is there an easy way to take the masters guild tag and slap it into the bots "last name"

because the "last name" currently is what it displays as the "guild tag" for the bot. with the default being "bot"

I couldn't find an easy way to do that.

That could make it easier... if the forum mods are reading this, could you add a new thread that could be updated with just the source locatios like he suggests?

I was thinking that I would start working on the BOT Spells again, but WHERE are they going to be designated in the DB? I thought it was agreed on that the 600's were ok but other spells are showing up there now. Going to have to remove all the FEAR LINE of spells now that the Fear Fix is in. It will be easy to change what I have already in the 601 to 6xx to another number using GeorgeS's tools, but it would be good to have a designated area, yes?

Maybe 1001 on up? that would leave lots of room for some expasion? Don't remove fear line... but add snare/root line ;)

That's a really good point. I was just doing it that way to reduce the amount of typing with raid commands, but it seems like that sort of stuff is going to get macroed by players anyway.
I agree that compatibility should definitely trump brevity. I quit EQ far before they put in the raid interface (about a year before PoP), so honestly I'd forgotten there was one. :oops:

Yeah, after switching to linked lists, I've had to catch and kill a lot of crash bugs - mostly related to me dealing with linked lists incorrectly, I believe. I need to build some test cases where I ensure the LinkedList and LinkedListIterator classes actually behave the way I think they do.

I've been doing a lot of what I see you've been doing (while comparing the older code with what you've been making) - adding checks to catch null pointers and finding the behavior that can result in creating them.

I'm still in awe of what Magoth78 put out - and how easy it is to follow the logic. Most of what I've done with the codebase to make it work the way I want is just simplifying commands and catching some stray crash bugs.

From a dev chat log about The Serpent's Spine, I guess we can fairly call the limit 72. Smaller limits seem to be for various raid Tasks, which aren't really implemented yet.

Has anyone else noticed an issue with the bots not being able to keep agro? I played my wizard lastnight and had 2 bots (a warrior and a cleric), I would do #bot group order attack and send the warrior to tank the mob. I can see the warrior saying "taunting", I am waiting until the mobs are at least 80% before I cast and as soon as I cast my first spell the mob immediately runs to me. The warrior bot will run over and continue to attack and taunt but the mob never leaves me.

I have tried with other characters as well, with my ranger I can send in the warrior and if I am even standing close by not attacking I still catch agro. I can stand still not attacking at all and the warrior bot can never taunt the mob away.

try a test... set your server rule and see if it helps:

Aggro:SmartAggroList = false

After adding the rule my bots can now hold aggro. Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks to those of you shepherding the bots code along. I've enjoyed using the bots quite a bit and, while not perfect, they are pretty darn good.

C++ isn't my best language either but if you need any help Congdar don't hesitate to throw me a PM.

Emu0.7.0-1118-Source With Bot Code
 

For anyone interested, I have merged all of the 1118 Changes in with the BOT Code and have successfully compiled it under Debian Linux and Windows C++ 2005 Express. Here is the link for the files... The Makefiles have been setup to include the bot code for Linux compiles.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yzgwlxkgdgz

On another Note, The implementation of fear has caused the Bot code to really spam the so and so is under attack when the mob gets feared away so much that it really lags out the zone bad.

Just an FYI.

Thanks, Aramid. I've been writing a script that does it for me but the results have been inconsistent enough for me to not submit it yet.

Thanks a lot Aramid, I'll give this a try later this week. I wonder whether simply commenting out the "... is under attack" notifications will help with the lag?