Updates the list of valid targets in NoTrackTrigger::IsActive() for the
hunter talent "Improved Tracking". Including:
"track beasts",
"track demons",
"track dragonkin",
"track elementals",
"track giants",
"track humanoids",
"track undead",
// "track hidden",
// "find herbs",
// "find minerals",
// "find fish",
// "find treasure",
This change ensures standard combat tracking is correctly recognized
while providing commented-out utility options (Hidden, Herbs, Minerals,
Fish, Treasure). This is specifically useful for "Selfbot" users who
want to maintain a specific utility tracking without the bot logic
automatically overriding it and switching back to "Track Humanoids".
## 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.
-->
- Track valid Targets for "Improved Tracking" with a Hunter in selfbot.
Its stay the same.
- Track any other Targets for "Improved Tracking" with a Hunter in
selfbot. Its switch back to "Track Humanoids".
## 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**)
## 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: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
|
||
|
kadeshar
|
bbd9d3e37a
|
Wait for attack strategy migration (#2211)
## Pull Request Description Migration of "wait for attack" strategy from cmangos playerbots. Resolves: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/990 ## Feature Evaluation Optional strategy for bots which are in party with real player. ## How to Test the Changes - add strategy to bot "nc +wait for attack" and "co +wait for attack" - set time via command "wait for attack time x" where x is time which they wait in seconds (you should get response from bot) - attack any target (for example dummy in main city)(bot should wait with attack) ## Impact Assessment - [ ] No, not at all - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) Performance wise only bots having this optinal strategy have additional cost in multiplier which check every attack action that should be execute. - 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 Does this change add bot messages to translate? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (**list messages in the table**) | Message key | Default message | | --------------- | ------------------ | 1740 | Please provide a time to set (in seconds) 1741 | Please provide valid time to set (in seconds) between 0 and 99 1742 | Wait for attack time set to %new_time seconds ## 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. --> Copilot CLI - help with migration ## 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. --> |
||
|
dillyns
|
b172e88010
|
Resto druids should always be in tree form (#2192)
# Pull Request Resto druids would not go into tree of life form when in combat until certain triggers were hit. They should be in tree of life form all the time. Move tree form actions from the various triggers to default actions instead, with highest priority ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior?| When healer druids enter combat their first priority should be entering tree form. - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? Add tree form action to default healer druid actions instead of triggers. - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? nil --- ## How to Test the Changes - Have a resto druid bot with tree of life form talented. - Enter combat - The druid should immediately enter tree of life form ## 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. |
||
|
Crow
|
91eac70ca2
|
Implement Zul'Aman Strategies (#2186)
# Pull Request _Implement strategies for all bosses in Zul'Aman. See next post for overview of implemented strategies._ --- ## 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? _I have attempted to order checks while taking into account cost and likelihood and have opted to find lower-cost methods where possible. I have also not gone as in depth as I have with other strategies, partially because it is not necessary to complete encounters but also to try to limit the performance impact. From my observation, including with pmon, none of the methods should be overly taxing._ --- ## 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 _Run Zul'Aman. See next post for strategies to test._ ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) _Only in the context of raid strategies, with new methods to consider and new multipliers to evaluate when bots perform actions with the instance strategy active._ Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) _The impact is only with the "zulaman" strategy active, which will be applied only in the instance. There is currently a PR open to also remove instance strategies when leaving the map to get rid of the residual performance impact._ Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) _Technically yes, but I think it is unlikely to have an appreciable difference unless there are many groups running the instance at the same time on a large server._ ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) _Only in the instance. It is a necessary trade-off to consider with raid strategies that I always keep in mind (degree of automation vs. player choice)._ If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable _Not exactly sure how to address this question in the context of this PR, but there aren't any techniques or methods for this strategy that I have not tried before (or something very similar)._ ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (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 _Gemini and GPT for some questions about the codebase and C++ and assistance with drafting a few things like containers that I find more tedious to do myself._ 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: 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> |
||
|
kadeshar
|
d0d1171e06
|
Fixed typo (#2230)
<!--
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 -->
Fixed typo
## 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.
-->
- compile test-staging with 20260320-ac-merge
## 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**)
## 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.
-->
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
9f875a7c81
|
CoreUpdate - ThreatMgr (#2228)
<!--
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 -->
Modification to threat system required for current core update PR.
## 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**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Claude. Module search for changes made. It also identified a section of
dead code in EnemyPlayerValue due to incorrect ref that was fixed.
## 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.
-->
|
||
|
dillyns
|
32af1b95de
|
Paladin Seal of wisdom fallback fix for Ret/Prot Paladins (#2147)
# Pull Request This PR removes the fallback for Seal of Wisdom action from generic Paladin strategy and moves it to Holy Paladin only. This is necessary because a paladin who does not have Seal of Wisdom yet who goes low mana and triggers the seal of wisdom action will end up falling back to Seal of Righteousness, even though a better seal may be available, such as Seal of Command. The fallback is added to Holy Paladin so that low level holy paladins still use Righteousness until they get Wisdom --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? Ret paladin without Seal of Wisdom shouldn't change seals on low mana. - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? Cheapest implementation is to remove seal of wisdom fallback for non-holy paladins. - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? No difference in cost compared to existing logic. --- ## How to Test the Changes Use a ret paladin bot who has Seal of Command but who does not have Seal of Wisdom. A paladin under level 38 will do. Order them to attack something, like a test dummy, until they eventually run low on mana. Before this change: The paladin will switch to Seal of Righteousness when they get low mana. After this change: The paladin leaves Seal of Command on when they get low mana. ## 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. |
||
|
kadeshar
|
98395a1090
|
Added cancellation druid form actions (#2194)
# Pull Request Added new (for now manual) actions to cancel druid forms. Resolve: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/1788 --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - order bot enter some form like `do travel form` - order bot cancel form like `do cancel travel form` --- ## How to Test the Changes - order bot enter some form like `do travel form` - order bot cancel form like `do cancel travel form` ## 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 --- |
||
|
kadeshar
|
c6a07ad012
|
Every Man for Himself racial support (#2198)
# Pull Request Added Every Man for Himself racial support Partially resolves: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/2002 --- ## How to Test the Changes - when human bot is in combat apply aura via command `.aura 20066` - bot should use "Every Man for Himself" to remove aura ## 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**) Human bots now using "Every Man for Himself" by default where in combat If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Copilot CLI to review changes --- ## 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 Test result: <img width="358" height="97" alt="obraz" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/66044a93-d73b-4706-ae2f-ea8ae6e25438" /> |
||
|
Crow
|
cba6af27ad
|
Fix Assassination Rogue Finishers and add Cold Blood (#2215)
<!--
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 -->
**Note for reviewers**: The Rogue files are very confusing, so for
background, there is DpsRogueStrategy, which is for all Rogues and
represented by the “dps” strategy in game, and there is also
AssassinationRogueStrategy, which is for Assassination and Subtlety
specs and represented by the “melee” strategy in game. So Combat has
only the dps strategy, while Assassination and Subtlety have the dps and
melee strategies.
- The main focus of this PR is to fix an issue with Assassination Rogues
that caused them to use Eviscerate instead of Envenom about 1/3 of the
time they should have been using Envenom, which was significantly
reducing their DPS. See the bottom of this post for an explanation for
why this was happening and why the fix works. Well, LMK if you think
it's wrong, but this is how I am understanding things, and my
back-of-the-envelope math (also below) supports it.
- After this PR, Assassination Rogues will use Eviscerate only if they
are unable to use Envenom (don't have the ability learned or no Deadly
Poison on the target) or if they don’t have Rank 3 in Master Poisoner.
- Additionally, Assassination Rogues previously would use
Envenom/Eviscerate at 3 or more combo points. This is suboptimal so I
created a new “combo points 4 available” trigger that will fire at 4 or
5 combo points only. They will still use the finisher at 3 combo points
if the mob is almost dead (via the existing “target with combo points
almost dead” trigger).
- I then added Cold Blood, which Rogues previously would not use at all.
Now there is a ColdBloodAction(), and Cold Blood is used when a Rogue
has at least 4 combo points, right before using Envenom (or Eviscerate).
I implemented it as a standard BuffTrigger so they’ll just use the
ability off cooldown.
- While looking at the combo point triggers, I thought it was confusing
that the “combo points available” trigger actually meant 5 combo points
(presumably because the default parameter for combo points in
ComboPointsAvailableTrigger() is 5). I changed the string to “combo
points 5 available” so it’s less confusing going forward. This
necessitated some changes in the Druid files too.
- Next, I cleaned up DpsRogueStrategy a bit. Not a lot to say, just some
duplicative or useless logic was removed. There shouldn’t be any impact
on gameplay from the changes.
- In the process of making the edits in the Druid files, I noticed that
the trigger for Tiger’s Fury in OffhealDruidCatStrategy was “low
energy,” which does not exist (there is a “light energy available,” but
the EnergyAvailable triggers are for when energy is AT LEAST the
designated level, not AT MOST the designated level). So I replaced the
trigger with the already-existing “tiger’s fury” trigger, which I think
is just a generic BuffTrigger so I don’t actually know why it exists
(i.e., Druid will use the spell off cooldown). But this particular
change is just a quick fix and not intended to be thoughtful (that would
be outside the scope of this PR).
## 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.
There should be no relevant impact on performance. This PR adds one new
action triggered by the standard BuffTrigger. Otherwise, these are just
fixes to existing logic.
## 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.
-->
The easiest way to test is to fight a boss that doesn't tend to result
in downtime (since downtime can lead to the loss of deadly poison
stacks, in which case Eviscerate will (and should be) used by
Assassination Rogues). You can use a damage meter such as Skada to track
ability use. You should see:
- Assassination Rogues don't use Eviscerate at all, or very few times.
- Assassination Rogues use Cold Blood.
- Offheal Cat Druids use Tiger's Fury.
- Otherwise, Rogue and Cat Druid behavior should remain the same.
## 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**)
Default behavior for Assassination Rogues was broken, as explained
above.
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)
| Message key | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
| | |
| | |
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [ ] No
- [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
I had Claude help me diagnose the initial issue and help me understand
the queue system. And I had it implement the changes that were just
busywork (like combo point triggers).
## 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.
-->
The reason for why Assassination Rogues were using Eviscerate so
frequently is due to the fact that Envenom and Eviscerate were part of
the same TriggerNode. When actions are part of the same TriggerNode,
they're processed together, and the actions are queued by priority. When
the higher-priority action is executed, the lower-priority action is not
cleared--it remains in the queue for expireActionTime from the config,
which is 5 seconds by default. Then, as soon as the lower-priority
action can be executed (without regard for triggers because it is
already triggered, just sitting in the queue), it will execute.
This pattern of code works fine ingame if (1) you are actually trying to
queue actions, like what I did with Cold Blood -> Envenom, (2) there are
other guards like IsUseful() and IsPossible() that keep unwanted actions
from executing, or (3) the trigger is just constantly firing so the
higher-priority action is always evaluated. But TriggerNode isn't really
the right way to implement action priority--that's through ActionNode.
AssassinationRogueStrategy had Envenom and Eviscerate in the same
TriggerNode, and then the corresponding ActionNode had Rupture as a
fallback. Now, I changed it so Eviscerate is instead a fallback in the
Envenom ActionNode (and Rupture is removed entirely because
Assassination Rogues just shouldn't be using it, except maybe on very
high-armor targets that are immune to poison, but that is very niche).
~
I did some back-of-the-envelope math to check this pattern. Say we're in
a situation where Deadly Poison is up so ideally the Rogue should use
Envenom 100% of the time. Through the old system, what would happen when
the trigger fired?
- Rogue uses Envenom since it's the higher-priority action.
- Due to the Ruthlessness talent, Rogue has a 60% chance of having 1
combo point after the finisher, 40% chance of 0 combo points. If it has
1 combo point, it uses Eviscerate immediately.
- If it has 0 combo points, it uses Mutilate. Mutilate grants 2 combo
points, unless it crits, in which case it grants 3 due to Seal Fate. If
Mutilate doesn't crit, the Rogue has 2 combo points, and it uses
Eviscerate. If Mutilate does crit, the Rogue has 3 combo points, and it
uses Envenom.
- So let's assume Mutilate has a 55% crit chance (very reasonable for a
Rogue in entry-level raid gear with raid buffs due to Opportunity giving
+20% crit chance to Mutilate). Mutilate hits twice, and if either hit
crits, Seal Fate Procs. The chance of at least one crit with two hits at
a 55% crit chance is ~80%. That means if Ruthlessness doesn't give a
combo point, there is an 80% chance that Envenom will be used and a 20%
chance that Eviscerate will be used.
- Combine the above, and the result of one trigger firing is you get 1
guaranteed Envenom + 0.6 Eviscerates (Ruthlessness proc path) + 0.32
Envenoms (No Ruthlessness proc but Seal Fate proc path) + 0.08
Eviscerates (No Ruthlessness proc and no Seal Fate proc path) = 1.32
Envenoms to each 0.68 Eviscerates, or a 1.94:1 ratio of Envenoms to
Eviscerates. That is basically identical to what I saw in practice of
roughly a 2:1 ratio of Envenoms to Eviscerates.
- I understand the above is simplistic and it assumes that the Rogue
gets a combo point within 5 seconds following using Envenom (very
likely) and that there are not two opportunities to use Envenom or
Eviscerate in the 5-second queue period after using Envenom (it can
happen but is uncommon). That's all at the margins and isn't going to
impact the math very much.
---------
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
|
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. |
||
|
Crow
|
35a0282ca6
|
Add Sense Undead for Paladins (#2200)
# Pull Request This PR adds the sense undead ability for Paladins, which they will keep active at all times. This is mildly useful because the associated minor glyph provides a 1% damage increase against undead while the ability is active. Sense undead is also added to InitClassSpells(). I understand that it is a trainer spell so would normally be covered by InitAvailableSpells(), but those playing with mod-individual-progression will not receive the spell through InitAvailableSpells() because it is removed from trainers by the mod (in TBC, a quest was required to obtain the spell). Finally, the minor glyph of sense undead is now added to the config as a default glyph for all PvE specs. It is not added for PvP specs because Forsaken do not count as undead so the glyph is useless in PvP. I also made some other tweaks to Paladin default minor glyphs that are not worth spending any time talking about. Edit: I also did some minor reformatting of code and replaced some numbers with existing constants. --- ## 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? The implementation just checks if a Paladin has the sense undead aura, and if not, the Paladin will activate sense undead. It is simple and cheap. --- ## 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? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Infinitesimally 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**) Paladin bots will by default have sense undead enabled. There is no disadvantage to this. 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: 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
|
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. |
||
|
kadeshar
|
a695ac77fa
|
Small fixes to naxxramas strategy (#2201)
# Pull Request Small fixes to naxxramas strategy --- ## 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: Copilot CLI to code review --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed |
||
|
Crow
|
dca0be2932
|
Updates to SSC Strategies (#2138)
# Pull Request Most of the changes are not functional but are to modify style based on comments received to the TK PR (e.g., eliminate nesting of if statements) and leverage general boss helpers. There is some reordering of returns and other changes to try to consolidate or clean-up the code (such as removing unnecessary parameters). The strategies themselves have only minor changes. - Main tank no longer uses tangential movement for Lurker Spout, unlike other bots. The MT will just call moves directly to a position behind Lurker. This is because I found tangential movement was taking too long for the MT to get in place since it starts right in front of Lurker. - Vashj MT group Shaman will now use Grounding Totem without actually switching to the Grounding Totem strategy. I have now eliminated all strategy swaps, which I dislike because they persist after the encounter, and it's better not to mess with player strategies since presumably people are generally using Windfury or Wrath of Air for the Air Totem. - I made a ton of changes to Vashj core passing as I noticed the existing logic is nonfunctional in several ways. It generally works fine ingame, but the changes should make things much smoother. For example, the storing of the nearest trigger NPC for generators in the existing strategy is useless because it relies on insert_or_assign for an unordered map that will continue to run during the course of the core passing logic, and a similar issue exists with respect to the map to store the last time a bot held a core. The result is that there is slight movement of bots when the core is flying through the air and not held by any bot because the trigger for core passing does not fire during that period. In practice, the time is brief enough that the sequence works OK, but it looks stupid because the bots should not be moving at all. So that should be fixed. There is a known issue re: core passing that would take extreme effort to fix and I am not going to do it because it is a fringe situation. There are a couple of spots where the Tainted Elemental can rarely spawn that can result in a straight-line passing sequence to the nearest generator that is blocked by LoS. Fixing this would be extremely difficult and niche, so what you will need to do if this happens is to just command your bots to destroy the core and try again with the next spawn. --- ## 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? I have attempted to streamline methods and even remove some. The strategy is admittedly somewhat performance heavy due to the need for function calls such as iterating over inventory items. However, the new version should be less performance intensive than the merged strategy--for example, there were places where all members of the raid would have their inventory checked, but I've now limited the check to only the 5 core handler bots. I've run the instance with pmon on, and there are no methods that stand out as particularly resource intensive when not in a boss encounter, and I view that as the most important thing (though I make effort to reduce performance impact during encounters also). Expensive checks that are unavoidable for the strategy to work such as grid searches are gated behind cheaper checks. --- ## 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 Enter SSC with a raid group and run the instance, including all bosses. Every boss should be killable, and every major mechanic should be addressed by bots. I will work with Dreathean to get the Wiki up soon so that should be a reference for testing strategies. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Only within the context of strategies, which are basically all new decision branches, and there are some tweaks here to what is currently merged. Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) I'm sure if you have a large server, with multiple raid groups running the instance at the same time, the performance impact could be significant. But I have done my best to limit it, and I think some notable performance impact is unavoidable with the current framework for raid strategies. --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) Only for strategies in the instance. If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable There should be no impact if co +ssc and nc +ssc are not added to bots. Because raid strategies are currently not removed after leaving an instance, players should manually remove them (or reset botAI). This is a general issue that needs to be addressed with the module. --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (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. GPT-4 because I don't like to use up my premium requests in CoPilot and I generally like it better than GPT-5 =P I use LLMs to draft code snippets but do review everything and have become less-and-less reliant over time. I don't use agent mode, only ask. For this PR, I had it do the updated version of AnyRecentCoreInInventory(), which is more complicated than before and uses indexing for each bot to consider status of only prior bots in the passing chain. Everything else either I wrote or could have written but had the AI help and just edited afterward to save time. --- ## 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: 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> |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
ca19548cc5
|
Fix transport boarding when master is on a transport (Zep/Boats) (#1830)
Summary This PR improves Follow related behaviour when the master is on a transport (zeppelin/boat). It makes follow actions safer and less disruptive by: Detecting when the master is on a transport and handling boarding correctly Avoiding teleport-under-floor issues by using a small positional offset when teleporting the bot near the master Preventing movement conflicts between MoveSpline/MotionMaster and the transport driver by forcing a MotionMaster cleanup and MoveIdle after boarding Clearing movement flags (forward / walking) after boarding so the bot does not remain in a walking/march state Next-check delay after boarding to allow the server to update transport/position state Before this change, bots get stuck when attempting to board Fight the server-side transport movement because local MoveSpline/MotionMaster was still active Repeatedly attempt movement on every follow tick while already a passenger, causing jitter and CPU/noise This PR reduces stuck/jitter cases, avoids conflicting movement commands, and makes boarding more robust. **Key changes** Check master->GetTransport() and handle three main cases: If bot already passenger of same transport: stabilize (StopMoving, Clear(true), MoveIdle, StopMovingOnCurrentPos) and set a longer next-check delay; return false (no new movement in theory). If bot passenger of another transport: do nothing (avoid conflicting behaviour). If bot not a passenger of master transport: teleport bot near master (with offsets) and call Transport::AddPassenger(bot, true), then force: bot->StopMoving() bot->GetMotionMaster()->Clear(true) bot->GetMotionMaster()->MoveIdle() Remove movement flags MOVEMENTFLAG_FORWARD and MOVEMENTFLAG_WALKING SetNextCheckDelay to random 1000–2500 ms Log boarding with bot name, transport GUID and coordinates Preserve earlier follow logic when master is not on a transport Tests performed Manual tests on a local server: Master on boat/zeppelin -> bot teleports to a safe offset position and becomes a passenger without getting stuck Bot already passenger on same transport -> bot no longer issues movement commands and stabilizes Bot on a different transport -> no boarding attempt for master's transport (no interference) Movement flags cleared after boarding; bot stops local movement and does not fight server transport movement Now the bots follow their masters in the zeppelins and boats, although sometimes they move around a bit inside when the zeppelin starts (they must have smoked something bad). --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
NoxMax
|
ca9f23a8e3
|
Fix/Defensive: Prevent division by zero in MovementActions (#2185)
Added a check to prevent division by zero for orphaned raid groups. # Pull Request If a bots somehow ends up alone in a raid group, this can divide by zero and freeze the server. --- ## 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? This is the simplest and cheapest way to implement this fix. --- ## 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 The fix is a self-evident defensive measure. ## 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? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Core dump logs analysis to find this problem. 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. |
||
|
Crow
|
80860d72a3
|
Some simple improvements to Karazhan strategies (#2173)
# Pull Request I've made a few simple changes to the Karazhan strategies that should result in notable improvements in game. - **Attumen**: I was using a GetExactDist2d() check for phase 2 when bots stack behind him. That resulted in ranged bots being too close to attack. It's now switched to the correct GetDistance2d() check to account for the hitbox. - **Maiden of Virtue**: The tank continuously ran side-to-side when trying to tank her because it was trying to turn the boss with TankFaceAction but not being able to due to being required to be within a short distance of a set waypoint. I didn't understand the cause when I was originally working on Karazhan. To fix this, a new multiplier disables CombatFormationMoveAction (the "co+ disperse" strategy) and its inherited classes, except for SetBehindTargetAction. The only other class that inherits from CombatFormationMoveAction is TankFaceAction. I disabled the parent class also because the ranged bots have a coded positioning strategy and should not observe the co+ disperse strategy. - **The Curator**: Same deal as Maiden with a new multiplier. - **Nightbane**: Same deal as Maiden with a new multiplier. - **Malchezaar**: Infernal avoidance for non-enfeebled bots had movement priority set to MOVEMENT_FORCED. This was not good because it made bots refuse to cross Hellfire so if you got unlucky, they could be stuck on the other side of an Infernal from the boss and completely out of the fight. MOVEMENT_FORCED needs to be reserved for situations in which the bot absolutely cannot step in the AoE at all, and that's not the case for non-Enfeebled bots here. Priority is now changed to MOVEMENT_COMBAT. --- ## 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? No additional complication in logic from these changes, and additional performance impact is exceedingly small (just a few more multipliers with inexpensive checks that would apply only in Karazhan). --- ## 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 Should be straightforward. Engage the above-mentioned bosses in Karazhan and observe the mechanics. I did test all of them. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [ ] No - - [X] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Barely due to the additional multipliers. Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [X] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) --- ## Final Checklist - - [X] Stability is not compromised - - [X] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [X] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [X] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
18bd655869
|
Restore Naxx Strategies without core dependencies (#2031)
### Summary This PR restores the Naxxramas raid strategies that were removed in commit 686fe513b25bbb20ccfcc89f08ee8c4b498a263e . The reintroduced logic is core‑friendly (no AzerothCore script headers or internal boss AI/EventMap dependencies), and the Naxxramas actions have been refactored into per‑boss files for better maintainability. ### Motivation The previous removal was meant to avoid core modifications and unblock upstreaming. This PR brings the strategies back while adhering to that requirement, using only observable state and mod‑playerbots helpers. ### What’s included - Re‑enabled the Naxxramas strategies previously removed. - Replaced core script header dependencies with observable checks (auras, casts, unit flags, flight state, etc.). - Split the Naxxramas action logic into per‑boss source files to avoid a “god file” and ease future maintenance. - Minor, non‑intrusive behavior improvements aligned with existing helpers. ### Future work Some strategies may still require refinement or more advanced handling later. This PR focuses on restoring the baseline logic without core dependencies, while keeping changes minimal and safe. **Any contributions are welcome to further improve and fine‑tune the Naxxramas strategies.** ### Testing Tested in some Naxx boxx. No server crash and boss killed :D Note: I'll make another PR with revised scripts when this one are merged --------- 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> |
||
|
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. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
8519b10d39
|
Fix movenearwateraction isUseful (#2168)
# Pull Request Minor sign change to make check work properly. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [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. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
439293e100
|
Warnings PR 2 clean unused variables (#2107)
# Pull Request
Removed unused variables and fixed styling issues.
## How to Test the Changes
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
This was filtered from the code provided by SmashingQuasar. Eliminated
variables were confirmed to be not used, but unclear at times if that is
due to mistakes in writing.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
Crow
|
be2cf436ea
|
Implement Tempest Keep: The Eye Strategies (#1943)
Edit: Descriptions of methods are out of date right now. To be updated. This one comes with the same caveats as SSC about requiring ownership from somebody with C++ knowledge, except I think the matter is even more acute here because these strategies incorporate a novel approach proposed by Timberpoes. By redeclaring the entire bossai class for Kael’thas, it was possible to add new member functions to the class in order to access its private member variables. This allows bots to have visibility into boss mechanics beyond what they could do with ordinary techniques and is similar in approach to what was done by the Naxx strategies, except that this approach does not require any modifications to the core. I used it for only one mechanic, which was to detect Kael’thas’s phase. That was very helpful because the fight is divided into 5 phases, and distinguishing between them with traditional techniques requires lookups of a dozen NPCs and comparisons of their various unit states, react states, and auras; by accessing his bossai, this can all be avoided. However, there is far more potential beyond this if the approach is an acceptable one. On with the (shit)show. ### Trash In a perfect world, there would be many strategies for TK trash, which is easily more difficult than two of the bosses. It’s a real pain to do though because to solve the biggest issues properly, each pack would have to be handled a little differently. So the only thing I’ve included is for Mages to cast polymorph on the Crimson Hand Centurions when they are channeling Arcane Flurry. The purpose is not to actually keep them CC’d but to interrupt their channel. ### Al’ar This fight sucked so much to write a strategy for. The only silver lining is that being the post-nerf version, the boss moves between only 4 platform locations (instead of 6), and movement between them is on a fixed rotation (interrupted by Flame Quills) instead of being random. Thus, a strategy can be consistently replicated, and the fight can be done with only 3 tanks (2 on the platforms for the boss and 1 below for adds). **Phase 1:** I’m going to call the platform that Al’ar lands at after the pull “platform 0” because that reflects the indices in the code. In a clockwise direction, the remaining platforms will be referred to as platforms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The best way to pull is to first put all ranged, as well as tanks other than your main tank and first assistant tank, on nc +stay below platform 0. Then, go up the ramp to platform 0 with your main tank, first assistant tank, and melee dps following you, then hit Al’ar with any ranged attack or spell to start the fight. - Your main tank will start at platform 0, and your first assistant tank will immediately move to platform 1. When Al’ar moves to platform 1, your main tank will move to platform 2. When Al’ar moves to platform 2, your first assistant tank will move to platform 3. When Al’ar moves to platform 3, your main tank will move back to platform 0. This assures a tank is available to receive Al’ar after every platform movement (every 30 seconds). - Melee DPS will follow Al’ar as it moves between platforms. - Each platform is mapped to a corresponding ground location below it. Ranged DPS and healers will follow Al’ar by moving to the corresponding ground location as it flies between platforms. - After each platform move, an Ember of Al’ar will spawn. Your second assistant tank will pick up the Ember and move it to the point that is 25 yards away from the ground position corresponding to Al’ar’s platform (on an invisible line between such ground position and the middle of the room). Ranged DPS will then focus down the Ember before switching back to Al’ar (this positioning is so that ranged are not hit by the Ember Blast explosion that happens whenever an Ember dies). - Each time Al’ar leaves a platform, it has a chance to instead fly up high in the middle of the room to perform Flame Quills, which will one-shot anybody on the upper level or ramps. When Al’ar begins the Flame Quills sequence, all bots on the top level will jump off. FYI, Al’ar’s usage of Flame Quills is not entirely random: there is a 20% chance for it to do so after the first platform move, and the chance increases by another 20% after each subsequent platform move that does not trigger Flame Quills (reset after each Flame Quills sequence). - After Flame Quills, Al’ar will randomly land at either platform 0 or 3. To prepare for this, bots will move to assigned positions during the Flame Quills sequence: - Ranged and the second assistant tank will wait in the middle of the room. - Melee DPS will wait at a point that is between the base of each ramp. - The main tank will wait at the base of the ramp to platform 0. - The first assistant tank will wait at the base of the ramp to platform 3. - Once Al’ar lands, the regular Phase 1 strategies resume. - When Al’ar “dies,” it disappears and moves to the center of the room, where it casts Rebirth and returns to full HP. Bots will wait outside of the radius of the Rebirth explosion for Phase 2 to start. Phase 2: - Your main tank will tank Al’ar initially. When Al’ar casts Melt Armor, your first assistant tank will taunt Al’ar and take over. The tank swaps will continue back and forth every time Melt Armor is cast. - Bots will avoid Flame Patches. FWIW, the standard co +avoid aoe strategy does work for Flame Patches, but avoid aoe provides no buffer distance so as you’ve probably noticed, it doesn’t provide for preemptive avoidance. Also, avoid aoe does not consider multiple hazards together so it can be an issue when movement needs to take into account more than one hazard, plus when a strategy requires particular bot movement, it’s better to account for the hazards within that movement strategy instead of relying on separate methods that can create conflicts. - When Al’ar takes to the sky to perform Dive Bomb, bots will spread out (and continue to avoid Flame Patches). After the Dive Bomb, Al’ar does another Rebirth explosion. I have tried a million different things to properly detect this full sequence (even accessing the bossAI like I did with Kael’thas) and cannot get it to work properly. Ultimately, all I’ve been able to get to work at all with respect to the final explosion is for bots to detect the 2-second cast of the Rebirth and run out. It is not enough time for bots that are too close when the cast happens so some bots may get hit, but if you have adequate gear, they should survive. - After each Dive Bomb, 2 Embers will spawn. Your second assistant tank will tank one Ember, and either the main tank or first assistant tank, whichever one is not tanking Al’ar at the time, will tank the other Ember. They will both move the Embers away from bots, and ranged DPS will focus both Embers down before switching back to Al’ar. - Because the room is so large, it is possible for bots to get too far away from active combat (particularly if they are thrown across the room by Ember Blast) so there is also a method for them to run back toward the center if they get too far away. ### Void Reaver Ironically, what was often considered the easiest boss in 25-player content in TBC is the only boss with an ability (Arcane Orb) that I do not believe can be avoided by bots, even with access to Void Reaver’s boss script. Therefore, every single Arcane Orb is going to hit its target, so the strategy can only try to limit the damage by spreading ranged bots in two rings around Void Reaver (one for healers and one for ranged DPS, to try to ensure sufficient distribution of healers). The tanks will all fight for aggro (necessary due to Knock Away) and try to keep Void Reaver in the middle of the room. Bots that can wipe aggro or otherwise gain invulnerability are directed to use the applicable abilities as soon as they pick up aggro (e.g., Soulshatter). He’s still easy, but if you have IP nerfs, it’s a little bit of a gear check. ### High Astromancer Solarian No boss was hit harder by nerfs in TBC than Solarian, whose encounter went from a totally unique fight that required arcane resistance to a fight that is kind of just an easier Baron Geddon. IMO, she is the easiest boss in TBC 25-player raids. - Ranged bots stack up at a distance from Solarian; this leaves all bots with plenty of space to run away from other bots when they get Wrath of the Astromancer. - When Solarian vanishes, all bots will stack to AoE down the Solarium Agents that spawn. - When Solarian returns with two Solarium Priests, melee will divide into two groups, with one focused on each Solarium Priest. I think this method is not working correctly right now because when one Priest dies, the bots still on the second Priest are leaving it. I’ll need to decide whether I want to figure it out or just get rid of it because this fight is so easy regardless. - Priest bots will cast Fear Ward on the main tank to block the Psychic Scream during the final tank-and-spank Voidwalker phase, and the main tank will pick up Voidwalker Solarian as soon as she transforms. Note that the bots will not be knocked into the air by Wrath of the Astromancer. The issue is due to the presence of a check for knockbacks in Playerbots that causes bots to ignore knockbacks that would launch them at a velocity beyond a hardcoded value. I’ve increased that velocity limit on my own fork, and it does allow Wrath of the Astromancer (and other knockbacks that otherwise don’t work) to work on bots. But that’s obviously a broader issue and not addressed in this PR, and bots don’t take fall damage in any case. ### Kael’thas Sunstrider So this strategy has 23(!) action methods. But like in retail, this is actually an easy fight once it is learned because it is highly scripted. Unlike in other strategies I’ve done, the bots probably cannot do this fight by themselves unless they are way overgeared. This is because there are a few windows during which bots need to position themselves properly based on dynamic factors. But no RTSC is needed—you just need to have bots follow you to the right locations. Also note that the gear check for this strategy is higher than in retail because you have to get all of the legendary weapons down and looted before the advisors aggro in Phase 3, or it’s going to be an absolute shitshow (with human players, you can deal with there still being a couple of weapons up). For a point of reference, when I was first working on this strategy with damage reduced to 50% and bots pretty close to T4 BiS, I had almost no margin of error (I would usually get the weapons down with barely a second to spare). You will need at least 2 tanks, but 3 is better. Your main tank will need to be able to equip the legendary shield so you must use a Warrior or Paladin. However, it is ideal for the first assistant tank to be a Druid because they can equip the legendary staff. **Phase 1:** Fun fact—when you “kill” the advisors in this phase, they don’t actually die but get an aura applied called “Permanent Feign Death” (nice oxymoron). - _Thaladred_: You’re supposed to kite him, and bots can’t really kite, so the method is a poor man’s method of having the bot move away from him in a straight line when fixated. You want him to die in the far Southern part of the room. If he dies in a bad location, you may as well call a wipe and restart. What will work best for you will depend on your DPS since you don’t want to kill him before he gets to the location you want but also don’t want bots to be trapped up against a wall since they can’t properly kite him. The way that works best for me is to have bots stay back while I aggro the boss, and wait until right before Thaladred switches to his second fixate target before attacking. Note that if you do put bots on stay, when you put them back on follow, the bot that is then being fixated will remain on stay (because they need to disregard movement orders other than running away from Thaladred). So after Thaladred dies, make sure to manually type /follow or the bot that was fixated when you took the bots off of stay will not rejoin the fight. - _Sanguinar_: He will be tanked by your main tank, who will be targeted by your Priests for Fear Ward. Bots will wait to engage him; I made it a very generous time (12 seconds) because there is absolutely no rush in Phase 1. There’s no sense in being aggressive. During that time, the main tank will drag Sanguinar to the West wall. - _Capernian_: This is the first make-or-break part of the fight. Phase 1 Capernian was the most frequent cause for wipes for me. - She should be tanked by a Warlock. If you want to pick your Warlock tank, you can do so by the assistant flag, but if you don’t, the strategy will just pick your highest HP Warlock. If you raid without a Warlock, then you’re insane, but at least there’s a guard so your server won’t crash? - You do not need to add the tank strategy to your Warlock. There is a method that will automatically switch your selected tank Warlock between DPS and tank strategies at appropriate times because you need to squeeze out every drop of DPS you can get, particularly for Phase 2, where you’ll need your Warlock to be blowing up weapons with Seed of Corruption instead of spamming Searing Pain. You’ll want your Warlock to start with a DPS strategy as usual (since they should be DPSing Thaladred). - To engage Capernian, start running East right before Sanguinar dies. She will activate quickly, and you want to try to get in front of her (but not too close) before she aggros. - When Capernian aggros, your Warlock tank will immediately switch to the tank strategy and attack. Your main tank will run toward Capernian but not actually attack; their purpose will be to bait her Conflagration to reduce the chance that it hits your Warlock tank. Other melee will not engage Capernian. Ranged DPS will be idle for 12 seconds; during this time, you should run South to make sure they are not in range of Capernian. After 12 seconds, your ranged DPS will activate, move into range and spread out, and attack (it doesn’t seem possible to outrange Conflagrate, so if bots don’t spread, she will annihilate the entire ranged group with a single cast). Ideally, you kill her not too far from her starting position. If she ends up in the middle of the room, you should probably wipe and start over. - _Telonicus_: He is very easy in retail but actually is a big risk for wipes with respect to bots because his bombs will one-shot any non-tank, and bots will stupidly stand in front of him without a proper strategy. You should keep some distance from him before he aggros. Your first assistant tank will pick him up and move him to the West wall near Sanguinar. Again, there is a 12-second delay before DPS starts. Your melee DPS are coded to stay directly behind him and not get too close so they don’t get hit by bombs. **Phase 2:** Kael’thas will summon all weapons immediately after Telonicus is down. Just before Telonicus is down, you should move to the platform where the advisors originally were—you’ll be in better position for the raid to AoE down the weapons. - Your main tank will pick up the axe and move it away from the group. The axe is the biggest threat during this phase and can easily one-shot casters if not pulled away. - One of your Hunters will attempt to get aggro on the bow and move away from the group (as a hacky way of trying to turn the bow away from the group because you can’t really get a bot to do that directly). This method is hit or miss, but it shouldn’t be that big of a deal if your Hunter doesn’t pull it off properly. - Everybody else will prioritize weapons in the following order (but most damage will come from AoE, which is what you want or you will not beat the timer): staff, mace, sword, dagger, axe (ranged only), bow, and shield. - As weapons are defeated, bots will loot and equip them. If you have not disabled bot announcements in your config, you get to see your entire raid go nuts because they looted legendary items. - Here is what weapons bots will loot and equip. I don't know anything about DKs, having never played WotLK, so tell me if anything is wrong for them. - _Healers:_ Mace (if a healer normally uses a staff, it's best if they keep an OH in their bags for this fight) - _Tanks:_ Shield and sword for Paladins and DK, shield and dagger for warriors, staff for Druid - _Offensive_ casters: Staff - _Rogues:_ Sword and dagger if Combat or Subtlety, dagger only if Assassination - _DPS Death Knights, Retribution Paladins, Arms Warriors_: Axe - _Fury Warriors_: Dagger. I understand that due to Titan Grip, they should also have the Axe for best DPS; however, Fury Warriors have awful DPS (we’re talking barely above Prot-level) at this stage. Thus, my view is it is better to give them only the dagger so they will MH it and help break MC in Phase 4, since they will contribute hardly any DPS regardless. - _Cat Druids_: Staff - _Enhancement Shamans_: Dagger - _Hunters:_ Bow and dagger. Note that I do NOT have them loot the sword because they need the dagger in their mainhand to use to break MC in Phase 4; whatever marginal benefit they get from the sword as a stat stick is not worth losing this capability. If your Hunter uses a 2H, it is best to have them carry a 1H in their inventory so they can put something in the OH after they equip the dagger. - After looting weapons, bots with the staff will use it (once) to activate the Mental Protection Field. Hunters will use the bow to generate the legendary arrows and equip those (and will continue to do so during the fight if they use up the arrows). - If you wipe from this point forward, everybody will lose their legendary weapons, and by default, most bots will not automatically reequip their own weapons until a loot event occurs. This was extremely annoying, and therefore there is a noncombat method implemented that causes everybody to equip upgrades when they get within 150 yards of Kael’thas. I considered applying this to the whole instance, but I’m not sure if some people would not like that so I decided to limit things to the Kael’thas encounter. **Phase 3:** I highly recommend you have your Shamans drop Tremor Totems (co +tremor) during this phase. Doing so is not coded because I wanted to leave flexibility, but I think it is very helpful for Sanguinar. After the weapons die, you want to move your bots to a central location between the advisors. If Thaladred died closer to the middle of the room, ideally you position to the side of Thaladred so when he fixates he will not chase bots North into the other advisors. - Shamans will immediately use Heroism/Bloodlust. - Your melee tanks will bring Sanguinar and Telonicus to their tanking positions (same as Phase 1). If your first assistant tank is a Druid, they will be immune to Telonicus’s Remote Toy due to having the legendary staff’s aura activated and will also make your main tank immune. - One healer will stay by the Sanguinar and Telonicus tanking positions to heal the tanks. Once IsHealAssistantOfIndex() is fixed, you will be able to select this healer with the assistant flag. Right now, this will just be the last healer that joined your raid (per standard AC logic). - DPS priority will be Thaladred, Capernian (ranged only), Sanguinar, Telonicus. As with retail, the most chaotic period will be before Thaladred is killed, particularly if he chases bots into other advisors. I don’t have a great solution for this, but Capernian is significantly less dangerous during this phase thanks to the legendary staff. This is the last true breakpoint—if you get Thaladred down with your raid mostly intact, you are very likely to get the kill. **Phase 4:** Kael’thas will aggro immediately after all advisors are dead. - Your main tank will position Kael’thas at his original position. - Bots will move out of Flame Strikes. - Assist tanks will pick up Phoenixes. Since they die over time anyway, bots will not waste time attacking them. When Phoenixes die, they turn into an Egg—at that point, bots will switch to the Egg to destroy it before the Phoenix is reborn. - When Kael’thas puts up Shock Barrier and starts casting Pyroblast on your main tank (a one-shot), all bots will focus DPS on him (even if there is an egg up). You have 4 seconds to break the barrier (80K HP) and interrupt his Pyroblast. It is likely that you will not be able to if you are playing with IP nerfs and are in T4 gear. However, the main tank will use the legendary shield’s ability, which will allow them to absorb one cast, giving you 8 seconds to break the barrier and interrupt Pyroblast. Bots will put top priority on interrupting Pyroblast as soon as the barrier is down. - If a bot (or player) is mind controlled, bots with the legendary dagger (other than tanks) will move to MC’d players and use the following attacks to break MC: Shiv (Rogues), Hamstring (Warriors), Wing Clip (Hunters), and Stormstrike (Shamans). **Phase 5:** At 50% HP, Kael’thas enters a long RP sequence. This is a good time to kill any remaining Phoenixes and/or Eggs. - Kael’thas stops casting Pyroblast and Mind Control. - His main new ability is Gravity Lapse, and it doesn’t work properly on bots... He sucks in the entire raid then knocks everybody back in a different direction. What is supposed to happen is that players will end up floating in midair in different directions and at different heights. However, bots will immediately fall to the ground after getting knocked back. They will not actually hit the ground though and instead remain in a flying state right above the floor. - If you could move in 3D space, Netherbeam would be very easy to deal with. However, because that is not available to bots, they can spread only in 2D space and thus need to move farther to get properly spread, and they waste the first moments falling straight down. As a result, the damage from Netherbeam can be quite high, and the beginning of Gravity Lapse requires a lot of healing. I don’t really have a better way of dealing with this. - FWIW, I don’t think there is any existing method to make bots disperse in 3D anyway. - Kael’thas is supposed to use Nether Void when players are in midair, which creates clouds that reduce your max HP and thus make it more challenging to maneuver, but AC is bugged and he doesn’t use the ability at all (there’s been an open issue about this forever). For fuck's sake, that's all. --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> |
||
|
killerzwelch
|
e7d5eaabac
|
Make playerbots compatible with latest refactoring done on azerothcore (#2158)
# Pull Request When integrating latest changes from https://github.com/azerothcore/azerothcore-wotlk into https://github.com/mod-playerbots/azerothcore-wotlk/tree/Playerbot you will face some compiling issues due to refactoring. That PR does not change any of the logic, but implements needed changes to be compatible again --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ 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 Please doublecheck if none of the timing-logic (migration from uint32 to microseconds) has been changed --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
1f3d11d1c4
|
Stage2 refactor switch custom calculations by core helpers clean (#2127)
# Pull Request This change replaces a few manual distance calculations in `WorldPosition` with AzerothCore distance helpers. The goal is to reduce duplicated math, keep behavior consistent with core utilities, and avoid reimplementing logic that already exists in the core. --- ## 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? Use existing core distance helpers instead of manual math, keeping the logic localized to `WorldPosition`. - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? Directly call `GetExactDist`, `GetExactDist2d`, and `GetExactDist2dSq` where appropriate. - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? No additional cost; the helper calls replace equivalent math and avoid extra intermediate objects. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Build the module and run existing bot scenarios that rely on `WorldPosition` distance checks. - Verify no behavioral regressions in travel-related logic. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Standard server + mod-playerbots setup. - Expected behavior and how to verify it - Distances computed in travel logic remain identical; no gameplay change expected. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [ ] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers This is a localized refactor that replaces manual distance math with core helpers for consistency and maintainability. No behavioral change is expected. --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
dillyns
|
629aa19dbd
|
Add aggressive non combat targeting strategy (#2117)
# Pull Request Tired of failing that escort quest because your bots stood and watched while the escort npc got swarmed and killed? Tired of your bots standing around doing nothing while the npc you are supposed to be guarding for 5 minutes is getting attacked? Don't want to use the grind strategy because it is too heavy-handed and has too many restrictions? Look no further! Just do "nc +aggressive" and your bots will pick a fight with anything they can in a 30 yard radius. The aggressive targetting is a stripped down version of the grind target. ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? Add a strategy, action, and targetting that will cause bots to attack nearby enemies when out of combat. - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? Hopefully this is the cheapest. - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? Minimal runtime cost as this strategy needs to be added specifically to bots. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Add a bot to party, or use selfbot - Give them the aggressive strategy via "nc +aggressive" - They should attack anything within 30 yards. - If it is a bot with a master, the 30 yards should be centered around the master not the bot (prevent chaining from enemy to enemy) ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? ``` [] No [x] Yes (**explain below**) Only for bots that have the added strategy, adds decision to attack nearby targets when out of combat. ``` Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? ``` [] No [x] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Minimal increase to only bots that have this strategy added. ``` 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? ``` [ ] No [x] Yes (**explain below**) ``` Claude is used to explore the codebase to find similar implementations to be used for examples. --- ## 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>
|
||
|
Keleborn
|
d1cac8d027
|
Bug fix. Equip Action triggered action (#2142)
# Pull Request Brighton caught a mistake I made changeing the action registry, so the correct action was no longer triggering. I cleaned that up, and renamed the action. ## How to Test the Changes - This was tested by adding logging to both equip actions. But to test this without that, the best way to verify the fix is to stop alts from auto upgrading via config. Then they should correctly follow the configured behavior. ## 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. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
441f9f7552
|
Warnings PR 1: Event warnings and headers (#2106)
# Pull Request
This is the first in a series of PRs intended to eliminate warnings in
the module. The design intent is to eliminate the calling event when not
needed in the body of the function. Based off of SmashingQuasars work.
---
## How to Test the Changes
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
bashermens
|
80aeeda0e8
|
Flying, waterwalking, swimming movement optimizations and transition fixes. (#2134)
# Pull Request **Fixes and optimizations for flying, water walking, swimming**: * optimized triggers * ensuring movement flag updates only happen between actual transitions states * fly bug fix; fly with bots following with stay command midair, fly down and dismount yourself, follow command and now the bots fall instead of lingering around in the air) * updated z-axes correction for water walking and bots (for real players this is handled client-side) * added lift off movement for more stabile transition from ground(level) to flying **Tested**: * Test all transitions; water walk, swimming, swimming, walking, mounting while water walking etc. * Flying with bots and fly master routes * Movement flag updates only occur during transitions **Known issues**: transition between water walking, swimming and back again, in most cases the bots will stay under the waterline instead of jumping on the z axes on water level. (will fix that another time) --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it Apply water walking effect on your bots, shaman or dk, and test all possible transitions and follow actions of the bots. water walking, swim, walk on land, swimming and walk without water walking effect/aura, fly mount from water, from ground, etc. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
NoxMax
|
25800f54e8
|
Fix/Feat: PVP with master and PVP probablity system (thread-safe remake) (#2008)
This is a remake of #1914 that had to be reverted. Original PR had a thread-safe issue where a crash happens if multiple threads access the cache at the same time. Unfortunately this problem was not caught in earlier testing. I don't know if because I was testing on a month old branch, if my settings had only ~2000, or if I needed test runs longer than an hour to find out. Regardless, this has all been addressed. Test have been run on the latest commits from today (2026/1/11), with all 7500 of my bots active, with a test run that lasted 15 hours. All stable and bots are following the probability system without issue. ~~The new edit uses mutex locking, preventing simultaneous access of the cache by multiple threads.~~ The new edit uses deterministic hashing, thereby not having issues with cache thread safety to begin with. Thank you @hermensbas for catching and reverting the original problem PR. Apologies for not catching the issue myself. --- Original PR description: There are two related PVP components in this PR. First is the simple yet fundamental change to bot behaviour when they are in party. Right now bots with a master will go into PVP when there's a nearby PVP target, even if master is not in PVP. This absolutely should not happen. Bots should not consider PVP at all if master is not in PVP. The fix is only 3 lines in EnemyPlayerValue The second component is introducing PVP probabilities, to make decisions more realistic. Right now even a level 1 bot will 100% go into PVP if it sees a level 80 PVP target. They can't help themselves. So the change here addresses that insanity. Several thresholds (subject to community review) are introduced: 1. Bots will not fight a target 5 or more levels higher than them 2. Bots have a 25% chance starting a fight with a target +/- 4 levels from them. 3. Bots have a 50% chance starting a fight with a target +/- 3 levels from them. 4. Bots have a 75% chance starting a fight with a target +/- 2 levels from them. 5. Bots have a 100% chance starting a fight with a target +/- 1 level from them. 6. Bots have a 25% chance starting a fight with a target 5 or more levels below them (ganking. thought it would be funny, and technically realistic of player behaviour) Exception of course exist for BG/Arena/Duel, and in capitals where bots will always PVP. Also bots will always defend themselves if attacked. Few notes: 1. The if/ else if logic can be further simplified, but only if we use thresholds that are different by one. So current logic allows for flexibility of using values like 10/7/5/3 instead of 5/4/3/2. 2. The caching system is per-bot basis. So for some target X, if some bot decides to attack it, another bot will make its own decision. At first I used a simplified global system (thinking there might be performance concerns) where if one bot decides to attack a target then they all do, but when I switched to the more realistic per-bot basis, I didn't see an effect on performance. 3. Variables are obviously not configurable right now. I'm starting to see Bash's POV that maybe we have too many configs 😬 Still, they can be easily exposed in the future, and if someone is reading this then, remember to change constexpr to const. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Crow
|
9748e36ad6
|
Fix potential failure of Magtheridon cube clickers to engage in combat (#2129)
# Pull Request I noticed a problem that has always existed with the Magtheridon strategy but just never came up for me due to chance. Cube clicker logic is based on a timer that resets after every Blast Nova. If the timer is not reset, the cubes will still be clicked, but the clickers will do nothing but wait to click on the cubes instead of resuming combat between Blast Novas. Because tracking of the Blast Nova state happens during the cube clicking sequence, if a cube clicker is assigned the singular role to track Blast Nova state (which is done simply by returning the first DPS bot found), then the timer will not be reset. This whole strategy needs a refactor, but the simple fix for this problem for now is just to remove the role check for tracking the Blast Nova state. I tested the fix, and it works. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [ ] Stability is not compromised - - [ ] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [ ] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [ ] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Alex Dcnh
|
17b8d7f68b
|
Stage1 refactor world position method names (#2126)
# Pull Request This change replaces the non‑standard WorldPosition::getX/getY/getZ/getO/getMapId wrappers with the core getters (GetPositionX/Y/Z, GetOrientation, GetMapId) and removes the redundant wrappers. Goal: align the module with AzerothCore conventions, reduce local adapters, and improve long‑term maintainability. --- ## Design Philosophy This is a structural cleanup only (coordinate access) and does not alter any AI behavior or decision logic. It follows the stability/performance-first philosophy and does not add branches or extra runtime work. Before submitting: yes, this change aligns with the principles of stability, performance, and predictability. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Minimum logic required: use core getters (GetPositionX/Y/Z, GetMapId, GetOrientation) wherever coordinates are needed. - Cheapest implementation: direct call replacement and removal of redundant wrappers. - Runtime cost: negligible (same data access, no additional logic). --- ## How to Test the Changes - No functional testing required (behavior‑neutral refactor). - Recommended: compile the module and run a normal server startup as validation. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used: Copilot - Purpose of usage: Translate this PR text from french to English --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers This is a core-friendly cleanup only, with no behavioral change. No additional logic or CPU cost is introduced. |
||
|
privatecore
|
a0a50204ec
|
Fix action validation checks: isUseful -> isPossible + codestyle fixes and corrections (#2125)
# Pull Request Fix the incorrect logic flaw when processing actions from different sources. It should be: `isUseful` -> `isPossible`. The original logic is based on the Mangosbot code and the impl presented inside `Engine::DoNextAction`. This should fix all wrong validation orders for triggers and direct/specific actions. Code style is based on the AzerothCore style guide + clang-format. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
Keleborn
|
80b3823f12
|
Warnings PR 3, remove std::move when not necessary. (#2108)
# Pull Request
std::move was being used in a few places to return a vector. Its not
necessary. A direct return allows for some optimizations that moving
wouldnt.
## How to Test the Changes
-Bots should initialize correctly
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [ ] Stability is not compromised
- [ ] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [ ] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [ ] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
|