I remember on the old site we had a discussion on how to set up lives in the new game and that discussion came to a standstill, as we decided that we would test the ideas. But I'm reintroducing the discussion since many ideas have shifted since then and to see what newer members have to say

basically one idea is to have infinite lives (or more precisely, no life-count at all), so you just keep playing until you beat the level. but the problem is that many people want to see a high score system in Aeon where we can compete for points mastery, so we suggested that you get about 110% of the points you gained in that level removed from your total points if you die.

the other option would be to keep it all like how HATPC has it, so that the highscore thing would work.

now discuss...

I think we should have both

Have both infinite life mode, and highscore mode.

Possibly you must beat the game in infinity mode before getting to do highscore mode.

No score in infinite life mode

I think you should be able to do both no matter what

I support Quirvy's idea. It sounds pretty legit.

The infinity lives reminds me of Knytt Stories.

I'm going with, the lives system, but, when you run out of lives, all that happens if that your scores reset; other than that, there's no penalty. That's essentially how HATPC works, except you won't have to click back into the level, since the game over screen will include a "continue" button). And now that I've said there's no penalty, I'd like there to be one penalty, and it's that you won't continue from any checkpoints that you may have reached, but instead from the beginning of the level. If you want to make a really hard level, then just put a bunch of lives everywhere? Well, I guess user-levels could be handled differently (like, set the number of lives you start with to infinite?), but for the main game, this is how I'd like to see it.

Another idea for high-scores is to have levels include time limits, and then there's a score bonus if you finish before it runs out. Deaths don't reset the time, so if you die, you'll be a lot less likely to get a bonus (of course, a game over would reset the clock). I'm just throwing that out there; I'm not 100% for or against the idea. It could make getting high-scores more complex, though, because now you have to balance getting score within the level against the time bonus at the end, but it could also make getting the max-points nearly impossible (which isn't necessarily a minus -- level high-scores could remain competitive for longer).

Or, of course, we could have two different types of high scores: points, and time.

Time of course, wouldn't carry over between deaths; it's just overall how fast you can beat a level(without the failed attempts)

But I don't like the idea of having time affect your score if we go with points alone. I dunno, I've just never been into that stuff.

If time were a separate thing (and it could still be, even with the time scoring bonus), it'd be in a separate "Time Trial" mode? You'd have to unlock the time-trail version of the level after completing it, or something. In this idea, of course the time would reset if you die, but checkpoints wouldn't function.

And to clarify, the time bonus idea could work either with or without the lives system (go "with"!), so whether or not we include a time bonus doesn't really depend on lives. If we include a time bonus and go without lives, the time would probably need to not reset if you die, but even with lives, having the time not reset still works for me.

I think it could work. I don't really care all that much, but it'd definitely make getting a high-score on, say, tutorial 1, a little more interesting, and it'd make stuff like level 19 completely crazy, but then again, it could make some levels, like level 8, a little easier, if getting all those extra points isn't worth it because of how long it takes. It'd just be... an extra wrench thrown in, to make things a little more interesting... I'm -edit: not- saying we should include it, but I think you just brushed it off without really considering what the differences would be.

No, it records both the time and the score at the same time. Or if we choose to go with both infinity and score mode, it could be the scoring system in infinity mode.

I guess we could do it. But I'd like it if time and points reset after each death.

But before we make anything final, I think we should hear what catta has to say about all of this.

"No, it records both the time and the score at the same time. Or if we choose to go with both infinity and score mode, it could be the scoring system in infinity mode."
Lol, wut? Whatever it you just said was too complicated to be anything close to intuitive.

I'm not against the in-level points resetting when you die (but you keep the points amassed so far, and what's currently in-level points in HATPC would be totaled up and the end of the level instead), since replaying a level over and over again to build up a score is annoying. The problem though, is that if you die, there should be a score penalty as well (like, if you mess up on getting the gem, you shouldn't be able to die just this once to get a second try at it without some sort of penalty), so that means, at least, no time reset.

I guess I'm against the time reset even if the points don't reset though. That'd be part of the penalty for dying. Well, a better way to put it would be, that'd part of the reward for not dying.

I'm opposed to lives and on the fence about scores.
I feel that to include scores, we're going to have to do a whole lot more unnecessary stuff, like giving a point value to each object and designing each level in such a way that you can get a whole bunch of points by going off-route. And if we also save the high scores for individual levels, people will probably reach the max score too fast.
Lives generally take away the fluidness of a game. I doubt I would enjoy the user levels as much if every four times I die I get asked if I want to continue. Especially with checkpoints, I don't like the idea of lives. You need to be able to explore an unknown level without any penalties.
About timing levels, I am neutral towards that. I wouldn't really care either way.

"I doubt I would enjoy the user levels as much if every four times I die I get asked if I want to continue."
I said previously, that I guess user levels would be handled differently. Basically, I subtly suggested that creators could elect to set an amount of lives with which to start players. That is, if you're evil, give them one life; if your level is average difficulty, give them 3-5; if your level is hard give them 20; or if you'd rather not deal with this whole mess, set it to 0 for infinite. Secondly, you would get asked to continue (almost) every life anyway, if you passed a checkpoint, since there needs to be some way of starting over if you think you've messed up. Well, not to continue, per se, I guess, but to continue from the checkpoint.

"giving a point value to each object"
Including that feature? Let's just say it's the opposite of hard to do. What's that, points = 10? When when it breaks, score += points? Done and done. And have we even confirmed that, if we do have points, the broken objects would be the ones to dole them out?

"designing each level in such a way that you can get a whole bunch of points by going off-route"
HATPC has gems, already. Honestly, that's a plus in my book. Added reply-value for the completists.

"And if we also save the high scores for individual levels, people will probably reach the max score too fast."
Tell that to HATPC, which still has a level's max-points outstanding, as well as one other where we don't have the maximum points, almost for sure, except we have no idea where they're going to come from yet. And don't forget all the points we don't know we haven't found. It's taken years, and nobody's max-pointed HATPC yet, is my point, and it only has 26 levels. Aside from that, if there's time-limit bonus points, getting the max-points could be almost impossible, and even if a lot of people do get the max-scores, I'm not really sure what the problem is with that. Surely there won't be too many people who'll get the max-scores on them ALL...

"Especially with checkpoints, I don't like the idea of lives. You need to be able to explore an unknown level without any penalties."
So the only penalty for getting a game over is that you have to start the level over from the beginning? That doesn't sound too awful bad, in the context of what shouldn't be overly-difficult main levels. Even then, it's not necessary that we make the checkpoints reset when you get game over, but it'd help make game-overs less pointless for those who don't care about score. But if you want to explore a level, there could easily be a free-play mode, or something, where you just run around in any level that you have access to (I'd rather you complete the level in order to get this type of thing, but I'm hoping to appease you, in case that's not good enough), not caring about score, checkpoints, default characters, or even whether or not that arrow should have just killed you. Maybe, like, a practice or debug mode.

if we have no life, would we have no life crates? cuz that would mean that the concept of NWUE2 won't be useable, and the contrary too(aka, avoiding those crates).

i don't think we need points; but we do need lives. for our main levels if there are any, lives are needed. for player levels, i'm neutral.

Clear, a comma would have been more appropriate.

"i don't think we need points; but we do need lives."
So exactly what is the point of lives without having a score? And the concept of NWUE2 is, IMO, abuse of the game's physics, so whether or not that's possible has little bearing in my mind about this issue.

"for player levels, i'm neutral."
Lives for player levels? Well... If you're just making a single level, then it doesn't really need lives. It depends on if people are going to be able to make a large project consisting of a whole games worth of levels or not. If we do (and I think we should), and the main game has lives, then the player-levels should have lives too. That's why I've been saying to have the initial amount of lives be customizable. It'd allow for single-levels to go on for as long as it takes, but also, you could adjust it for full-games, based on the overall difficulty of you game.

I skimmed over most of these posts since I wasn't too interested in it, but......

maybe you guys are caring too much about scores. I don't think it would be such a popular feature of the game. The score system merely has to work and be fair; it doesn't have to be so in-depth.

I still think there should be a high-score mode and infinite lives/no score mode.

Or of course, we could make your score the time it takes for you to beat a level.