only issue I see in the "trailer" is that the character creation seems to only have two very stereotypical body shapes - bulky male and slender female.
@SPArcheon one thing to keep in mind that as a D&D game, permadeath does make sense in BG3, because in the original P&P game dying meant rolling a new character usually
@SPArcheon No, but tabletop games can have things like the GM making rulings that are inconsistent with the rules of the game, which can be considered bugs
@Nzall if you get so far to fight over the rules (which exist only to give a basic framework for fun IMHO) then you are playing with the wrong persons.
In which case permadeath is the smallest of your problems.
Also, again, don't focus on just BG3, this is valid for any permadeath mode (note: exceptions made for very specific games like some rougelikes where the concept is tied to the game core gimmik, and even then you usually keep some sort of progression - we no longer live in the nethack age )
Also, if one really likes masochistic behaviors in games... there is still the option to Seek Out Mr Eaten Name...
BTW, I won't go in much detail to not annoy others but I would point out that "replayability" is different from "continue playability"
there are games that you can continue to play forever but that you don't want to START AGAIN.
No Man Sky - simple example.
You can play as long as you want, but WHY you think most players HATE expeditions?
Because they force you to start a different save and do the same things again every time.
Repair your ship. Build a base you will never use because as soon as you are done with the expedition you will return to your main save. Gather resources and unlock the same hyperdrive engines again. All for 10 minute worth of time gated content at the end of the expedition.
Reminds me of Fire Emblem Warriors. Which had (optional) units permadeath. In a MUSOU game. For your AI CONTROLLED COMPANIONS TOO
(and people still playing it to show how "Macho" they where, only to reset the game during a mission if someone died)
Well, in that case, suggestion for how you could improve your solution. Instead of running the "Replace" on the same string over and over. Just create multiple instances of the string, one for each replacement.
You don't need to worry about the o1ne stuff in that case.
Just need to remember which of your strings had the earliest occurrence of the string number, then search that string for what's the first instance of a number.
@SaintWacko No. You just need to know which string had the earliest (And latest) replacement happen, then search that string for an actual numeric digit, to see if it happens before.
For find the last instance, did anyone reverse the string and then just do a "findFirst()" with backwards strings? aka one == eno, two == owt, et cetera.
Especially from C macros like min and max. If you have using std but don't #define NOMINMAX then you're going to use the C macros instead of getting the desired compiler error.
Speaking of which, I should probably add that to my CMakeLists.txt
Nah that (?= is something about lookahead, which, something something allows overlaps?
But also doesn't capture a match which is why it allows overlaps
But yeah it matches nothing (matches.values has a bunch of empty strings) but it captures groups like normal
Normalish anyway
The worst part is our python friends apparently have some shit like Overlaps=true if I recall the first SO answer I found on the topic of regex overlaps
@Unionhawk I might try this tonight (or later this afternoon). Already gave it a shot, but I think I need to use regex_iterator instead of regex_token_iterator.
Updated my part 2 solution based on @Unionhawk's regex. Should probably std::transform the regex iter into a vector of strings (would make what's happening in the lookup clearer), but whatever.
