# 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.
# 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>
#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>
# 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>
