#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>
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>
### 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.
# 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
---
# 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>
# 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>
# 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.
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.
# Pull Request
This PR adds a new whisper command "pvp stats" that allows players to
ask a bot to report its current Arena Points, Honor Points, and Arena
Teams (name and team rating).
Reason:
Due to a client limitation in WoW 3.3.5a, the inspection window does not
display another player's Arena or Honor points , only team data.
This command provides an easy in-game way to check a bot’s PvP
currencies without modifying the client or core packets.
---
## Design Philosophy
Uses existing core getters (GetArenaPoints, GetHonorPoints,
GetArenaTeamId, etc.).
Fully integrated into the chat command system (ChatTriggerContext,
ChatActionContext).
Safe, no gameplay changes, purely informational.
No harcoded texts, use database local instead
---
## How to Test the Changes
/w BotName pvp stats
Bot reply:
[PVP] Arena Points: 302 | Honor Points: 11855
[PVP] 2v2: <The Fighters> (rating 2000)
[PVP] 3v3: <The Trio> (rating 573)
## 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
- [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
---
Multibot already ready
Here is a sample of multibot when merged:
<img width="706" height="737" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5bcdd9f8-e2fc-4c29-a497-9fffba5dfd4e"
/>
---
## 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>
# Pull Request
Some logic was changed but differs from the original code, certain edge
cases so not result in same behavior. This returns the original code
with only the singleton chances.
@Wishmaster117 Reviewed the hotfix and noticed the different code paths.
ps: reverted an removed placeholder since its ongoing issue/research.
Quick fix for a very annoying error identified by SmashingQuasar. In
WSG, bots will camp the opposing graveyard if up 2-0. This is supposed
to exclude the flag carrier, but a logical error has resulted in the
flag carrier being excluded for Alliance camping only, meaning the Horde
flag carrier will camp the GY with the rest of the team if up 2-0 and
thus refuse to end the game.
Hotfix for an issue arising from
https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/pull/2082
OnBotLoginOperation() is calling OnBotLogin() twice for altbots. I don't
know the full implication, but RandomPlayerbotMgr::OnBotLoginInternal()
is being called on altbots, and the server will crash if you attempt to
then log out the altbot.
This fix works for me right now. Discussed with @Celandriel , going to
push this hotfix for now until the rest of the maintainers can take a
look.
Updates are only to the config. This PR should be simple. Tl;dr is
destro pve spec is using the wrong glyphs.
Longer explanation--right now, PreMadeSpecGlyph in the config provides
for destro pve spec to use the following Major Glyphs at levels 15, 30,
and 80, respectively: Life Tap, Quick Decay, Conflagrate. Quick Decay is
useless for destro because destro does not cast Corruption except as a
filler instant cast when on the move. Meanwhile, the spec is almost
unplayable without Glyph of Conflagrate, so that should not be withheld
until level 80. After Conflagrate, there are several viable glyphs,
including Life Tap, Incinerate, Immolate, and Imp. I understand Glyph of
Life Tap gets worse over time to the point that you don't want to use
that glyph in ICC, but that's quite late, and it is useful for the vast
majority of the game as a glyph that would actually be available at
level 15. I also understand that Glyph of Immolate does not excel until
high gear levels. Therefore, I decided to use Incinerate as the default
level 80 glyph.
The new order for default glyphs for destro pve for levels 15, 30, and
80 is Life Tap, Conflagrate, and Incinerate, respectively. I also made a
couple of other very minor fixes in the config. No impact on performance
or AI, obviously.
Sidenote: Glyph of Conflagrate is not available at level 30--it requires
level 40, so from 30 to 40, InitGlyphs() will plug in a random glyph for
the second Major slot. This issue applies to many specs, and it's not
avoidable unless InitGlyphs() is broken up into level brackets, which I
think is not worthwhile. I think the better approach for glyphs is to
ensure the right ones are applied at high levels, but with an attempt to
make them usable at lower levels too where possible.
# Pull Request
Incorrect comparison fix.
---
## How to Test the Changes
- Alliance Bots should now be able to find the correct flightmaster and
use 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**)
---
## 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
# Pull Request
- Applies the clean and corrected singletons, Meyer pattern. (cherry
picked from @SmashingQuasar )
Testing by just playing the game in various ways. Been tested by myself
@Celandriel and @SmashingQuasar
---
## Complexity & Impact
- Does this change add new decision branches?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
- Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)
- Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## Defaults & Configuration
- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---
## AI Assistance
- Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working
on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
---
## Final Checklist
- [x] Stability is not compromised
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- [x] Documentation updated if needed
---
## Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
---------
Co-authored-by: Nicolas Lebacq <nicolas.cordier@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Issues:
- When you have selfbot enabled and use summon command, you will summon
yourself. This causes odd movement if you summon while moving, and can
sometimes lead to falling through the floor.
- When using the summon command on bots with pets/guardians from a
medium distance (like jumping down a ledge then commanding summon), the
pets will pathfind run to catch up. This causes them to aggro everything
on the way.
Solution:
Fix summon logic to prevent selfbot summon and ensure pets are
teleported with bots.
---------
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
Solve these two problems #2043#1981
@Regrad is the main contributor of the code, while I was just helping to
submit the pull request. Express my gratitude to him.
After testing, the code is proven to be effective.
IsHealAssistantOfIndex() and IsRangedDpsAssistantOfIndex() are supposed
to iterate through the group and first return members with the
applicable role that have the assistant flag, and then iterate through
non-assistants only if there are not enough assistants for the
designated index. They are not written properly and actually completely
ignore the assistant flag.
I rely on these functions for significant roles in SSC and TK (which I
have decided I'll PR in the same way as SSC, as a long-term draft). I
have them fixed on my own fork, but it is problematic for testers if
these functions do not work.
So I've done three things here:
1. Fixed the functions to prefer members with the assistant flag.
2. Added a third parameter for ignoreDeadPlayers, like
IsAssistTankOfIndex() has. Note that the parameter is by default false
for IsAssistTankOfIndex(), meaning dead players are _not_ ignored. This
is not my preferred design choice--I think the default should be to
ignore dead players, but I have not changed the default and have made
the default the same for IsAssistHealOfIndex() and
IsAssistRangedDpsOfIndex(), since I don't know the intent of the
pre-existing boss strats that use the functions.
3. Changed the names to IsAssistHealOfIndex() and
IsAssistRangedDpsOfIndex() so they parallel IsAssistTankOfIndex(), and
made corresponding changes in the few boss strats that use the
functions.
Also, note that the functions _do _not_ exclude real players. I think
there are arguments for and against excluding real players. A fourth
parameter for this could be useful, but I've not made any change in that
regard.
Needs second pair of eyes, they appear in crash logs here and there. Its
merely a patch on a open wound.
----
As in aslong there multithreads in mapupdate, which we need for decent
performance and core calls are not done correctly due various reasons.
These type of issues remain.
Although i am planning to experiment a little with threadsafe execution
of our strategies vs performance.
The most effective thing we could do is check every single action and
check its stateless and where it does effect the state or read the state
of a core object its done in the safest way. flags, worldthread where
possible and/ot simply taking into account the state might be invalid.
Refactor the flightmastercache the bots use for finding the nearest
available flight master.
I made a small change to how the original function worked by storing the
database position for the flightmaster in the cache itself. This allows
us to calculate the distance from bot before accessing the creature
object, should be faster overall.
This adds the bear form as an alternative form for druids with the cat
strategies. This applies to low level (<20) druids that have the cat
strategy applied. Reset botAI would not normally give them the strat,
because they dont have cat form, but if set, this allows more dps.
- Did some basic formatting
- Some generated docs
- Cleaned header/impl Helper.css
- Moved PerfMonitor from util to bot/handler/command
Still a freaking mess though, but its a start i guess. Cant ask ppl to
add more or make use of those when its so messy.
Adding a guard against bots that may be registered in `playerBots`
variable as selfbot have appeared to crash here.
Edit: The exact circumstances that caused the incorrect registration are
under investigation as it seems to be 'atypical' behavior.
**Original issue:**
Bots/Characters received duplicate spells during randomization process.
**Root cause:**
When `PlayerbotFactory::Randomize` is processed, `InitSkills` is called
AFTER `InitAvailableSpells`, which causes the duplicate spells issue
because the skillline ability spell is already learned when processing
spells from trainers (`InitAvailableSpells`).
We simply need to change the order of the randomization process: skills
should be handled first, then spells. An alternative approach would be
to adjust the skillline abilities and check each spell for every skill,
but that seems redundant since we already have checks for the trainer's
spells.
`InitSkills` -> `SetRandomSkill` -> `SetSkill` ->
`learnSkillRewardedSpells` -> `learnSpell` -> duplicate error...
**Steps to reproduce:**
1. create common character and login with it
2. set level for this character eq. 80 (`.set level 79`)
3. create and run macro:
```
/g .playerbots bot initself
/g .saveall
```
4. logout -> login and run macro again
**Note:**
Also added checks for the trainer's spells since `GetSpell` can return
nullptr. Updated `LearnQuestSpells` after recent changes and used the
same logic and implementation from `Player::learnQuestRewardedSpells`.
Yes, we need to cast spells, or we should handle all spell effects that
quests/trainers have (for ex.: `SPELL_EFFECT_SKILL_STEP`,
`SPELL_EFFECT_UNLEARN_SPECIALIZATION`, `SPELL_EFFECT_BIND`).
Replace deprecated vsprintf with vsnprintf to eliminate compiler warning
and prevent potential buffer overflow. Updated to latest commit.
Tested in game and it seemed to log actions just fine. I just basically
added a buffer size by using the current vsnprintf lib instead.
**Problem**: FishingAction::isUseful() used strict `pos ==
bot->GetPosition()` comparison causing "Rog A:go fishing - USELESS" when
bot was within 0.5-1m of fishing spot (normal positioning tolerance).
**Solution**: Replace exact coordinate match with 1.5m tolerance using
`fabs(posX - botX) < 1.5f` for all axes. Added `#include "Config.h"` for
AI_VALUE stability.
**Result**: Master fishing now reliably triggers and completes cycle:
- move near water → go fishing → use bobber ✓
Closes #fishing-useless-bug
---------
Co-authored-by: Кунгуров Олег <okungurov@rapidsoft.ru>
