mod-playerbots

mirror of https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots.git synced 2026-03-12 03:45:08 +00:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
kadeshar	a8dda550ad	Requirement fix to use bigobj parameter to compile (#2176 ) # Pull Request Compilation fix which making possible compiling without bigobj parameter --- ## How to Test the Changes - compile using Visual Studio without bigobj parameter ## 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? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (explain below) Automate file creation --- ## 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	2026-03-08 08:49:45 +01:00
NoxMax	1a3468368d	PR template proposal, using the proposed template itself (#2170 ) <!-- Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that you... 1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master. 2. Read the guidelines below before submitting. 3. Don't delete parts of this template. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism. Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small increases in logic complexity scale poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize a stable system over a smarter one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the goal, not human simulation. Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be opt-in. Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles. --> ## Pull Request Description <!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed --> The addition of a PR template last month was a great idea. We had nothing before and just let people type whatever they thought was relevant. Some wrote a whole article with too many details, and some just wrote the title and didn't explain any of the important details. So the addition of the PR template makes sure contributors know what's most important to this project. However, several people thought the template was... a lot. A lot of the information it showed, while useful to the contributor, made it a bit confusing to reviewer to know what the contributor wrote, and what is part of the PR template, so a lot of these guidelines have now been put behind `<!-- -->`. Moreover, even what has been hidden, has been truncated. The main message of the guidelines is stability is our top priority. It is a critical message, but it was repeated several more times than it should've been. Less is more here, and if an important message is repeated in a verbose manner, people would gloss over it like scrolling down long terms and conditions. The questions were also made more concise and explicit. We don't want contributors to question the questions themselves and how do they even apply to their code. The process of PR submission itself should not feel like submitting a long bureaucratic form. Think of it like a scientific paper abstract: It gives a reasonably short summary explaining the work, as clearly as possible. ## 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. These are the core questions that are important to know, but even then, not always relevant. So a note was added to the contributor that they can obviously skip these if their PR is something like a comment edit or whatever else that clearly doesn't add processing. ## 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. --> You are already testing whether or not this template is effective by looking at it. 1. See the"[Preview](https://github.com/NoxMax/mod-playerbots/blob/PR-template-proposal/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md)" of the file just so it's clear what the template is like without any of the comments I made here. 2. See the "[Code](https://github.com/NoxMax/mod-playerbots/blob/PR-template-proposal/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md?plain=1)" section of the template to see how it would actually look to a contributor. The only difference is the alignment of the translation table; it looks weird in the .md file, but it would look properly aligned to the contributor when submitting. ## 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) Broke down processing impact into minimal and moderate. It is not uncommon that we have changes that add some minimal processing, and yes, collectively they can become an issue, but we also need to distinguish them from the rare changes that have a moderate impact, and how critical those changes are. - 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) This question merges two previous one, because it's really asking the same thing: Will your change be a headache to maintain down the line? ## 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 \| \| --------------- \| ------------------ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| This is a new section, based on an idea that was discuss to not have everyone add their SQL translation files to their PR, and figure out file date name based on merge order, and coordinate who's using which message key. No. The hidden instruction instead tell the contributor to prerp the code to be translatable, by looking up GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples, and leave it that. When merged it would just use the default English fallback, then a monthly PR can be made containing translations for all the recently merged commits that have bot messages. The code would then automatically pickup the translated lines for that. This section of the template would remain if there's a consensus that this is how the translation workflow should be. ## 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 (Code comments, Conf comments, Commands in the Wiki). Final checklist remains the same, only clarifies to the contributors what sort of documentations that need updating. ## Notes for Reviewers <!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request. --> This is a literal draft of of what the template should be, in that I look forward to your ideas to any ways that can further improve this.	2026-03-06 20:04:37 +01:00
St0ny	55708f397a	add sql update (#2137 ) Correction of a spelling mistake in the German chatter-texts. # Pull Request There is an error in the German translation of the chatter text. This will be fixed 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? --- ## 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.	2026-03-06 20:03:44 +01:00
killerzwelch	660a5c0543	make playerbots compatible with 515aeca (#2181 ) # Pull Request needed changes for `515aeca570` --- ## 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. --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>	2026-03-06 20:03:32 +01:00
Crow	14c77b1e7b	Remove instance strategies when leaving map (#2163 ) # Pull Request Currently, dungeon and raid strategies, which are automatically added when entering the applicable instance (unless disabled in config), will persist until manually removed or until a different instance strategy is applied. This is pretty bad because then bots will continue to check triggers for the instance when outside of it. This has been discussed for a long time, but after finally considering it today, I think the solution is pretty simple because the existing framework is already there. PlayerbotAI::ApplyInstanceStrategies() is the function for enabling strategies when entering an instance, and it's called whenever a bot changes maps. So all we need to do is to remove all instance strategies first when calling it. I tested these changes, and they worked for me, but obviously others should test too, and especially the code should be examined since that is not my area of expertise. --- ## 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? - - [ ] 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. I used Gemini to verify that my idea would work and had it put together the actual code for me. --- ## 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>	2026-03-06 10:50:00 -08:00
Hokken	788c7b025b	Fix quest links triggering trade window (#2155 ) ## Summary `ChatHelper::parseable()` matched any hyperlink containing `\|H`, including quest links (`\|Hquest:`), achievement links, spell links, etc. This caused bots to interpret quest links shared in party chat as item trade requests, opening the trade window instead of ignoring them. Narrowed the check from `"\|H"` to `"\|Hitem:"` so only actual item links trigger the parseable/trade logic. One-line change in `src/Bot/Cmd/ChatHelper.cpp:603` ## Root Cause The WoW client uses `\|H<type>:<id>\|h[Name]\|h` hyperlinks for many object types: - `\|Hitem:12345\|h[Item Name]\|h` — items - `\|Hquest:678\|h[Quest Name]\|h` — quests - `\|Hspell:890\|h[Spell Name]\|h` — spells - `\|Hachievement:...\|h` — achievements The old check `text.find("\|H")` matched ALL of these, so sharing a quest link in party chat would cause the bot to enter the item parsing/trade flow. ## Test Scenarios \| Scenario \| Before \| After \| \|----------\|--------\|-------\| \| Share `[Quest Name]` in party chat \| Trade window opens \| No reaction (correct) \| \| Share `[Item Name]` in party chat \| Trade window opens \| Trade window opens (unchanged) \| \| Say "questitem" in chat \| Parsed correctly \| Parsed correctly (unchanged) \| \| Share `[Spell Name]` in party chat \| Trade window opens \| No reaction (correct) \| Tested on AzerothCore 3.3.5a with mod-playerbots, confirmed fix resolves the issue. --------- Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Hokken <Hokken@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-03-06 09:41:40 -08:00
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.	2026-03-06 07:59:36 -08:00
kadeshar	935252fcfe	Action trigger fix (#2180 ) Maintenance PR unrelated with module itself Modified action trigger to cover branch change	2026-03-06 07:58:47 -08:00
Rikus Louw	ed81a43403	Added all TBC attunement quests (#2179 ) # Pull Request Added all TBC attunement quests to conf --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize stability, performance, and predictability over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed per bot and per trigger, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model. More complex behavior should only be available as an explicit opt-in option, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - Stability before intelligence A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - Performance is a shared resource Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - Simple logic scales better than smart logic Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - Complexity must justify itself If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - Defaults must be cheap Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - Bots should look reasonable, not perfect The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the minimum logic required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the cheapest implementation that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the runtime cost when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change Run maintenance on bots - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) This only applies to Individual Progression mod, since attunements aren't required in base AC - Expected behavior and how to verify it Bots should be able to enter: - The Eye (Tempest Keep) - Mount Hyjal - Black Temple ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (describe and justify impact) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain why) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (explain why) All attunements for TBC are now added on 'maintenance' command If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging.	2026-03-06 07:58:32 -08:00
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>	2026-03-06 07:58:02 -08:00
Alex Dcnh	18bd655869	Restore Naxx Strategies without core dependencies (#2031 ) ### Summary This PR restores the Naxxramas raid strategies that were removed in commit `686fe513b2` . 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>	2026-03-06 07:57:21 -08:00
kadeshar	28a888b6e0	Added unobtainable items to config (#2133 ) # Pull Request Moving hardcoded values to config ## How to Test the Changes - use maintenance command - unequip and destroy item get from this command - turn off server - add item to config - turn on server - use maintenace command - check that different item was provided ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (describe and justify impact) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (explain why) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (explain why) --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [X] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) --- ## Final Checklist - - [X] Stability is not compromised - - [X] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [X] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [X] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers	2026-03-06 07:56:53 -08:00
Benjamin Jackson	d32b10de15	Add dedicated icon image and separate readme banner image. (#2177 ) # Pull Request This PR separates the image currently in the readme (currently named `icon.png`) into two, one that is an exact copy (`banner.png`) and one that only includes the image component (`icon.png`). This is to make the module more approachable when scrolling through the [AzerothCore catalogue](https://www.azerothcore.org/catalogue.html) as [it uses the `icon.png` image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4c820f22-2a52-42b9-b360-f0e4d1496060). --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - This has no changes to code, and has no impact on it. --- ## How to Test the Changes - This PR requires no testing. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [X] No Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [X] No Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [X] No --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [X] No If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [X] Lightweight mode remains the default --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) 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 - - [X] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging.	2026-03-01 07:24:37 -08:00
kadeshar	3b6cf5060e	Translation cleanup (#2154 ) # Pull Request Translation cleanup for better track changes in translations. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Run server and check that script apply to database ## 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: --- ## 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 ---	2026-02-28 09:07:15 +01:00
NoxMax	b7b67e0fd9	Feat/Fix: Expand follower bot flightmaster distance search and use correct config patterns (#2140 ) # Pull Request Feat: A common problem I have with follower bots is that if I quickly run up to a flightmaster and select a destination, as I go on my way, the bots can't get on a damn bird and say "Cannot find any flightmaster to talk". Guy was 8 yards away and they're completely blind to him. This is because when you select a destination, at that moment the bot would check `GetNPCIfCanInteractWith` from core, which uses `INTERACTION_DISTANCE`, which is defined as 5.5 yards. So the bot has to have caught up with you to be within 5.5 yards of the flightmaster. This PR expands that distance to use our own `sPlayerbotAIConfig.farDistance`, which is by default set to 20 yards. So just as long as bots have caught up to be within 20 yards from the flightmaster, they will follow you. Fix: While I was doing this, I noticed that the timings for bot flight staggering (introduced in #1281) are defined in TaxiAction and PlayerbotAIConfig. So I removed their definitions from TaxiAction, made proper calls to the configs, and renamed them to similar format that other configs use. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize stability, performance, and predictability over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed per bot and per trigger, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model. More complex behavior should only be available as an explicit opt-in option, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - Stability before intelligence A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - Performance is a shared resource Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - Simple logic scales better than smart logic Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - Complexity must justify itself If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - Defaults must be cheap Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - Bots should look reasonable, not perfect The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the minimum logic required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the cheapest implementation that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the runtime cost when this logic executes across many bots? Changes here use a minimal amount of code to accomplish the objective, including using pre-defined distance values rather than creating new ones. Changes have no effect on processing. --- ## How to Test the Changes For expanding flightmaster search distance: You will be using the `stay` command. A bot commanded to `stay` will still take a flight with you, if it is near a flightmaster. So you can use the command to position the bot exactly where you want it to be 1. Place your follower bot immediately next to the flightmaster 2. Take a flight and the bot should follow. Nothing new here 3. Place the bot about 12 yards away from flightmaster. 4. Take a flight and the bot should follow. Same as before. 5. Repeat again, but this time place the bot 22 yards away. It should not follow you and instead say "Cannot find any flightmaster to talk" 6. The change should work correctly with `InstantFlightPaths = 0` in worldserver.conf, or if it's set to 1/2 and bots can instantly fly. For the config of staggering: 1. Make sure `InstantFlightPaths = 0` in worldserver.conf. 2. Change the timings in playerbots.conf under the `# FLIGHTPATH` section. 3. Changes should be correctly reflected in world. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (describe and justify impact) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain why) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain why) Follower bots search a slightly bigger distance for nearby flightmasters. If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging.	2026-02-27 16:07:42 -08:00
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.	2026-02-27 16:05:31 -08:00
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>	2026-02-27 16:04:33 -08:00
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>	2026-02-27 16:04:10 -08:00
kadeshar	1401657a6d	Modify action to workaround github settings (#2167 ) Github action modification	2026-02-24 22:10:09 +01:00
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>	2026-02-24 00:49:45 +01:00
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>	2026-02-23 13:19:56 -08:00
Rikus Louw	ea60b38eb9	Add Serpentshrine Cavern attunement quest to bot factory (#2136 ) # Pull Request I've being getting ready to test Serpentshrine Cavern strategy on `test-staging`, but noticed the bots don't currently have attunement setup. Added attunement quest. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize stability, performance, and predictability over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed per bot and per trigger, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model. More complex behavior should only be available as an explicit opt-in option, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - Stability before intelligence A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - Performance is a shared resource Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - Simple logic scales better than smart logic Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - Complexity must justify itself If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - Defaults must be cheap Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - Bots should look reasonable, not perfect The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## Feature Evaluation Please answer the following: - Describe the minimum logic required to achieve the intended behavior? - Describe the cheapest implementation that produces an acceptable result? - Describe the runtime cost when this logic executes across many bots? --- ## How to Test the Changes - Add bots and convert to raid - Make sure you have attunement by completing [this](https://www.wowhead.com/tbc/quest=13431/the-cudgel-of-kardesh) quest - Teleport to SSC and summon bots. The bots should appear in the raid. ## Complexity & Impact Does this change add new decision branches? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (describe and justify impact) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain why) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] No - - [x] Yes (explain why) This adds the attunement quest for SSC by default If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - - [x] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - - [x] Stability is not compromised - - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging.	2026-02-23 11:02:11 -08:00
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.	2026-02-23 11:00:55 -08:00
privatecore	2f7dfdbbfc	Fix rest of trainers' related stuff + codestyle changes and corrections (#2104 ) # Pull Request * Fix the rest of the trainer-related functionality: list spells and learn (cast vs. direct learn) spells. * Rewrite `TrainerAction`: split the logic between appropriate methods (`GetTarget`, `isUseful`, `isPossible`) instead of pushing everything inside a single `Execute` method. * Change method definitions to remove unnecessary declarations and parameters overhead. * Move the `Trainer` header into the implementation. Rewrite `RpgTrainTrigger` to fit the original logic and move all validation to `RpgTrainAction` (`isUseful` + `isPossible`). * Implement "can train" context value calculation to use with `RpgTrainTrigger`. * Update and optimize "train cost" context value calculation -- it should be much faster. * Replace `AiPlayerbot.AutoTrainSpells` with `AiPlayerbot.AllowLearnTrainerSpells` and remove the "free" value behavior — please use `AiPlayerbot.BotCheats` if you want bots to learn trainer's spells for "free". * Add `nullptr` checks wherever necessary (only inside targeted methods/functions). * Make some codestyle changes and corrections based on the AC codestyle guide. --- ## Design Philosophy We prioritize stability, performance, and predictability over behavioral realism. Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and long-term robustness. Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU usage, and degraded performance for all participants. Because every action and decision tree is executed per bot and per trigger, even small increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and negatively affect both players and world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a project goal. Increased behavioral realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability, and significantly higher maintenance overhead. Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All decision paths must be tested, validated, and maintained continuously as the system evolves. If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the default configuration must remain the lightweight decision model. More complex behavior should only be available as an explicit opt-in option, clearly documented as having a measurable performance cost. Principles: - Stability before intelligence A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one. - Performance is a shared resource Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots. - Simple logic scales better than smart logic Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions. - Complexity must justify itself If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist. - Defaults must be cheap Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated. - Bots should look reasonable, not perfect The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation. Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those principles. --- ## How to Test the Changes Force bots to learn spells from trainers using the chat command `trainer learn` or `trainer learn <spellId>`. Bots should properly list available spells (`trainer` command) or learn them (based on configuration and command). ## Complexity & Impact - Does this change add new decision branches? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (explain below) - Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (describe and justify impact) - Could this logic scale poorly under load? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (explain why) --- ## Defaults & Configuration - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (explain why) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance - Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (explain below) If yes, please specify: - AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.) - Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code generation) - Which parts of the change were influenced or generated - Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor. Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB logic. We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not understand. --- ## Final Checklist - [x] Stability is not compromised - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-02-23 11:00:24 -08:00
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.	2026-02-15 16:29:20 -08:00
bash	3c62a45fad	Revert "Convert PlayerBots tables to InnoDB (#2083 )" This reverts commit `c86032f43b`.	2026-02-15 20:47:26 +01:00
Keleborn	441f9f7552	Warnings PR 1: Event warnings and headers (#2106 ) # Pull Request This is the first in a series of PRs intended to eliminate warnings in the module. The design intent is to eliminate the calling event when not needed in the body of the function. Based off of SmashingQuasars work. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) - Expected behavior and how to verify it ## Complexity & Impact - Does this change add new decision branches? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (explain below) - Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (describe and justify impact) - Could this logic scale poorly under load? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (explain why) --- ## Defaults & Configuration - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (explain why) If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic: - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable --- ## AI Assistance - Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (explain below) --- ## Final Checklist - [x] Stability is not compromised - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-02-14 20:55:10 +01:00
bashermens	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.	2026-02-14 11:31:45 -08:00
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>	2026-02-13 09:31:55 -08:00
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.	2026-02-13 09:25:12 -08:00
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.	2026-02-13 09:24:42 -08:00
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.	2026-02-13 09:24:11 -08:00
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>	2026-02-13 09:22:27 -08:00
Keleborn	ee2a399ac8	Refactor newrpginfo data union to std::variant (#2079 ) # Pull Request As I began modifying the newrpginfo to change the types of data it stored, or add new data I found myself with the issue of ending up either with garbage memory if the information wasnt properly stored on status change, or needing complicated destructor patterns for non trivial data sets. --- ## Design Philosophy Make rpginfo able to handle more complicated information in a strongly --- ## Feature Evaluation No Feature changes --- ## How to Test the Changes - Server should be stable for an extended period of time. - Bots should be able to complete quests, fly, etc as they did before. ## 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) Potentially as there can be more memory involved in the object. - 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? - [ ] No - [ X] Yes (explain below) If yes, please specify: - Gemini suggested the use of std::variant as an alternative data structure. I found additinal external references that correlated with the same suggestion of moving away from a union. - Implementation was performed manually with Co-pilot auto-complete --- ## Final Checklist In progress. - [ ] 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 Im not 100% sure if this is a good design choice. There are some things I didnt quite like by the end of this, specifically having to double check whenever accessing data whether exists or not even though an action has already been triggered. But I have a PR in the works where I want to store a full flight path vector, and the union was giving me issues. (It appears that state changes may be occuring in the same tick between RPG status update and the stated action, leading to incorrect data gathering. I ended up solving it by first checking a pointer to the object, and then getting the reference. ```c++ auto* dataPtr = std::get_if<NewRpgInfo::DoQuest>(&info.data); if (!dataPtr) return false; auto& data = *dataPtr; ``` --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-02-13 09:19:54 -08:00
privatecore	610fdc16d7	Fix bug with GetCreature + GetGameObject = use ObjectAccessor's methods instead (#2105 ) # Pull Request https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/equal_range.html > second is an iterator to the first element of the range [first, last) ordered after value (or last if no such element is found). The original code uses `return bounds.second->second`, which causes the wrong creature/gameobject to be returned. Instead, both methods (`GetCreature` and `GetGameObject`) now utilize ObjectAccessor's methods to retrieve the correct entities. These built-in methods offer a safer way to access objects. Additionally, `GetUnit` no longer includes redundant creature processing before checks and now has the same logic as the `ObjectAccessor::GetUnit` method. Furthermore, `GuidPosition::isDead` method has been renamed to `GuidPosition::IsCreatureOrGOAccessible` and updated, as it is used only for creatures (NOT units) and gameobjects. --- ## 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 The behavior has not changed after all. ## 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. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-02-08 09:36:56 -08:00
dillyns	c9c936d5c1	Add Unending Breath to Warlock NonCombat Strat (#2074 ) # Pull Request Adds actions and triggers for Warlock class to cast Unending Breath when swimming, following the existing implementation for Shaman Water Breathing. --- ## Feature Evaluation Add triggers for Warlock noncombat strategy for Unending Breath on self and party. Triggers should only be active while swimming. Minimal runtime cost on Warlock bots trigger processing. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Bring a Warlock bot into water - It should cast Unending Breath on itself and anyone in the party ## Complexity & Impact - Does this change add new decision branches? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (explain below) It adds triggers to Warlock to decide when to cast Unending Breath on self or party members. - Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (describe and justify impact) Minimal additional processing for Warlock triggers, same as already existing triggers for Shaman. - 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? - [ ] No - [x] Yes (explain below) Claude was used to explore the codebase to find similar implementations that already existed. --- ## Final Checklist - [x] Stability is not compromised - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-02-08 09:36:27 -08:00
kadeshar	cfb2ed4bf3	Merge pull request #2124 from kadeshar/oculus-drake-fix Oculus drake mounting fix	2026-02-08 17:10:18 +01:00
Hokken	e9e79ad696	Fix LootRollLevel=1 to match documented 'greed' behavior (#2068 ) ## Summary Fixes `AiPlayerbot.LootRollLevel = 1` to actually behave as "greed" mode per the config documentation. ## Problem The config documentation states: ```conf # Bots' loot roll level (0 = pass, 1 = greed, 2 = need) # Default: 1 (greed) AiPlayerbot.LootRollLevel = 1 ``` However, level 1 was converting all GREED votes to PASS, causing bots to pass on almost everything: \| Item Type \| AI Decision \| Level 1 Behavior (Before) \| Expected \| \|-----------\|-------------\|---------------------------\|----------\| \| Gear upgrade \| NEED \| GREED ✓ \| GREED \| \| Usable gear (not upgrade) \| GREED \| PASS ✗ \| GREED \| \| Crafting materials \| GREED \| PASS ✗ \| GREED \| \| Recipes, consumables \| GREED \| PASS ✗ \| GREED \| The only items bots would greed on were direct gear upgrades (originally NEED, downgraded to GREED). ## Root Cause In `LootRollAction.cpp`, lines 104-107 were converting GREED to PASS: ```cpp else if (vote == GREED) { vote = PASS; // This breaks "greed" mode } ``` ## Fix Remove the GREED→PASS conversion. Level 1 now only downgrades NEED to GREED (as intended), preserving GREED votes for useful items. ## Behavior After Fix \| Level \| Description \| Behavior \| \|-------\|-------------\|----------\| \| 0 \| Pass \| Always pass on all items \| \| 1 \| Greed \| Greed on useful items, never need \| \| 2 \| Need \| Full AI logic (need/greed/pass) \| ## Test Plan - [ ] Set `AiPlayerbot.LootRollLevel = 1` - [ ] Kill mobs that drop crafting materials, recipes, or non-upgrade gear - [ ] Verify bots greed on useful items instead of passing - [ ] Verify bots still pass on junk items - [ ] Verify bots never roll need (only greed) Co-authored-by: Hokken <Hokken@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-02-08 12:45:03 +01:00
Keleborn	3db2a5a193	Refactor of EquipActions (#1994 ) #PR Description The root cause of issue #1987 was the AI Value item usage becoming a very expensive call when bots gained professions accidentally. My original approach was to eliminate it entirely, but after inputs and testing I decided to introduce a more focused Ai value "Item upgrade" that only checks equipment and ammo inheriting directly from item usage, so the logic is unified between them. Upgrades are now only assessed when receiving an item that can be equipped. Additionally, I noticed that winning loot rolls did not trigger the upgrade action, so I added a new package handler for that. Performance needs to be re-evaluated, but I expect a reduction in calls and in the cost of each call. I tested with bots and selfbot in deadmines and ahadowfang keep. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-02-08 12:41:33 +01:00
Crow	8585f10f48	Implement Serpentshrine Cavern Strategies (#1888 ) Edited: Below description of methods were brought up to date as of the PR coming off of draft. ### General I've starting leveraging, to the extent possible, an out-of-combat method to erase map keys. This is mostly useful for timers that need to start upon the pull because I dislike having to rely on a check for a boss to be at 100% HP (or 99.9% or whatever) because it can be unreliable sometimes. ### Trash Underbog Colossi: Some Colossi leave behind a lake of toxin when they die that quickly kills any player that is standing in it. The pool is a dynamic-object-generated AoE, and bots will not avoid it on their own (I think because the AoE is out of combat, plus the radius is much larger than the default avoidance radius in the config). The method does not require bots to be in combat, and simply gets bots to run out of the toxin. You will probably still get a couple of idiots who drink in the middle of it, but in my experience, the vast majority of the raid gets out, and healers that escape can easily keep up a couple of fools until they've drank to full. Greyheart Tidecallers: Bots will mark and destroy Water Elemental Totems immediately. ### Hydross the Unstable The strategy uses 2 tanks, with the main tank assigned to the frost phase and the 1st assistant tank assigned to the nature phase. - The main tank will tank the frost phase, and the first assistant tank will tank the nature phase. They each have designated spots and will wait at their spots twiddling their thumbs while Hydross is in the other phase. - Hunters will misdirect to the applicable tank upon the pull and after each phase change. - The phase change process begins 1 second after Hydross reaches 100% Marks. The current tank will begin moving to the next phase tank's spot for the next tank to take over as soon as Hydross transitions. - DPS is ordered to stop after Hydross reaches 100% Marks until 5 seconds after he transitions. - Bots will prioritize the elementals adds after every phase change, unless Hydross is under 10% HP, in which case they should ignore the adds and burn the boss. - Ranged bots should spread during the frost phase to mitigate the impact of Water Tombs. ### The Lurker Below - There is a designated spot for the main tank. - Ranged DPS will fan out over a 120-degree arc that is centered directly across from the tank spot (to try to spread to reduce Geyser damage while also keeping them behind Lurker). - When Spout begins, all bots will run around behind Lurker. The intent is to keep a distance with a radius of 20 or 21 yards and within 45 degrees (either side) of directly behind him. Movement is specifically tangential along an arc so bots don't run in front of Lurker. - Spout's duration is tracked by a timer. The mechanics of the spell itself are rather unique and don't involve a continuous cast or aura to track easily so I settled for the timer. - If you have 3 (or more) tanks, each of the first 3 tanks will be assigned to one of the 3 Coilfang Guardians during the submerge phase. ### Leotheras the Blind The fight is designed for a Warlock tank. You can choose the Warlock tank by giving a Warlock the Assistant flag. If you don't do that, your highest HP Warlock will be picked. Do NOT switch the Warlock tank to a co +tank strategy--the designated Warlock is hardcoded to spam Searing Pain on Demon Leo and otherwise will engage in normal DPS strategies. If you don't have a Warlock at all, the strategy has some methods built in to try to make things work as best as possible with a melee tank. - The Spellbinders get marked with skulls and killed in order. - There is no designated spot or designated tank for the human phase. Your tanks will fight for aggro. Ranged bots will attempt to keep some distance, and when Whirlwind starts, everybody will run away from Leotheras. - During the demon phase, your melee tanks should take a backseat to your Warlock tank, who will receive help in the form of Misdirection. Bots will get the hell away from the Warlock tank so the Warlock tank should be taking every Chaos Blast alone. - During the final phase, your regular tanks will tank Leotheras, and the Warlock tank will tank his Shadow. The melee tanks will attempt to separate Leotheras from his Shadow so bots can focus down Leotheras without getting hit with Chaos Blasts. - Bots will wait 5 seconds to DPS after every transition into human phase, 12 seconds to DPS after every transition into demon phase, and 8 seconds to DPS after the transition into the final phase. There is no waiting on DPS after Whirlwinds, even though it would be ideal. It's not a big deal to live without, and for various reasons, it would have been a pain in the ass to deal with. - Bots will save Bloodlust/Heroism until after Spellbinders are down. - To deal with the Inner Demons, I disabled DPS assist for bots who are targeted and force them to focus only on their Inner Demons. This is sufficient in my experience for all DPS bots and Protection Warriors and Paladins to kill their Inner Demons, even at 50% damage. Feral Tank Druids and Healers still need help, so the strategy hardcodes their actions while fighting Inner Demons. For example, Resto Druids are coded to shift out of Tree Form, cast Barkskin on themselves, and just spam Wrath until the Inner Demon is dead. There are no bot strategy changes used for this method. ### Fathom-Lord Karathress You will need 4 tanks. Your main tank will tank Karathress, and an assistant tank will tank each Fathom Guard. If you have fewer than 4 tanks, then the priority order for tank assignment will be Karathress, Caribdis, Sharkkis, and then Tidalvess. - Roughly, the tank spots are (1) for Karathress, near where he starts but closer to the ledge for LoS reasons, (2) for Sharkkis, North from his starting location on the other side of the ramp, (3) for Tidalvess, Northwest from his starting location near the pillar, and (4) for Caribdis, far to the West of her starting position, near the corner. - Note that the tanks will probably clip through the terrain a bit when going to their positions. This is due to me implementing a forced MoveTo to the tank position coordinates. There is something weird about the maps in Karathress's room, and the tanks will take some really screwed up paths without making them go directly to the exact coordinates. So this looks stupid but is necessary. - One healer will be assigned to heal the Caribdis tank. Because AC Playerbots does not yet have a focus heal strategy, this just means that such healer has a designated location near the Caribdis tank's location. This healer can be selected with the Assistant flag. - Hunters will misdirect the Fathom Guards onto their applicable tanks. If you don't have three Hunters, the priority is Caribdis, Tidalvess, then Sharkkis. - DPS will wait 12 seconds to begin attacking. After that, they will prioritize targets as follows: - (1): Melee will always prioritize Spitfire Totems as soon as they spawn. This will continue through the duration of the fight. - (2): All bots will kill Tidalvess first. - (3): Melee bots will move to Sharkkis, and ranged bots will move to Caribdis. I understand this is not the standard kill order for players, which would have the entire raid kill Sharkkis next. The reasons I have done this differently are because melee DPS is much stronger with 3.3.5 talents vs. in retail TBC, and because bots get really thrown off by Cyclones and therefore they struggle to kill Caribdis quickly. You do not want Karathress below 75% HP before all Fathom-Guards are dead or he gets a huge damage buff. - (4) If Caribdis dies first, ranged bots will help with Sharkkis. - (5) Everybody kills Sharkkis's pet. - (6) Everybody kills Karathress. ### Morogrim Tidewalker - The main tank will pull the boss to the Northeast pillar, with the tank's back against the pillar. - A hunter will misdirect the boss onto the main tank upon the pull. - When the boss gets to 26% HP, the main tank will begin moving the boss to the Northeast corner of the room in preparation for Phase 2 (which begins at 25%). The tank will move in two steps to get around the pillar. - When the boss gets to 25% HP, ranged will follow the main tank to the corner and stack up right behind the boss. They will also move in two steps. - There is no method for melee since they will just naturally follow the boss anyway. ### Lady Vashj Phase 1: - The main tank will tank Vashj in the center of the arena. - If a Shaman is in the main tank's group, that Shaman will attempt to keep a Grounding Totem down in range of the main tank to absorb Shock Blast. This should continue in Phase 3. - Ranged bots will spread out in a semicircle around the center of the arena. - If any bot other than the main tank gets Static Charge, it will run away from other bots. If the main tank gets Static Charge, other bots will run away from the main tank. This method should continue in Phase 3. - If any bot is Entangled and has Static Charge, the bot will attempt to use Cloak of Shadows if it is a Rogue, and Paladins will attempt to use Hand of Freedom. This method should continue in Phase 3 (with some modifications). - Bots will not use Bloodlust or Heroism (saved for Phase 3). Bots will not use any other major cooldowns, either, such as Metamorphosis (saved for Phase 2 and 3). Phase 2: There are two central mechanics to this phase, both of which were challenging to get bots to execute properly. First is the system of prioritizing adds. The large playing field and multiple types of adds coming from random directions make this phase not doable with realistic DPS under the standard Playerbots target selection system. Therefore, I took inspiration from liyunfan's Naxx strategy for Phase 1 of Kel'Thuzad to disable dps assist and create a custom target selection system. First, a cheat with respect to the Coilfang Striders: - Tanks will permanently have the Fear Ward aura applied to them if you have raid cheats enabled. This allows them to tank the Coilfang Striders. The standard strategy was to have an Elemental Shaman kite the Strider around the perimeter of the arena, with ranged players (including healers) spamming DoTs on the Strider. If you can make bots do this, then great, but it's far beyond my capabilities. Therefore, with the cheat, the first assistant tank is responsible for tanking Striders and keeping them away from Core passers (described below) and Vashj. Evidently it was (and is, in TBC Classic) possible to tank (and melee DPS) Striders by wearing a Dire Maul Ogre Suit, which would give you enough reach to stay out of the Strider's fear. I actually tried that, and it does not work, either because AC's radiuses are not the same or just because bots do not maintain the same level of precise positioning. But anyway, the point is that technically the Striders are tankable by real players, so maybe that will make you feel better about using this cheat (it's fine enough rationalizing for me). I found this fight to be unmanageable without this cheat (i.e., using a method that would only have bots try to run away from Striders) because each Strider was guaranteed to wipe out a couple of bots, and you really cannot afford to lose anyone. YMMV though. - If cheats are enabled for Striders, Hunters will attempt to Misdirect the Striders to the first assist tank. - If cheats are not enabled, bots will attempt to use slows/roots to stop the Striders. I have some logic for them to use Netherweave Nets, but I suspect it does not actually work so I may remove it instead of trying to get it to function properly. Target priority is as follows: - Hunters and Mages: Enchanted Elementals, Coilfang Striders, Coilfang Elites. - Other Ranged Bots: Elites, Striders, Elementals. - Melee DPS: Elementals, Elites. - Tanks: Elites, Elementals (except if cheats are enabled, the first assistant tank will instead prioritize Striders and then Elementals) - Everybody else (basically means healers): Elementals, Elites, Striders - If there is more than one of the same target, bots will prioritize the one that is closer to Vashj. - In all cases, the valid attack ranged is limited so that bots should not leave the central platform. - If somehow a bot ends up too far from the center of the room and is not actively attacking anything, there is logic to make them run back. Handling Tainted Elementals and the Tainted Core: I will make another post about this later. It is easily the most complicated strategy I've ever worked on (far beyond anything on Kael'thas even) so will necessitate a long explanation. The tl;dr is that there is a chain of two-to-four bots that receive/pass the Tainted Core before using it on a Shield Generator, and if you are playing by yourself, you probably need to turn raid cheats on, in which case there will also be a bot that teleports to, kills, and loots the Tainted Elementals (i.e., the bots will then handle the entire sequence of shutting down Shield Generators). Phase 3: - The main tank will pick up Vashj immediately and try to keep her away from Enchanted Elementals. - DPS will burn down residual adds from Phase 2 in the order of (1) elementals, (2) strider for ranged only (if you have more than one up, you're dead), and (3) elites (hopefully you have only one up, but two with one almost dead is possible). - Hunters will kill Toxic Sporebats. This works quite well, but they (and anybody else if ordered to target Sporebats) have a tendency to levitate up into the pipes at the top of the room when killing the Sporebats. To counteract this, a method forcibly teleports bots to the ground if they get more than 2 yards above the ground. - The Phase 1 Cloak of Shadows/Hand of Freedom method is now expanded to include bots Entangled in the Sporebat poison pools (with Hand of Freedom usage prioritized on the main tank). - There is a specific method to avoid the Sporebat poison pools. The Vashj tank will move backwards when avoiding poison. --------- Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>	2026-02-08 12:31:23 +01:00
kadeshar	79fb3a5bbc	- Fixed Oculus drake mounting	2026-02-07 17:53:55 +01:00
kadeshar	6ed3f24ecb	Enforce test fix (#2122 ) CI/CD PR --------- Co-authored-by: Crow <pengchengw@me.com>	2026-02-07 07:34:15 -08:00
Alex Dcnh	76b6df9ea3	Extend SummonWhenGroup to auto-added bots (#2034 ) ### Summary Extend AiPlayerbot.SummonWhenGroup to apply when bots are auto-added to a group (e.g., addclass bots or raidus style auto invites). ### Motivation Bots added automatically to a group never accept a normal invite, so they do not trigger the summon-on-accept path. When SummonWhenGroup is enabled, these bots should also be teleported next to the master to match expected behavior. ### Implementation details Hook the summon behavior right after automatic group addition.	2026-02-06 14:20:31 -08:00
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 ---	2026-02-06 11:57:48 -08:00
Crow	b31bda85ee	Refactor raid strategy framework (#2069 ) # Pull Request The purposes of this PR are to (1) establish a general raid helper framework for the benefit of future raid strategies and (2) make some improvements to problematic areas of the raid strategy code. List of changes: 1. Added new RaidBossHelpers.cpp and RaidBossHelpers.h files in the Raid folder. 3. Moved reused helpers from Karazhan, Gruul, and Magtheridon strategies to the new helper files. 4. Modified the prior function that assigned a DPS bot to store and erase timers and trackers in associative containers--the function now includes parameters for mapId (so a bot that is not in the instance will not be assigned) and for the ability to exclude a bot (useful for excluding particular important roles, such as a Warlock tank, so they are not bogged down by these extra tasks at critical moments). I also renamed it from IsInstanceTimerManager to IsMechanicTrackerBot. 5. Moved all helper files in raid strategies to Util folders (was needed for ICC, MC, and Ulduar). 6. Renamed and reordered includes of Ulduar files in AiObjectContext.cpp to match other raid strategies. a. This initially caused compile errors which made me realize that the existing code had several problems with missing includes and was compiling only due to the prior ordering in AiObjectContext.cpp. Therefore, I added the missing includes to Molten Core, Ulduar, and Vault of Archavon strategies. b. Ulduar and Old Kingdom were also using the same constant name for a spell--the reordering caused a compile error here as well, which just highlighted an existing problem that was being hidden. I renamed the constant for Ulduar to fix this, but I think the better approach going forward would be to use a namespace or enum class. But that is for another time and probably another person. 7. Several changes with respect to Ulduar files: a. The position constants and enums for spells and NPCs and such were in the trigger header file. I did not think that made sense so moved them to existing helper files. b. Since the strategy does not use multipliers, I removed all files and references to multipliers in it. c. I removed some unneeded includes. I did not do a detailed review to determine what else could be removed--I just took some out that I could tell right away were not needed. d. I renamed the ingame strategy name from "uld" to "ulduar," which I think is clearer and is still plenty short. 8. Partial refactor of Gruul and Magtheridon strategies: a. I did not due a full refactoring but made some quick changes to things I did previously that were rather stupid like repeating calculations, having useless logic like pointless IsAlive() checks for creatures already on the hostile references list, and not using the existing Position class for coordinates. b. There were a few substantive changes, such as allowing players to pick Maulgar mage and moonkin tanks with the assistant flag, but a greater refactoring of the strategies themselves is beyond this PR. c. I was clearing some containers used for Gruul and Magtheridon strategies; the methods are now fixed to erase only the applicable keys so that in the unlikely event that one server has multiple groups running Gruul or Magtheridon at the same time, there won't be timer or position tracker conflicts. ## How to Test the Changes 1. Enter any raid instance that has any code impacted by this PR 2. Engage bosses and observe if any strategies are now broken I personally tested Maulgar, Gruul, and Magtheridon and confirmed that they still work as intended. ## Complexity & Impact I do not expect this PR to have any relevant changes to in-game performance, but I will defer to those more knowledgeable than I if there are concerns in this area. As I've mentioned before, you can consider me to be like a person who has taken half an intro C++ course at best. ## AI Assistance None beyond autocomplete of repetitive changes. --------- Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-02-06 11:55:43 -08:00
kadeshar	bebac60c51	test-staging alignment (#2121 ) # Pull Request Describe what this change does and why it is needed... --- ## 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? - - [ ] No - - [ ] Yes (explain below) Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - - [ ] No - - [ ] Yes (describe and justify impact) Could this logic scale poorly under load? - - [ ] No - - [ ] Yes (explain why) --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? - - [ ] 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? - - [ ] 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. --------- Co-authored-by: Crow <pengchengw@me.com>	2026-02-06 11:55:28 -08:00
Crow	52d4191b43	Correct Zone ID 10 in config (Deadwind Pass -> Duskwood) (#2109 ) Simple fix to config--zone ID 10 is Duskwood, not Deadwind Pass, as pointed out by @privatecore	2026-02-04 16:01:18 -08:00
kadeshar	254055ff32	Workaround for checkboxes without task (#2116 ) # Pull Request Describe what this change does and why it is needed... --- ## 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? ``` [ ] No [ ] Yes (explain below) ``` Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? ``` [ ] No [ ] Yes (describe and justify impact) ``` Could this logic scale poorly under load? ``` [ ] No [ ] Yes (explain why) ``` --- ## Defaults & Configuration Does this change modify default bot behavior? ``` [ ] 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? ``` [ ] 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.	2026-02-03 23:08:53 +01:00
bashermens	31765c77fa	Update PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md (#2114 )	2026-02-03 21:48:58 +01:00
Thomas Frey	c86032f43b	Convert PlayerBots tables to InnoDB (#2083 ) Convert PlayerBots tables to InnoDB (disable strict mode during conversion) # Pull Request ### This change converts the PlayerBots-related tables from MyISAM to InnoDB. Why this is beneficial (even without fixing a specific bug): - Crash safety & data integrity: InnoDB is transactional and uses redo logs; it provides automatic crash recovery, unlike MyISAM which can require manual repairs after unclean shutdowns. - Row-level locking: InnoDB reduces write contention and improves concurrency under bot-heavy workloads compared to MyISAM’s table-level locks. - Consistent reads: InnoDB supports MVCC, enabling stable reads while writes are happening—useful for mixed read/write access patterns. - Operational robustness: Better behavior under backup/restore and replication scenarios; fewer “table marked as crashed” style issues. Strict mode handling: The migration toggles innodb_strict_mode off only for the session to prevent the conversion from failing on edge-case legacy definitions, then re-enables it immediately after. --- ## How to Test the Changes - Step-by-step instructions to test the change Run the SQL script in the Playerbot database. - Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific configuration) No - Expected behavior and how to verify it All tables should now have been converted from InnoDB to MyISAM. This script should return nothing: ``` SELECT t.TABLE_SCHEMA AS db_name, t.TABLE_NAME AS table_name, t.ENGINE AS storage_engine FROM information_schema.TABLES t WHERE t.TABLE_SCHEMA = DATABASE() -- With phpMyAdmin, use the following and insert your database name, e.g., “acore_playerbots.” -- WHERE t.TABLE_SCHEMA = 'YOUR_PLAYERBOT_DB' AND t.TABLE_TYPE = 'BASE TABLE' AND t.ENGINE = 'MyISAM' ORDER BY t.TABLE_NAME; ``` ## 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 - [ ] Documentation updated if needed - [x] I tested this script on a server with 2000 bots for 6 days (running 24/h) and had no issues with it. --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging.	2026-02-02 22:42:02 +01:00

1 2 3 4 5 ...

2467 Commits