Skip to content

20260502#9

Merged
Badgermilk0 merged 11 commits into
Badgermilk0:AutoGearLimitByCharacterItemLevelfrom
mod-playerbots:master
May 2, 2026
Merged

20260502#9
Badgermilk0 merged 11 commits into
Badgermilk0:AutoGearLimitByCharacterItemLevelfrom
mod-playerbots:master

Conversation

@Badgermilk0
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

20260502

Celandriel and others added 11 commits April 24, 2026 23:03
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Clean up a bunch of additional unused variable warnings. 


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Claude reviewed the warnings log from a build and suggested a series of
changes. I focused just on these warnings for now. Every line was
reviewed. Some sections need to be reviewed by author for intent.



## 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 (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

Added support for Warlock stat weights when he dont have Fel Armor.
Fixed Mage weights when he dont have Molten Armor

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

1. Invite mage which dont have Molten Armor (level < 62) or warlock
which dont have Fel Armor (level < 62)
2. Give him 2 items for same slot one with spirit one with intellect and
unequip item on this slot and destroy
3. Bot should equip this with intellect (if other stats are same)

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

Mage and Warlock before getting Molten Armor/Fel Armor dont prioritize
Spirit before Intellect

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
I forgot to include some clean-ups relating to the recent commit to
refactor Shaman weapon enchants. This is just deleting some now unneeded
code and cleaning up a bit of other code.


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
While testing vehicle combat in Wintergrasp, I was near two opposing
vehicles. They were right on top of each other, and I was hearing the
sounds of infantry melee attack. It looks like their auto-attack was on.

I had thought the check in
[GenericActions](https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/blob/0c205b8cef5a541cabe080aaf9653adb25695c40/src/Ai/Base/Actions/GenericActions.cpp#L46)
would prevent that, but I guess we need the extra defence.

Note that IsInVehicle first three parameters are
canControl/canCast/canAttack


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
There isn't vehicle combat scenarios (particularly vehicle on vehicle)
in Playerbots right now that allow for obvious testing. I only learned
about this through testing my unpublished Wintergrasp implementation.
Regardless, the change is simple and the effect on code should be clear.


## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)
No more infantry combat of any kind for drivers.


- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

Added missing races in GetGrave method
Related with: #2220 

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

1. Group with bot in starting zone for dranei or blood elf
2. Kill bot.
3. Use command `release` and `revive`
4. Watch which graveyard will be used

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

Stability test:
<img width="1014" height="191" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/036a836f-c611-4cc3-832f-7813b91754e8"
/>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Guild solution to #2148


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [ ] No, not at all
    - - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)

Minimal cost on bot login. 

- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
I was getting annoyed by the constant "No event owner detected" message
after I enabled bot debugging messaging.
And then I figured that there is no reason that maintenance should
trigger this action every 5 seconds. So I swapped it to seldom, so it
runs every 5 mins. More Performance!


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

Hello playerbots community! I have been working diligently whilst on
vacation to help get pvp gear up and running for pvp specs. Throughout
this process, I have looked at our current autogear system, tested it
through and through, and made some changes to make gearing more
appropriate per spec. _I am going to have my description of the changes
in italics_, **and the AI description overview will be bolded.** Let's
begin!

**This PR makes some improvements to the bot autogear system across item
scoring, spec tracking(pvp specs and gear), and stat weights. Changes
are split between those that are always active and those controlled by
new config options.**

**Mandatory Changes:**

**PvP Spec Detection (IsSpecPvp)
A new method RandomPlayerbotMgr::IsSpecPvp(botGuid, cls) checks the
bot's stored specNo against the spec name string defined in config. If
the name contains "pvp", the bot is treated as a PvP spec throughout the
entire gear pipeline. This is the single source of truth used by both
InitEquipment() and ItemUsageValue. In the future this detection can be
expanded to drive bot behavior decisions — such as prioritizing dueling
players in the world, joining Wintergrasp, or preferring BG and Arena
queues over PvE content.**

_This is scalable, so if someone were to create their own pvp spec in
the config, it would still be tracked if the name contains "pvp". I like
the idea of pvp specced random bots having an identifier for pvp
events._

**PvP Weights Applied During Loot Evaluation
ItemUsageValue::QueryItemUsageForEquip() now calls IsSpecPvp() before
scoring a looted item. If the bot is on a PvP spec, it passes
SetPvpSpec(true) to the StatsWeightCalculator, ensuring looted items are
evaluated with PvP stat priorities (including resilience weighting)
rather than PvE weights. Previously, a PvP-specced bot would score loot
identically to a PvE bot.**

_So, during autogear and upgrade equips, pvp specced bots will now
heavily prioritize resilience. On the flip side, pve bots really don't
want resilience gear, so a negative weight modifier (penalty for
resilience items) has been applied to pve autogearing and upgrade
equips. This is important, because you can switch a bot from a pve spec
to a pvp spec, and it will automatically consider resilience items in
it's inventory as upgrades, and equip them. Same for when you switch a
bot from a pvp spec back to a pve spec - the resilience penalty will
encourage the bot to switch back to the best available pve gear._

**Resilience Weighting
After all per-spec weights are generated in GenerateBasicWeights(), a
global resilience modifier is applied unconditionally:**

**PvP specs: +7.0 resilience weight — strongly prioritizes resilience
gear
Non-PvP specs: −3.0 resilience weight — actively discourages resilience
gear
Resilience is additionally excluded entirely from trinket slot scoring
via SetExcludeResilience(true), preventing the PvP resilience bonus from
inflating the scores of non-CC trinkets.**

_I tried several different numbers here - as high as 10 and as low as 3
for resilience. I ended up with 7 so nearly all specs will slot
resilience in every slot EXCEPT for trinkets. I stopped weighing
resilience on trinkets because they ended up being garbage trinkets for
the most part - other endgame pve trinkets were way more impactful. In
my testing, the only class/specs that wont use 100% resilience gears are
the tanks, since defense rating/parry/block/dodge weights are so high._

**CC-Break Trinket Cache
At server startup, PlayerbotFactory::BuildCcBreakTrinketCache() queries
the world database for all trinkets (InventoryType=12, Quality≥2) whose
spell IDs include spell 42292 — the CC-break / PvP trinket effect shared
by items like Medallion of the Alliance/Horde. Results are sorted by
item level descending and cached in a static vector, ready for fast
lookup during gearing.**

_This creates a cache of cc trinkets on startup, for this:_

**CC-Break Trinket Force-Equip
During InitEquipment(), PvP-specced bots at level 50 or higher (level
minimum for autogear to apply trinkets) run a pre-selection pass over
ccBreakTrinketCache to find the best CC-break trinket they meet the
level requirement and quality limit for. Human and Undead bots are
excluded from this — they have racial abilities (Every Man for Himself,
Will of the Forsaken) that share the PvP trinket cooldown, making a
dedicated trinket redundant.**

**If a suitable trinket is found, it is stored as pvpTrinket1 and
force-equipped into TRINKET1 before the main gear loop runs. If an item
already occupies the slot, it is moved to bags first. The second-chance
pass also skips TRINKET1 when pvpTrinket1 is set, so the CC trinket is
never overwritten.**

_This is the catch-all forced pvp trinket for trinket slot 1. In my
testing, I really found out how few cc trinkets there are - most of them
are epic, and blue ones start showing up super late in the game. An
heirloom patch would really help the lower levels, being able to equip a
pvp trinket at level 10 or something. Keep in mind, that if your bot
isn't getting a pvp trinket with autogear, make sure they aren't human
or undead, and check your config for what quality items are allowed with
autogear. NOTE - PVP TRINKET STRATEGIES ARE NOT CURRENTLY CODED, SAME
WITH CC RACIALS. They will not break out of stun/cc currently. This is
for future updates if/when I make a trinketstrategy._

**Enhancement Shaman Dual Wield Fix
Classes like Rogues, Frost DKs, and Fury Warriors have their dual wield
capability established through class initialization code in the core.
Enhancement Shamans acquire Dual Wield only through a specific talent
(spell 30798, learned around level 40), and the bot factory had no code
to detect and apply this. The result was that Enhancement Shaman bots
would sometimes have their offhand weapon unequipped — despite having
the talent. After talents are applied in both InitTalentsTree() and
InitTalentsBySpecNo(), the code now checks for spell 30798 and
explicitly grants SKILL_DUAL_WIELD and SetCanDualWield(true) when
present.**

_When testing the weapon speed preferences, I noticed that randombot
enhancement shamans were unequipping their offhand randomly. They would
just walk around with a single 1-hand weapon. This is because they were
not considered in the system as dual wielding, so when initequipment or
autoequipupgrades was ran, it would unequip the offhand through a
function, despite having the dual wield talent. Looking at the code, the
other classes already have this flag (warriors, rogues, dks, hunters)
because they didn't acquire it through talents._

**CalculateItem() Slot Awareness
StatsWeightCalculator::CalculateItem() now accepts an optional slot
parameter (default -1). When provided and the item is a weapon,
ApplyWeaponSpeedGovernance() can be called. Both item scoring calls
inside InitEquipment() — the candidate scoring loop and the incremental
old-item comparison — now pass the current equipment slot.**

_This change allows the calculate item function to know what slot it's
working with, and that's how it modifies it's decision making for some
of the optional features below._

**Holy Paladin Weapon Scoring Fix
Prior to this change, Holy Paladin could end up equipping 2H weapons
because haste and crit sticks (2H weapons) were outscoring appropriate
1H caster weapons — the item type penalty was not catching them
correctly. Holy Paladin is now explicitly added to the dual-wield
penalty group (preventing 2H weapons from being viable), excluded from
the generic caster 1H penalty (since they use 1H + shield rather than a
staff), and given a 0.8x soft preference for 1H weapons.**

_In autogear testing, sometimes 2h weps with high crit/haste would win
over caster gear - this is especially noticeable at lower levels, with
shallower item pools (greens only). You'd hit autogear and the holy
paladin would equip a 2h axe with crit :( So this makes it so holy
paladins only use 1h weapons. They can use either a shield or an
offhand, depending on stat weights._

**PvP Spec Slots Added for All Classes
The existing RandomClassSpecProb / RandomClassSpecIndex config entries
control what percentage of random bots in the world are assigned each
spec. Previously only PvE specs (indices 0–2, or 0–3 for Druids) were
defined, giving server operators no way to introduce PvP-specced random
bots into the world population. This PR adds PvP spec slots for every
class (indices 3–6 depending on class), all defaulting to 0 probability.
Server operators can raise these values to spawn PvP-specced random bots
— e.g., setting RandomClassSpecProb.1.3 = 20 would make 20% of Warrior
bots run Arms PvP.
Two additional PvE specs have also been added:
Death Knight index 3: Double-aura Blood (a hybrid Blood/Frost PvE tank
variant)
Mage index 3: Frostfire (a PvE hybrid spec)
All existing spec entries have been annotated with comments identifying
each one (e.g., # arms pve, # holy pve) for readability.**

_This change was actually added at the start - I realized that there was
no way for pvp-specced randombots to spawn naturally, so I added
optional probabilities to the config. They are currently set at 0% by
default, but giving the user the option I feel is necessary. Also, it
would have been impossible for me to test the init on randombots with
pvp gear otherwise. Also, I noticed that the frostfire mage and the
dual-aura dk didn't have an option, so I added them in as well, as well
as names above each option for quality of life._

**Stat Weight Corrections
The following per-spec stat weights were adjusted to better reflect
actual WotLK priorities. Entries marked NEW did not previously exist;
unmarked rows show old → new values.**

<img width="795" height="268" alt="arms warrior"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/cb0deb00-a985-432d-81a1-133fc953088b"
/>

_Arms warriors would prefer leather/ap gear about half of the time - the
combined weights of both would often beat strength gear, especially at
lower levels, or where the item pool was shallow. Also, they continued
to spawn with spell power gear and defense gear occasionally, especially
on gear with resilience (resilience, spell power, crit, haste, stam
items)._

<img width="796" height="301" alt="fury warrior"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/715ff3a3-3d20-4e0e-a953-7ed6fd9386db"
/>

_Fury warriors had the same issues as arms warrior, but really can't
afford to lose a strength item - beserker stance increases strength by
20%. Also had to reduce haste here because haste really isn't nearly as
important as strength, crit, arp. Haste items would win often over
strength/crit/arp gear._

<img width="796" height="300" alt="prot tanks"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/624de09a-2506-4aee-95aa-c49cbc5b85d3"
/>

_So, prot paladins and prot warriors currently are weighed identically
fyi. Look at that whopping 2.0 agility - twice as important as strength?
I noticed that my prot paladins/warriors were equipping
agility/haste/crit items instead of defense gear on their neck, rings,
trinkets, and back. This adjustment pretty much ensures that defense
gear takes those slots if it's available. Removed the crit/haste
weightings, because realistically if a tank wants more damage, it will
just get strength. Lastly added the spell power penalty because prot
paladins would spawn in fully holy gear if they were pvp specced
(resilience is weighted so high, resilience/spellpower/stam/haste gear
would often win). This aims to prevent that._

<img width="802" height="421" alt="dps dks"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/371d1344-2382-4460-b3a7-f38b33025b73"
/>

_Same issue with plate dps as the warriors had. Spell power gear would
occasionally spawn on crit/hit items in pve, and a ton of spell power
resilience gear would spawn. There is no scenario where a DK wants spell
power, this isn't patch 3.0.1..._

<img width="796" height="447" alt="blood dk"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c84a2bbf-7daa-4805-acf3-cd3bf815eda4"
/>

_Similar issues to prot paladin/warrior. I was really tired of seeing
block rating/value gear as a result of getting gear with defense/stam.
This results in a lot more defense rating/expertise/hit/dodge/parry
gear, and basically makes shield stats nearly non-existent (unless the
upgrade is good enough, it could still win)_

<img width="794" height="226" alt="ret paladin"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b09f40ed-b25f-4945-940c-2ce92f81c7c4"
/>

_Prior to this PR, the positive spellpower and int weights were enough
for ret paladins to spawn with spellpower/int/haste/crit gear. This is
unlikely now. And agility/ap was reduced to favor more strength gear._

<img width="795" height="306" alt="Enhancement Shaman"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1e5231fd-36ea-4b7e-a546-cf0075d17bd4"
/>

_While spell power is a decent stat on enhancment shamans, it was
appearing on too much gear, especially on items that were
haste/crit/spell power. And for elemental shamans, they were getting
agi/haste/crit gear, so this aims to get rid of those items entirely
without reducing haste/crit._

<img width="800" height="119" alt="shaman pally"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6ea3300a-effd-4a03-8f6f-4ae13c5383a5"
/>

_Holy paladins and resto shamans are scored the same, but this prevents
attack power/haste/crit gear, since haste and crit are weighted high._

<img width="1025" height="385" alt="mage"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/03191dfd-dc09-477d-8424-8fd56f3e0d71"
/>

_Prevents mages from equipping/autogearing items with attack power, some
attack power/crit/haste/hit items were winning with shallow item pools._

<img width="1022" height="502" alt="hunter rogue"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/06fa67c9-7709-4ee8-a0e2-34de18594018"
/>

_Prevents hunters and rogues from getting spell power leather gear with
hit/crit. Crit is very heavy for hunters so this was decently common._

**Optional Changes (Config-Controlled)**

**AiPlayerbot.PreferClassArmorType (default: 0)
Applies a 3x score multiplier to armor matching the bot's
class-appropriate type (plate/mail/leather/cloth). A significantly
better off-type item can still win — this is a soft preference, not a
hard filter.**

_Are you tired of your fury warrior being a leather daddy? Are you tired
of your holy paladin running around in cloth lingerie? This will fix
that. For mail classes (hunters/shamans) and plate classes, this only
kicks in after level 40. But it really helps adhere to the highest armor
class available. This would be the perfect solution to the quarterly
question "Why is my paladin wearing leather?". This definitely should
remain optional, as quite a few BIS lists would disagree with it.
Leather at certain stages is great for hunters/shamans/warriors/dks._

**AiPlayerbot.AutogearAllowsQuestRewards (default: 0)
Builds a cache of equippable armor and weapon quest rewards at startup.
Bots can then equip these items during autogear, using the quest's
minimum level as the effective required level gate.**

_So, I noticed that autogear didn't allow items without a level
requirement (quest rewards), because it didn't know how to handle that
when giving out gear. It would previously just flat out reject all quest
rewards, as they wouldn't be a part of the item pool. This option
enables quest rewards to be considered in the item pool, and the level
correlates to the lowest level you could get the quest. I have tested
this for about 3 hours across all specs and using blue/green gear, it
seems like a really nice bonus. Keep in mind that I do 0 quests on my
way to 80, so players like me could still benefit from those items. I
think this should remain optional._

**AiPlayerbot.EquipAllSlotsAtAnyLevel (default: 0)
Bypasses the low-level slot restrictions in InitEquipment():
Trinkets normally locked until level 50
Head/Neck until level 30
Rings until level 20
All other non-weapon slots until level 5**

_Autogear currently has level floors for slots - they will not ever give
items below the above thresholds. This config option bypasses that. I
have not tested this as much as I should have, so as people test this,
they could let us know of items that should be blacklisted._

**AiPlayerbot.WeaponSpeedGovernance (default: 0)
When enabled, ApplyWeaponSpeedGovernance() applies a 3x score multiplier
to weapons matching the spec's ideal attack speed profile. Applies to
mainhand, offhand, and ranged slots only. Per-spec preferences:
Arms Warrior: Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand; poleaxes and axes
preferred (Axe Specialization)
Ret Paladin / Blood & Unholy DK:  Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand
Prot Warrior & Paladin: Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in mainhand
Fury Warrior dual wield:  Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands
Fury Warrior titan's grip: Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in both hands
Frost DK: Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands; 2H excluded
Enhancement Shaman (dual wield): Slow 1H (>=2600ms) in both hands;
synchronized MH/OH speeds for flurry procs
Enhancement Shaman (pre-dual wield): Slow 2H (>=3400ms) in mainhand
Combat Rogue: Slow MH (>=2600ms) + Fast OH (<=1500ms)
Assassination / Subtlety Rogue: Slow dagger MH (>=1700ms) + Fast dagger
OH (<=1500ms)
Hunter: Slow ranged (>=2600ms); melee is a stat stick, speed ignored
Feral Druid: No preference (forms normalize attack speed)**

_Besides pvp gearing for pvp specs, I feel like this is one of the
nicest additions. It was really frustrating to see an enhancement shaman
put windfury on a 1.5 dagger. Without this, weights for melee dps are
calculated on dps alone, not weapon speed. You'll see 2h specs use fast
2h weapons (3.0), rogues use 2 fast weapons or slow weapons, frost dks
occasionally using 2h weapons while having dual wield talents. I tested
this for about 6 hours across all mentioned specs at levels 20, 30, 40,
50, 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80, with 3 quality types (greens, blues,
purples). I would actually consider making this mandatory, simply
because of the impact I saw in the dps charts. Super happy and proud of
this._

<img width="1021" height="470" alt="files changes"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f55d955c-8760-4adf-b4d9-84797da2dc65"
/>


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.

_Two caches are built upon startup - the pvp trinket cache and the quest
reward cache. From there, this directly modifies the stat weight
calculations involving initequipement (autogear) and autoequipupgrades,
as both go off of stat weight calculations. I tried to implement these
changes with as little custom functions and coding as possible, and
relied as much as I could on the pre-existing framework._

- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.

_Fortunately most of the gates are boolean so it shouldn't impact
performance much at all. I ran these changes on my local server with
stock 500 bots, noticed no pmon difference from the main branch. Did a
24h stress test on my server yesterday, stats looked consistent with the
stress test I did prior to making any changes on 3-31-26._

_It helps that it uses pre-existing functions such as initequipment and
autoequipupgrades, and it really just modifies them with slightly more
logic. That being said, autogear didn't lag my server at all, nor did
the bots equipping upgrades._

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

_So, with the basic stock playerbots config (do not forget to copy the
new config!), the only thing that should change is the pvp gear
appearing on pvp specs, and the classes preferring more appropriate
stats across the board. You can load into the game, level a bot to 20,
autogear, and notice the difference. Same at level 40, 60, 75, or
whatever. You could add in the optional config settings to further
streamline the gear you want. I currently run with all 4 enabled, 2 of
which increase the item pool, and 2 of which help guide them to more
appropriate gear (armor/weps)._

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)

_The code is only used on startup (cache generation) and when
autogear/autoequipupgrades is called. Not all the time, and not per
tick. I noticed no performance impact after these changes._

- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

_It modifies the decision making as far as equipment goes, but as far as
priority/strategies, this does not affect that._

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

_Not to my knowledge, but I'll rely on testers and the community to let
me know if it does._

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

_AI was used in the research of the initequipment system, stat weights,
and cache building. As far as generating the code, using AI was 2 steps
forward, 1 step back. I used Claude Code with Sonnet 4.6 (high) and had
gemini/copilot review the work. **AI did generate a large portion of the
code being used.** I have personally reviewed every line, and a lot was
removed out of being obsolete/new system that copied an old one/too many
comments. I don't think anything else can be trimmed, though. I also
used AI in the PR description, and made my own comments in italics below
each entry. I hate explaining/writing._

<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

_I would like atleast 5-10 people to review this over the next 1-6
months. The big problem I used to have with my PRs was I was acting like
they were a sprint, when it's really a marathon - good changes take
time, and I was too quick to bust out new content. The old PRs I made
introduced just as many new bugs as they did features. I learned my
lesson, and have tested this extensively (code was pretty much complete
on 4-10-26, been testing alone for the last 11 days) and it's ready for
the test realm for others to try out. I think it's going to be a good
step forward when it comes to gear decision making for bots as a whole.
PvPers have come and gone too much from this project due to the lack of
options, and this helps captivate that audience. Please reach out to me
on discord at Zhur#4391, I am happy to hear results/suggestions there as
well as here._

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

Fixed "pull target" value which was overlap with new pull strategy.
Related with #2334 

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

1. Invite tank bot to party
2. Use `nc +debug`
3. Use command `do attack my target`
4. In debug shouldnt be `reach pull` or similar

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

To analyze problem with value

<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Have arenas follow the same path as battlegrounds when queueing .
Intended to to resolve discord user crash. 


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



<!--
TRANSLATIONS:
Anything new that the bots say in chat must be in a translatable format.
This is done using GetBotTextOrDefault,
which you can search for in the codebase to find examples. Your code
needs to have English as the default fallback,
while the full translations need to be in an SQL update file. The
languages in the file are the nine language
options supported by AzerothCore: English, Korean, French, German,
Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Spanish Mexico, and
Russian. See
data/sql/playerbots/updates/2025_12_27_ai_playerbot_fishing_text.sql as
an example of a translation SQL
update, whose content are called within the codebase at
src/strategy/actions/FishingAction.cpp
-->

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Any new bot dialogue lines are translated.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
@Badgermilk0 Badgermilk0 merged commit 82f521e into Badgermilk0:AutoGearLimitByCharacterItemLevel May 2, 2026
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants