Test#58
Open
zhangbo8418 wants to merge 7 commits intoImprove-playerbot-text-localization-for-whispers-and-master-messagesfrom
Open
Test#58zhangbo8418 wants to merge 7 commits intoImprove-playerbot-text-localization-for-whispers-and-master-messagesfrom
zhangbo8418 wants to merge 7 commits intoImprove-playerbot-text-localization-for-whispers-and-master-messagesfrom
Conversation
…ns (mod-playerbots#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>
# 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.
…ots#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.
…-playerbots#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>
mod-playerbots#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>
Github action modification
Update master from Test staging and Core Update
![cursor[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1210556?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.
Bugbot Free Tier Details
You are on the Bugbot Free tier. On this plan, Bugbot will review limited PRs each billing cycle.
To receive Bugbot reviews on all of your PRs, visit the Cursor dashboard to activate Pro and start your 14-day free trial.
Bugbot Autofix prepared a fix for the issue found in the latest run.
- ✅ Fixed: GetDistance2d subtracts combat reach, changing safety distance calculations
- Replaced GetDistance2d with GetExactDist2d in all affected safety distance checks to preserve center-to-point distance semantics without subtracting combat reach.
Or push these changes by commenting:
@cursor push ed25955c70
Preview (ed25955c70)
diff --git a/src/Ai/Dungeon/PitOfSaron/Action/PitOfSaronActions.cpp b/src/Ai/Dungeon/PitOfSaron/Action/PitOfSaronActions.cpp
--- a/src/Ai/Dungeon/PitOfSaron/Action/PitOfSaronActions.cpp
+++ b/src/Ai/Dungeon/PitOfSaron/Action/PitOfSaronActions.cpp
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@
continue;
// Check if position is within maximum allowed distance from boss
- if (boss && boss->GetDistance2d(potentialPos.GetPositionX(), potentialPos.GetPositionY()) > MAX_BOSS_DISTANCE)
+ if (boss && boss->GetExactDist2d(potentialPos.GetPositionX(), potentialPos.GetPositionY()) > MAX_BOSS_DISTANCE)
continue;
// Score this position based on:
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@
float minOrbDist = std::numeric_limits<float>::max();
for (Unit* orb : orbs)
{
- float orbDist = orb->GetDistance2d(potentialPos.GetPositionX(), potentialPos.GetPositionY());
+ float orbDist = orb->GetExactDist2d(potentialPos.GetPositionX(), potentialPos.GetPositionY());
minOrbDist = std::min(minOrbDist, orbDist);
}
score += minOrbDist * 2.0f; // Weight orb distance more heavily
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@
// Factor in proximity to boss (closer is better, as long as we're safe from orbs)
if (boss)
{
- float bossDist = boss->GetDistance2d(potentialPos.GetPositionX(), potentialPos.GetPositionY());
+ float bossDist = boss->GetExactDist2d(potentialPos.GetPositionX(), potentialPos.GetPositionY());
// Add points for being closer to boss (inverse relationship)
// but only if we're safely away from orbs
if (minOrbDist > SAFE_DISTANCE)
diff --git a/src/Ai/Raid/Icecrown/Action/RaidIccActions.cpp b/src/Ai/Raid/Icecrown/Action/RaidIccActions.cpp
--- a/src/Ai/Raid/Icecrown/Action/RaidIccActions.cpp
+++ b/src/Ai/Raid/Icecrown/Action/RaidIccActions.cpp
@@ -4482,7 +4482,7 @@
// Maintain minimum distance from center position (if too close to center, move out)
float centerX = ICC_BQL_CENTER_POSITION.GetPositionX();
float centerY = ICC_BQL_CENTER_POSITION.GetPositionY();
- float centerDist = bot->GetDistance2d(centerX, centerY);
+ float centerDist = bot->GetExactDist2d(centerX, centerY);
if (centerDist < MIN_CENTER_DISTANCE && !((boss->GetPositionZ() - bot->GetPositionZ()) > 5.0f))
{
float dx = bot->GetPositionX() - centerX;
diff --git a/src/Ai/Raid/Magtheridon/Util/RaidMagtheridonHelpers.cpp b/src/Ai/Raid/Magtheridon/Util/RaidMagtheridonHelpers.cpp
--- a/src/Ai/Raid/Magtheridon/Util/RaidMagtheridonHelpers.cpp
+++ b/src/Ai/Raid/Magtheridon/Util/RaidMagtheridonHelpers.cpp
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@
}
for (Unit* hazard : debrisHazards)
{
- float dist = hazard->GetDistance2d(x, y);
+ float dist = hazard->GetExactDist2d(x, y);
if (dist < 9.0f)
return false;
}
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@
if (!go || go->GetEntry() != GO_BLAZE)
continue;
- float dist = go->GetDistance2d(x, y);
+ float dist = go->GetExactDist2d(x, y);
if (dist < 5.0f)
return false;
}| // Check if position is within maximum allowed distance from boss | ||
| if (boss && sqrt(pow(potentialPos.GetPositionX() - boss->GetPositionX(), 2) + | ||
| pow(potentialPos.GetPositionY() - boss->GetPositionY(), 2)) > MAX_BOSS_DISTANCE) | ||
| if (boss && boss->GetDistance2d(potentialPos.GetPositionX(), potentialPos.GetPositionY()) > MAX_BOSS_DISTANCE) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
GetDistance2d subtracts combat reach, changing safety distance calculations
Medium Severity
Throughout multiple raid/dungeon files, raw Euclidean distance calculations (sqrt(pow(x1-x2, 2) + pow(y1-y2, 2))) were replaced with GetDistance2d(x, y). Unlike GetExactDist2d, GetDistance2d subtracts the calling object's bounding radius (GetObjectSize()), producing a systematically shorter distance. This is especially problematic for > MAX_DISTANCE checks — e.g., boss->GetDistance2d(...) > MAX_BOSS_DISTANCE allows positions further from the boss than intended, since a boss with ~3–5 yard combat reach effectively raises the max range by that amount. GetExactDist2d preserves the original point-to-point semantics.
Additional Locations (2)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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:
How to Test the Changes
Complexity & Impact
Does this change add new decision branches?
Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
Could this logic scale poorly under load?
Defaults & Configuration
Does this change modify default bot behavior?
If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
AI Assistance
Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change?
If yes, please specify:
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
Notes for Reviewers
Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
Note
Medium Risk
Medium risk because it changes playerbot decision logic (new
aggressivestrategy/target selection) and refactors trainer learning/training gating, which can affect bot behavior and economy-related actions. Also updates timing/proc handling (StatsCollector->Milliseconds) and widespread distance math, which could introduce subtle gameplay/balance regressions if incorrect.Overview
Adds a new opt-in non-combat
aggressivestrategy that automatically picks anaggressive targetwhen the bot has no target, backed by a newAggressiveTargetValueselector andAggressiveTargetAction.Refactors trainer interactions: replaces
AiPlayerbot.AutoTrainSpellswithAiPlayerbot.AllowLearnTrainerSpells, rewritesTrainerActionto validate trainer targets, addisUseful/isPossible, and learn spells via casting/learning with cost checks;RpgTrainAction/RpgTrainTriggerare tightened to only run when in range, trainer is valid, and the bot can afford at least one spell (via newcan trainvalue).Moves attunement quest completion to configuration (
AiPlayerbot.AttunementQuests) and updatesPlayerbotFactory::InitAttunementQueststo use that list.Modernizes several systems: switches many manual 2D distance calculations to engine helpers (
GetDistance2d/GetExactDist*), updatesStatsCollectorto useMillisecondsand the newerSpellProcEntryAPI, and adjustsResetInstancesActionto useWorldPackets::Instance::ResetInstances. The C++ codestyle GitHub Action is also optimized to only run whensrc/**changes.Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit d8c668c. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.