mirror of
https://github.com/liyunfan1223/mod-playerbots.git
synced 2026-06-20 15:39:25 +02:00
15 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Crow
|
cd2fe2f9a1
|
Use Stones for Prot Paladins & Reduce Oils (#2405)
<!--
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 -->
Back when I did the Stones/Oils PR, I gave Wizard Oil to Prot Paladins.
I was operating based on their mechanics in TBC and have since realized
that their damage is much more physical-based in WotLK as opposed to
spell-based in TBC. So I've changed them to now get stones upon
maintenance and apply stones.
I also reduced weapon oils given during maintenance from 4 to 2 stacks.
I did 4 originally because oils stack to 5 so it would align with the
amount given of stones and poisons (which stack to 20). But 4 inventory
slots taken up by oils is excessive, and 2 still last far longer than
buffing reagents in a raid context. So this is just to reduce inventory
clutter.
Other stuff is just little code stuff like reformatting or reordering
things to be more efficient.
## 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's nothing new--essentially with respect to consumables, prot
paladins now are lumped with ret.
## 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 a prot paladin, turn on selfbot. Use maintenance and the paladin
should be given stones and no oils. The paladin should then apply the
stone to its weapon (if it is equipping a level-eligible weapon).
Create a caster, turn on selfbot. Use maintenance and they should be
given 2 stacks of oils.
## 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**)
Prot paladins will now use stones in their inventory and will not use
oils in their inventories. This is better for their mechanics.
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
|
||
|
ThePenguinMan96
|
605f1d7aaa
|
PvP Gear, Autogear Tuning, and Stat Weight Corrections (#2322)
<!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> Hello playerbots community! I have been working diligently whilst on vacation to help get pvp gear up and running for pvp specs. Throughout this process, I have looked at our current autogear system, tested it through and through, and made some changes to make gearing more appropriate per spec. _I am going to have my description of the changes in italics_, **and the AI description overview will be bolded.** Let's begin! **This PR makes some improvements to the bot autogear system across item scoring, spec tracking(pvp specs and gear), and stat weights. Changes are split between those that are always active and those controlled by new config options.** **Mandatory Changes:** **PvP Spec Detection (IsSpecPvp) A new method RandomPlayerbotMgr::IsSpecPvp(botGuid, cls) checks the bot's stored specNo against the spec name string defined in config. If the name contains "pvp", the bot is treated as a PvP spec throughout the entire gear pipeline. This is the single source of truth used by both InitEquipment() and ItemUsageValue. In the future this detection can be expanded to drive bot behavior decisions — such as prioritizing dueling players in the world, joining Wintergrasp, or preferring BG and Arena queues over PvE content.** _This is scalable, so if someone were to create their own pvp spec in the config, it would still be tracked if the name contains "pvp". I like the idea of pvp specced random bots having an identifier for pvp events._ **PvP Weights Applied During Loot Evaluation ItemUsageValue::QueryItemUsageForEquip() now calls IsSpecPvp() before scoring a looted item. If the bot is on a PvP spec, it passes SetPvpSpec(true) to the StatsWeightCalculator, ensuring looted items are evaluated with PvP stat priorities (including resilience weighting) rather than PvE weights. Previously, a PvP-specced bot would score loot identically to a PvE bot.** _So, during autogear and upgrade equips, pvp specced bots will now heavily prioritize resilience. On the flip side, pve bots really don't want resilience gear, so a negative weight modifier (penalty for resilience items) has been applied to pve autogearing and upgrade equips. This is important, because you can switch a bot from a pve spec to a pvp spec, and it will automatically consider resilience items in it's inventory as upgrades, and equip them. Same for when you switch a bot from a pvp spec back to a pve spec - the resilience penalty will encourage the bot to switch back to the best available pve gear._ **Resilience Weighting After all per-spec weights are generated in GenerateBasicWeights(), a global resilience modifier is applied unconditionally:** **PvP specs: +7.0 resilience weight — strongly prioritizes resilience gear Non-PvP specs: −3.0 resilience weight — actively discourages resilience gear Resilience is additionally excluded entirely from trinket slot scoring via SetExcludeResilience(true), preventing the PvP resilience bonus from inflating the scores of non-CC trinkets.** _I tried several different numbers here - as high as 10 and as low as 3 for resilience. I ended up with 7 so nearly all specs will slot resilience in every slot EXCEPT for trinkets. I stopped weighing resilience on trinkets because they ended up being garbage trinkets for the most part - other endgame pve trinkets were way more impactful. In my testing, the only class/specs that wont use 100% resilience gears are the tanks, since defense rating/parry/block/dodge weights are so high._ **CC-Break Trinket Cache At server startup, PlayerbotFactory::BuildCcBreakTrinketCache() queries the world database for all trinkets (InventoryType=12, Quality≥2) whose spell IDs include spell 42292 — the CC-break / PvP trinket effect shared by items like Medallion of the Alliance/Horde. Results are sorted by item level descending and cached in a static vector, ready for fast lookup during gearing.** _This creates a cache of cc trinkets on startup, for this:_ **CC-Break Trinket Force-Equip During InitEquipment(), PvP-specced bots at level 50 or higher (level minimum for autogear to apply trinkets) run a pre-selection pass over ccBreakTrinketCache to find the best CC-break trinket they meet the level requirement and quality limit for. Human and Undead bots are excluded from this — they have racial abilities (Every Man for Himself, Will of the Forsaken) that share the PvP trinket cooldown, making a dedicated trinket redundant.** **If a suitable trinket is found, it is stored as pvpTrinket1 and force-equipped into TRINKET1 before the main gear loop runs. If an item already occupies the slot, it is moved to bags first. The second-chance pass also skips TRINKET1 when pvpTrinket1 is set, so the CC trinket is never overwritten.** _This is the catch-all forced pvp trinket for trinket slot 1. In my testing, I really found out how few cc trinkets there are - most of them are epic, and blue ones start showing up super late in the game. An heirloom patch would really help the lower levels, being able to equip a pvp trinket at level 10 or something. Keep in mind, that if your bot isn't getting a pvp trinket with autogear, make sure they aren't human or undead, and check your config for what quality items are allowed with autogear. NOTE - PVP TRINKET STRATEGIES ARE NOT CURRENTLY CODED, SAME WITH CC RACIALS. They will not break out of stun/cc currently. This is for future updates if/when I make a trinketstrategy._ **Enhancement Shaman Dual Wield Fix Classes like Rogues, Frost DKs, and Fury Warriors have their dual wield capability established through class initialization code in the core. Enhancement Shamans acquire Dual Wield only through a specific talent (spell 30798, learned around level 40), and the bot factory had no code to detect and apply this. The result was that Enhancement Shaman bots would sometimes have their offhand weapon unequipped — despite having the talent. After talents are applied in both InitTalentsTree() and InitTalentsBySpecNo(), the code now checks for spell 30798 and explicitly grants SKILL_DUAL_WIELD and SetCanDualWield(true) when present.** _When testing the weapon speed preferences, I noticed that randombot enhancement shamans were unequipping their offhand randomly. They would just walk around with a single 1-hand weapon. This is because they were not considered in the system as dual wielding, so when initequipment or autoequipupgrades was ran, it would unequip the offhand through a function, despite having the dual wield talent. Looking at the code, the other classes already have this flag (warriors, rogues, dks, hunters) because they didn't acquire it through talents._ **CalculateItem() Slot Awareness StatsWeightCalculator::CalculateItem() now accepts an optional slot parameter (default -1). When provided and the item is a weapon, ApplyWeaponSpeedGovernance() can be called. Both item scoring calls inside InitEquipment() — the candidate scoring loop and the incremental old-item comparison — now pass the current equipment slot.** _This change allows the calculate item function to know what slot it's working with, and that's how it modifies it's decision making for some of the optional features below._ **Holy Paladin Weapon Scoring Fix Prior to this change, Holy Paladin could end up equipping 2H weapons because haste and crit sticks (2H weapons) were outscoring appropriate 1H caster weapons — the item type penalty was not catching them correctly. Holy Paladin is now explicitly added to the dual-wield penalty group (preventing 2H weapons from being viable), excluded from the generic caster 1H penalty (since they use 1H + shield rather than a staff), and given a 0.8x soft preference for 1H weapons.** _In autogear testing, sometimes 2h weps with high crit/haste would win over caster gear - this is especially noticeable at lower levels, with shallower item pools (greens only). You'd hit autogear and the holy paladin would equip a 2h axe with crit :( So this makes it so holy paladins only use 1h weapons. They can use either a shield or an offhand, depending on stat weights._ **PvP Spec Slots Added for All Classes The existing RandomClassSpecProb / RandomClassSpecIndex config entries control what percentage of random bots in the world are assigned each spec. Previously only PvE specs (indices 0–2, or 0–3 for Druids) were defined, giving server operators no way to introduce PvP-specced random bots into the world population. This PR adds PvP spec slots for every class (indices 3–6 depending on class), all defaulting to 0 probability. Server operators can raise these values to spawn PvP-specced random bots — e.g., setting RandomClassSpecProb.1.3 = 20 would make 20% of Warrior bots run Arms PvP. Two additional PvE specs have also been added: Death Knight index 3: Double-aura Blood (a hybrid Blood/Frost PvE tank variant) Mage index 3: Frostfire (a PvE hybrid spec) All existing spec entries have been annotated with comments identifying each one (e.g., # arms pve, # holy pve) for readability.** _This change was actually added at the start - I realized that there was no way for pvp-specced randombots to spawn naturally, so I added optional probabilities to the config. They are currently set at 0% by default, but giving the user the option I feel is necessary. Also, it would have been impossible for me to test the init on randombots with pvp gear otherwise. Also, I noticed that the frostfire mage and the dual-aura dk didn't have an option, so I added them in as well, as well as names above each option for quality of life._ **Stat Weight Corrections The following per-spec stat weights were adjusted to better reflect actual WotLK priorities. Entries marked NEW did not previously exist; unmarked rows show old → new values.** <img width="795" height="268" alt="arms warrior" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/cb0deb00-a985-432d-81a1-133fc953088b" /> _Arms warriors would prefer leather/ap gear about half of the time - the combined weights of both would often beat strength gear, especially at lower levels, or where the item pool was shallow. Also, they continued to spawn with spell power gear and defense gear occasionally, especially on gear with resilience (resilience, spell power, crit, haste, stam items)._ <img width="796" height="301" alt="fury warrior" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/715ff3a3-3d20-4e0e-a953-7ed6fd9386db" /> _Fury warriors had the same issues as arms warrior, but really can't afford to lose a strength item - beserker stance increases strength by 20%. Also had to reduce haste here because haste really isn't nearly as important as strength, crit, arp. Haste items would win often over strength/crit/arp gear._ <img width="796" height="300" alt="prot tanks" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/624de09a-2506-4aee-95aa-c49cbc5b85d3" /> _So, prot paladins and prot warriors currently are weighed identically fyi. Look at that whopping 2.0 agility - twice as important as strength? I noticed that my prot paladins/warriors were equipping agility/haste/crit items instead of defense gear on their neck, rings, trinkets, and back. This adjustment pretty much ensures that defense gear takes those slots if it's available. Removed the crit/haste weightings, because realistically if a tank wants more damage, it will just get strength. Lastly added the spell power penalty because prot paladins would spawn in fully holy gear if they were pvp specced (resilience is weighted so high, resilience/spellpower/stam/haste gear would often win). This aims to prevent that._ <img width="802" height="421" alt="dps dks" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/371d1344-2382-4460-b3a7-f38b33025b73" /> _Same issue with plate dps as the warriors had. Spell power gear would occasionally spawn on crit/hit items in pve, and a ton of spell power resilience gear would spawn. There is no scenario where a DK wants spell power, this isn't patch 3.0.1..._ <img width="796" height="447" alt="blood dk" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c84a2bbf-7daa-4805-acf3-cd3bf815eda4" /> _Similar issues to prot paladin/warrior. I was really tired of seeing block rating/value gear as a result of getting gear with defense/stam. This results in a lot more defense rating/expertise/hit/dodge/parry gear, and basically makes shield stats nearly non-existent (unless the upgrade is good enough, it could still win)_ <img width="794" height="226" alt="ret paladin" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b09f40ed-b25f-4945-940c-2ce92f81c7c4" /> _Prior to this PR, the positive spellpower and int weights were enough for ret paladins to spawn with spellpower/int/haste/crit gear. This is unlikely now. And agility/ap was reduced to favor more strength gear._ <img width="795" height="306" alt="Enhancement Shaman" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1e5231fd-36ea-4b7e-a546-cf0075d17bd4" /> _While spell power is a decent stat on enhancment shamans, it was appearing on too much gear, especially on items that were haste/crit/spell power. And for elemental shamans, they were getting agi/haste/crit gear, so this aims to get rid of those items entirely without reducing haste/crit._ <img width="800" height="119" alt="shaman pally" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6ea3300a-effd-4a03-8f6f-4ae13c5383a5" /> _Holy paladins and resto shamans are scored the same, but this prevents attack power/haste/crit gear, since haste and crit are weighted high._ <img width="1025" height="385" alt="mage" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/03191dfd-dc09-477d-8424-8fd56f3e0d71" /> _Prevents mages from equipping/autogearing items with attack power, some attack power/crit/haste/hit items were winning with shallow item pools._ <img width="1022" height="502" alt="hunter rogue" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/06fa67c9-7709-4ee8-a0e2-34de18594018" /> _Prevents hunters and rogues from getting spell power leather gear with hit/crit. Crit is very heavy for hunters so this was decently common._ **Optional Changes (Config-Controlled)** **AiPlayerbot.PreferClassArmorType (default: 0) Applies a 3x score multiplier to armor matching the bot's class-appropriate type (plate/mail/leather/cloth). A significantly better off-type item can still win — this is a soft preference, not a hard filter.** _Are you tired of your fury warrior being a leather daddy? Are you tired of your holy paladin running around in cloth lingerie? This will fix that. For mail classes (hunters/shamans) and plate classes, this only kicks in after level 40. But it really helps adhere to the highest armor class available. This would be the perfect solution to the quarterly question "Why is my paladin wearing leather?". This definitely should remain optional, as quite a few BIS lists would disagree with it. Leather at certain stages is great for hunters/shamans/warriors/dks._ **AiPlayerbot.AutogearAllowsQuestRewards (default: 0) Builds a cache of equippable armor and weapon quest rewards at startup. Bots can then equip these items during autogear, using the quest's minimum level as the effective required level gate.** _So, I noticed that autogear didn't allow items without a level requirement (quest rewards), because it didn't know how to handle that when giving out gear. It would previously just flat out reject all quest rewards, as they wouldn't be a part of the item pool. This option enables quest rewards to be considered in the item pool, and the level correlates to the lowest level you could get the quest. I have tested this for about 3 hours across all specs and using blue/green gear, it seems like a really nice bonus. Keep in mind that I do 0 quests on my way to 80, so players like me could still benefit from those items. I think this should remain optional._ **AiPlayerbot.EquipAllSlotsAtAnyLevel (default: 0) Bypasses the low-level slot restrictions in InitEquipment(): Trinkets normally locked until level 50 Head/Neck until level 30 Rings until level 20 All other non-weapon slots until level 5** _Autogear currently has level floors for slots - they will not ever give items below the above thresholds. This config option bypasses that. I have not tested this as much as I should have, so as people test this, they could let us know of items that should be blacklisted._ **AiPlayerbot.WeaponSpeedGovernance (default: 0) When enabled, ApplyWeaponSpeedGovernance() applies a 3x score multiplier to weapons matching the spec's ideal attack speed profile. Applies to mainhand, offhand, and ranged slots only. Per-spec preferences: Arms Warrior: Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand; poleaxes and axes preferred (Axe Specialization) Ret Paladin / Blood & Unholy DK: Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand Prot Warrior & Paladin: Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in mainhand Fury Warrior dual wield: Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands Fury Warrior titan's grip: Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in both hands Frost DK: Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands; 2H excluded Enhancement Shaman (dual wield): Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands; synchronized MH/OH speeds for flurry procs Enhancement Shaman (pre-dual wield): Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand Combat Rogue: Slow MH (>=2600ms) + Fast OH (<=1500ms) Assassination / Subtlety Rogue: Slow dagger MH (>=1700ms) + Fast dagger OH (<=1500ms) Hunter: Slow ranged (>=2600ms); melee is a stat stick, speed ignored Feral Druid: No preference (forms normalize attack speed)** _Besides pvp gearing for pvp specs, I feel like this is one of the nicest additions. It was really frustrating to see an enhancement shaman put windfury on a 1.5 dagger. Without this, weights for melee dps are calculated on dps alone, not weapon speed. You'll see 2h specs use fast 2h weapons (3.0), rogues use 2 fast weapons or slow weapons, frost dks occasionally using 2h weapons while having dual wield talents. I tested this for about 6 hours across all mentioned specs at levels 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80, with 3 quality types (greens, blues, purples). I would actually consider making this mandatory, simply because of the impact I saw in the dps charts. Super happy and proud of this._ <img width="1021" height="470" alt="files changes" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f55d955c-8760-4adf-b4d9-84797da2dc65" /> ## Feature Evaluation <!-- If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and it is very obvious it will not have any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a maintainer may ask you for them later. --> <!-- Please answer the following: --> - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior. _Two caches are built upon startup - the pvp trinket cache and the quest reward cache. From there, this directly modifies the stat weight calculations involving initequipement (autogear) and autoequipupgrades, as both go off of stat weight calculations. I tried to implement these changes with as little custom functions and coding as possible, and relied as much as I could on the pre-existing framework._ - Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many bots. _Fortunately most of the gates are boolean so it shouldn't impact performance much at all. I ran these changes on my local server with stock 500 bots, noticed no pmon difference from the main branch. Did a 24h stress test on my server yesterday, stats looked consistent with the stress test I did prior to making any changes on 3-31-26._ _It helps that it uses pre-existing functions such as initequipment and autoequipupgrades, and it really just modifies them with slightly more logic. That being said, autogear didn't lag my server at all, nor did the bots equipping upgrades._ ## How to Test the Changes <!-- - Step-by-step instructions to test the change. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific configuration). - Expected behavior and how to verify it. --> _So, with the basic stock playerbots config (do not forget to copy the new config!), the only thing that should change is the pvp gear appearing on pvp specs, and the classes preferring more appropriate stats across the board. You can load into the game, level a bot to 20, autogear, and notice the difference. Same at level 40, 60, 75, or whatever. You could add in the optional config settings to further streamline the gear you want. I currently run with all 4 enabled, 2 of which increase the item pool, and 2 of which help guide them to more appropriate gear (armor/weps)._ ## Impact Assessment <!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon tick) can help you here. --> - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - - [x] No, not at all - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**) - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**) _The code is only used on startup (cache generation) and when autogear/autoequipupgrades is called. Not all the time, and not per tick. I noticed no performance impact after these changes._ - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) _It modifies the decision making as far as equipment goes, but as far as priority/strategies, this does not affect that._ - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) _Not to my knowledge, but I'll rely on testers and the community to let me know if it does._ ## AI Assistance <!-- AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --> Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain below**) <!-- If yes, please specify: - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation). - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it was thoroughly reviewed. --> _AI was used in the research of the initequipment system, stat weights, and cache building. As far as generating the code, using AI was 2 steps forward, 1 step back. I used Claude Code with Sonnet 4.6 (high) and had gemini/copilot review the work. **AI did generate a large portion of the code being used.** I have personally reviewed every line, and a lot was removed out of being obsolete/new system that copied an old one/too many comments. I don't think anything else can be trimmed, though. I also used AI in the PR description, and made my own comments in italics below each entry. I hate explaining/writing._ <!-- TRANSLATIONS: Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format. This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault, which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code needs to have English as the default fallback, while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The languages in the file are the nine language options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German, Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and Russian. See data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as an example of a translation SQL update, whose content are called within the codebase at src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp --> ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised. - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained. - - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated. - - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> _I would like atleast 5-10 people to review this over the next 1-6 months. The big problem I used to have with my PRs was I was acting like they were a sprint, when it's really a marathon - good changes take time, and I was too quick to bust out new content. The old PRs I made introduced just as many new bugs as they did features. I learned my lesson, and have tested this extensively (code was pretty much complete on 4-10-26, been testing alone for the last 11 days) and it's ready for the test realm for others to try out. I think it's going to be a good step forward when it comes to gear decision making for bots as a whole. PvPers have come and gone too much from this project due to the lack of options, and this helps captivate that audience. Please reach out to me on discord at Zhur#4391, I am happy to hear results/suggestions there as well as here._ --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Keleborn
|
866a73dfbf
|
Clean up unused variables (#2268)
<!--
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 -->
Clean up a bunch of additional unused variable warnings.
## 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 reviewed the warnings log from a build and suggested a series of
changes. I focused just on these warnings for now. Every line was
reviewed. Some sections need to be reviewed by author for intent.
## 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.
-->
|
||
|
Scarecr0w12
|
c0c2b6ab5b
|
feat(Core/Playerbots): Initialize bot professions and specializations (#2287)
## Pull Request Description
Initialize random bot professions from the factory using class-matching
or weighted-random profession pairs, respect the active primary
profession cap, and restore required profession tools during bot
init/refresh.
This PR also initializes profession specializations for eligible bots so
crafted professions are not left in an unspecialized state after
profession assignment. Supported specialization families include:
- Alchemy: Transmute / Elixir / Potion
- Engineering: Goblin / Gnomish
- Leatherworking: Dragonscale / Elemental / Tribal
- Tailoring: Spellfire / Mooncloth / Shadoweave
- Blacksmithing: Armorsmith / Weaponsmith, plus Hammersmith / Axesmith /
Swordsmith for eligible Weaponsmith bots
Specialization choices are stored in bot values so they remain stable
across later refreshes. Required tool items are also restored for
relevant professions during maintenance.
## Feature Evaluation
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Select one or two professions during factory initialization from a
small weighted list.
- Clamp the assigned professions to the configured primary profession
limit.
- Learn the profession starter spell and set skill to the bot’s
profession cap.
- For professions with supported specialization branches, assign exactly
one valid specialization when the bot meets the same level/skill gates
used by AzerothCore profession scripts.
- Persist the specialization selection in stored bot values so the
choice is stable and does not need to be recalculated repeatedly.
- Restore missing profession tools only when the bot has the related
profession and the tool is absent.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
- The added logic executes only during bot init/refresh, not as part of
per-tick combat or trigger evaluation.
- Runtime cost is limited to a few small switch statements, stored value
lookups, spell checks, and item presence checks.
- No expensive repeated searches, map scans, or per-trigger decision
trees were added.
- The design keeps specialization selection deterministic after first
assignment by storing the result, avoiding repeated random branching
later.
## How to Test the Changes
1. Build and restart the server with this branch.
2. Trigger random bot creation, refresh, or level-based reroll for
multiple bots.
3. Verify in `Playerbots.log` that bots receive profession pairs and,
when eligible, profession specializations.
4. Check that low-level bots do not receive specializations before the
required thresholds.
5. Check that eligible bots do receive one specialization for supported
profession families.
6. Verify that specialization choices remain stable across subsequent
refreshes.
7. Verify that profession tools are restored when missing:
- Mining Pick
- Blacksmith Hammer
- Arclight Spanner
- Runed Arcanite Rod
- Skinning Knife
8. For a few bots, inspect in game or via debug tooling that profession
spells/specialization spells are present as expected.
Expected behavior:
- Bots receive professions that respect the configured primary
profession limit.
- Profession skill values are initialized to the level-based cap.
- Eligible bots receive exactly one valid specialization for supported
profession families.
- Specialization assignments are logged and persist across refreshes.
- Profession tools are restored only when required.
## Impact Assessment
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
- - [ ] No, not at all
- - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
- - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)
Explanation:
- The added work runs during initialization/refresh rather than normal
per-tick behavior.
- Logic is bounded, data-local, and based on direct skill/spell/value
checks.
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)
Explanation:
- Bots can now start with initialized professions, required tools, and
eligible profession specializations instead of remaining partially
configured or unspecialized.
- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
Explanation:
- The factory now contains specialization assignment branches for
supported profession families.
- Complexity is intentionally limited to init-time switch-based logic
with stored specialization values to preserve predictability.
## AI Assistance
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
AI assistance was used for:
- code generation and refactoring in `PlayerbotFactory`
- drafting and refining profession/specialization initialization logic
- PR description preparation
All generated and suggested code was reviewed, adjusted, built locally,
and validated before submission.
## Final Checklist
- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).
## Notes for Reviewers
- Target branch is `test-staging`.
- Profession/specialization logic is intentionally limited to
init/refresh paths to avoid per-tick cost.
- Specialization selections are stored to keep bot behavior stable
across later refreshes.
- Recent changes also add debug logging for assigned specializations and
save the bot after specialization learning so assignments are visible
and persisted.
---------
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
|
||
|
Benjamin Jackson
|
7b04c56956
|
Add default case to mount initialization for bots. (#2276)
## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> This PR adds a default case for the mount initialization function for player bots, allowing custom race additions to not crash when added to an AzerothCore server (such as [`mod-worgoblin`](https://github.com/heyitsbench/mod-worgoblin)). ## Feature Evaluation This feature ideally does not get touched in standard `mod-playerbots` usage, as it only adds a case to a switch statement, and would not be getting taken with Blizzlike data (which the vast majority of users likely use). ## How to Test the Changes 1. Add custom races to your AzerothCore instance (most easily accomplished with the above linked module). 2. Start the server and configure it to create random player bots (that fall under the added custom races). 3. Observe no crash. ## Impact Assessment - Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling poorly with thousands of bots? - - [X] No, not at all - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [X] No - Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance complexity? - - [X] Yes (**explain below**) This does add another path in a switch statement. It also creates another set of data for that case. This could have been avoided by consolidating the human/orc cases into the default case, but I elected not to do that in case players make their own changes. If preferred, I can definitely consolidate the cases to not have those redundant data points. ## Messages to Translate - Does this change add bot messages to translate? - - [X] No ## AI Assistance - Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - - [X] No ## 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 (Conf comments, WiKi commands). ## Notes for Reviewers Pretty please? 🥹 --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
oskov
|
f160420d70
|
Fix/talent tree ordered map (#2222)
Fixes #2050 InitTalents builds a map of talentRow → [TalentEntry*] and iterates it to teach talents row by row. WoW's talent system requires each row to be filled before unlocking the next, so iteration must happen in ascending row order. Commit b474dc4 ("Performance optim") changed the container from std::map to std::unordered_map, which has no guaranteed key ordering. As a result, bots would frequently attempt to learn talents in a row whose prerequisites hadn't been met yet, silently skipping them. I belive it's the reason of #2050 issue. The fix is a one-character type change: restoring std::map<uint32, ...>, which guarantees ascending key (row) order. How to Test the Changes 1. Make fresh installation 2. Create new character 3. Observe talents tree of fresh rnd bots Was AI assistance used while working on this change? - [X] Yes — GitHub Copilot CLI was used to identify the root cause (unordered_map introduced in b474dc4 breaking talent row ordering), stage the one-line fix, and draft this PR description. The code change was reviewed and fully understood before submission. Root cause commit: b474dc44bb6323430a84fc17c1ec046f9919a101 ("Performance optim") — changed std::map to std::unordered_map in InitTalents, breaking the row-ordering guarantee that WoW's talent prerequisite system depends on. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
XYUU
|
473b2ab5c6
|
Fix: WLK shaman totem quest vs relic totems: avoid keeping 4 totem items when relic exists #2119 (#2197)
## Summary * Detects shaman relics (relic type, totem subclass) in bags/equipment. * Skips adding the four classic totem items (5175–5178) when a relic exists. * Cleans up any existing totem items from bags/equipment/bank when a relic exists, while keeping Ankh handling intact. ## Test plan Verified manually (local environment). --------- 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: github-actions <github-actions@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
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>
|
||
|
Rikus Louw
|
ea60b38eb9
|
Add Serpentshrine Cavern attunement quest to bot factory (#2136)
# Pull Request I've being getting ready to test Serpentshrine Cavern strategy on `test-staging`, but noticed the bots don't currently have attunement setup. Added attunement quest. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model**. More complex behavior should only be available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - **Stability before intelligence** A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - **Performance is a shared resource** Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - **Simple logic scales better than smart logic** Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - **Complexity must justify itself** If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - **Defaults must be cheap** Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect** The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Add bots and convert to raid - Make sure you have attunement by completing [this](https://www.wowhead.com/tbc/quest=13431/the-cudgel-of-kardesh) quest - Teleport to SSC and summon bots. The bots should appear in the raid. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (**explain why**) This adds the attunement quest for SSC by default If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. |
||
|
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>
|
||
|
kadeshar
|
026df0dabe
|
Chilton wand fix (#2115)
# Pull Request Added Chilton wand to excluded to equipment items for bots and unified 2 exclusion lists to single one. Resolves: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/2093 --- ## How to Test the Changes Couldnt reproduce Chilton wand bug then testing sound impossible. Someone can try getting this items on shaman. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes 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 --- ## 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 --- |
||
|
bashermens
|
13fff46fa0
|
Improper singletons migration to clean Meyer's singletons (cherry-pick) (#2082)
# Pull Request
- Applies the clean and corrected singletons, Meyer pattern. (cherry
picked from @SmashingQuasar )
Testing by just playing the game in various ways. Been tested by myself
@Celandriel and @SmashingQuasar
---
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: Nicolas Lebacq <nicolas.cordier@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
bashermens
|
41c53365ae
|
[HOT FIX] MS build issues regarding folder / command lenght usage or rc.exe (#2038) |