Restore naxx strategies rebased#85
Merged
kadeshar merged 47 commits intokadeshar:naxxramas-test-2from Feb 5, 2026
Merged
Conversation
…mod-playerbots#2056) 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.
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.
Solve these two problems mod-playerbots#2043 mod-playerbots#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.
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>
…k) (mod-playerbots#2082) # Pull Request - Applies the clean and corrected singletons, Meyer pattern. (cherry picked from @SmashingQuasar ) Testing by just playing the game in various ways. Been tested by myself @Celandriel and @SmashingQuasar --- ## Complexity & Impact - Does this change add new decision branches? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) - Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**) - Could this logic scale poorly under load? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## Defaults & Configuration - Does this change modify default bot behavior? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain why**) --- ## AI Assistance - Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on this change? - [x] No - [ ] Yes (**explain below**) --- ## Final Checklist - [x] Stability is not compromised - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained - [x] Documentation updated if needed --- ## Notes for Reviewers Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or performance should be carefully discussed before merging. --------- Co-authored-by: Nicolas Lebacq <nicolas.cordier@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
# 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
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.
Hotfix for an issue arising from mod-playerbots#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.
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.
# 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.
…eport its current Arena Points, Honor Points, and Arena Teams (mod-playerbots#2071) # 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>
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.
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
8 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.