Really, like @Darknova3529 noted, I think CCBS should expand more in that direction, with more customized bones and new shells and addons (and weapons!)
4 Likes
what system
there was no metru/hordika system
1 Like
I would even dare to say that the Mixels one is actually a part of System, as there are only 4 new joints (edit: there are actually five, I think) and the mini ball has been around since the '70s.
But otherwise I totally agree with you.
2 Likes
^
Lego has been denying a fair amount of new molds for CCBS in the last couple years (look at how many new armor piece were produced in G2) and some useful molds are being scraped when pieces like this still have potenial.
Hordika lasted for 1/2 year (I say half since no other set reused the build style) and the Metru build design was 2 year from Iruini & Norik.
Looking at this discussion, I hardly see anything new here-
The community is still relatively bias toward the Constraction line (by that, I mean they either avoided buying the produce or hate how it looks), CCBS is what keep the line drawed by passively fuse System/CCBS into sets, however Lego have giving less attention on Constraction to the theme slowly overtime during 2014.
CCBS (as a set) havenât dove to itâs fullest potential, some older sets and the pricier Star Wars sets is an exception shows the creativity of the building system can become. The building system still have room to grow, but the cost is getting much worst.
1 Like
Yâknow, I donât really know if I actually caught any of that. Sorry dude.
And yeah, the issues in classifying these guys are relatively apparent; thereâs a lot of overlap. That said, thereâs a system of connections that is unique to Mixels, as far as Iâm aware. Whatâs the deal around a '70âs era miniball?
The mixel sized ball joint has been around since the '70s, it was mainly used as a joint for vehicles.
Here are some examples that come to mind:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=462-1#T=I
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=6930-1#T=I
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=6901-1#T=I
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=200-1#T=I
If you take a look at the parts inventory, youâll see some pieces that use the same joints as the Mixels.
I donât think weâll ever get a new system
But we could get an expansion on ccbs but I think lego would need to make a new line and they probably wonât until 2020
The object that you built isnât really close to a CCBS skeleton; there arenât any connection points for technic, nor any mechanism for keeping the ball joints from sliding.
Completely wrong, the object I built is a ccbs skeleton. You can add connection points for technic with clips since technic pins are compatible with them and you forgot the technique of adding apollo studs to keep the outer balljoints on. There are also skinnier parts like bushings and cut ribbed hose that can reinforce the frame further if sturdiness is an issue but I wonât go into detail here.
Also, if it rustles your jimmies that the balljoints arenât secure enough, you donât need to use them. Use a bar to clip adapter instead. That wonât fall off. Heck, get creative, use any hinge thatâs bar compatible.
5 Likes
Well, they could replace the current CCBS System, as like you said, itâs all about clicking armour on.
LE|GOâs tried to save the current CCBS system by masking it with gears and new armour pieces, but letâs face it, the whole system needs an update. Perhaps we can get a slow transition.
I didnât âforgetâ about anything. I mean, itâs not a matter of opinion. The object that you built doesnât function as a CCBS skeleton. Itâs not the same thing, because it lacks certain advantages and replaces some functionality. Itâs still cool, and still useful in quite a few ways, but itâs just not the same. Thatâs it.
Do you see where Iâm going with this? Itâs also cheaper to include in large sets and, as noted, significantly more stable without the need to sacrifice anything else.
Dude, nice! Thanks for giving me the heads-up on that - somehow, Iâd never come across those.
-Azani
3 Likes
All great points @Azani. People like you make the boards better.
Nope. Iâm looking at mass/price. That ratio has gone up since the introduction of CCBS, and even in '08, constraction sets had a larger mass/price than system sets. (Comparing two sets priced equally). The greater the mass, the more material must be used to make it, and thus, costs Lego more to produce it. If you can sell that mass for more money, then you make a greater profit. Ideally this is how Lego should be priced, but enthusiasts like us measure a setâs worth in price/piece, complicating matters.
Intuitively, the introduction of CCBS driving up a setâs mass/price makes sense. Letâs examine a Piraka Leg piece and a CCBS bone piece of the same length. Because a Piraka Leg piece is hollow in the back, it weighs about as much as a bone piece. But while Vezon looks fine with just a Piraka Leg, the same cannot be said for any constraction figure Lego wants to sell using the bone piece. Armor must be added on, and that adds weight, without really contributing value to the figure. (This is true only for the bare minimum of armor necessary to sell the figure. Armor after that, like G2âs golden thingys, do add value)[quote=âPoharu, post:17, topic:40509â]
What sort of evidence do you have for this claim? Because without it this is not an argument.
[/quote]
As I noted above, I do have some anecdotal evidence that suggests the mass/price of constraction sets has increased since the introduction of CCBS. I have not done any statistical analysis with any data, although if someone asks me to, then I will.
Kind of off topic, but is Chewbacca really taller than Vader in SW canon?
A quick check on Wookieepedia states that Darth Vader is 2.03 meters high, while Chewbacca is 2.28 meters high.
4 Likes
Yâknow what, dude? I appreciate that a ton; thanks for being here and being down to discuss! 
Ah yeah, I can get that. Yeah, this is true. I canât find the source that Iâm looking for at the moment, but folks at TLG have pretty strongly that CCBS parts do unequivocally use more plastic relative to their retail price; by association, this implies that the company is actually losing money at the so-called âoverpricedâ (though I do agree, honestly) CCBS kit price points. Additionally, the inclusion of any kind of plastic into the packaging made these appreciably more expensive to produce - G1 could only pull it off because it was so wildly popular.
See, thatâs the thing; it was worse back in those days due to the packaging and the inclusion of less versatile parts. Also, almolst every year through 2009 saw some sort of part that wasnât just ABS plastic; it was made of a different material, or had electronics or springs or something that increased its value, and thus its price, dramatically. All of these were produced en masse, appearing in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of units. Some years, we saw two new parts produced with non-ABS. 
- 2001: The Manas (Electronic)
- 2002: The Krana
- 2003: The Kraata
- 2006: The Piraka Spines and The Light-Up Swords
- 2007: The Squid, Squid Launchers, Kalmahâs Tentacle, The Cordak Blasters, Kalmahâs Head⌠Kinda crazy, huh?
- 2008: The Midak Blasters, Shadow Leeches, and Nynrah Ghost Blasters
- 2009: The Thornax
Toward the end, they started to rely on dual-injected parts a ton, as well; you donât really see that in LEGO system. So, as a rule, G1 was insanely expensive to produce.
This isnât always true; as a rule, youâll see it in effect in small sets that include many new molds and/or recolors, or massive D2C sets that necessitate a ton of small parts. TLG has the capacity to easily pump out some sets that donât initially utilize a ton of new parts, such as large technic sets and those classic buckets that you see in yellow tubs, because said kits are essentially repackaging old, easily used parts. Once TLG has constructed a mold, theyâll typically use it for at least five years, so theyâd prefer to keep certain elements in use for significantly longer than G1 would typically have done.
The thing is (and Iâm simply speaking as an observer here) in an effort to move away from some of those sorts of design chain flaws, CCBS seems to be tilting just a little closer toward the versatility of LEGO system as each year comes and goes. If you look at the 2011 and 2012 Hero Factory sets, youâd be greeted by a system that looked a lot more like G1âs Technic sets from an aesthetic perspective; lots of large, jagged parts with small connection points and an enourmous number of faux connection points - anyone remember trying to attach minifig-scale clips to pistons on G1 parts? Back then, there werenât as many distinct colors or lengths fro either shells or bones, so TLG had to make do in the short term with less sustainable details. Sure, G2 represented a major break from that trend, but IMO weâve gone right back to it with Star Wars; we see new ort specialized add-ons very rarely because we have plenty of colors and lengths now.
And thaâs the issue; it only adds value to the figure if the apparent detail isnât present, or literally cannot be present, elsewhere. Yâknow, the word apparent here is super crucial, because folks have wildly different definitions of what looks âgreatâ on an action figure; some want Hot Toys, and some want Funko Pop. Right? If youâre okay with a very stylized Tahu, then sure, youâre right; however, if you want pistons or faux gears or faux tattoos or whatever the heck Master Tahu had on his chest, youâll need add-ons, or âarmorâ. Thereâs no way to add that without utilizing those types of pieces. CCBS, however, struggles to remain balanced on this front, because its a young system that has a tough time avoiding the re-use of certain add-ons to optimize cost. And, uh, if you donât believe me, just take a glance for yourself.
Not trying to be a nuisance over here, but a Piraka bone piece is shorter than the average bone length used in CCBS nowadays, since SWC is the order of the day. Just an important semantic distinction to make.
I donât know if this is true. Without any shred of doubt in my mind, I can say that TLG would agree with you. But I honestly think that Vezon looked pretty awful with a shin that was hollow in the back and had two exposed technic holes below the knee. Ostensibly, thatâs kind of a silly opinion, because TLG couldnât do much better for the budget that they had. That said, I can still hold it if I want to.
-Azani
2 Likes
Regarding a point Iâve seen in the topic, Iâm really not sure if the cost for the plastic used in a set is actually as big of a deal as some have suggested, honestly. Sure, the electronic parts are a lot more expensive (stuff like the EV3 programmable brick is like 180⏠alone if I recall correctly), but otherwise I think the net profit for a set is way higher than the cost of plastic. I dunno though.
I think it would be a good question to ask to a Lego designer.
He only has one, the head.
~W12~
1 Like
Hereâs why I think people will dislike your idea, itâs completely logical and I have to agree, although I would rather it wouldnât for compatibilityâs sake but a new system should have some method of this. Basically, from logic we realize that either CCBS parts should change, the manufacturing should change as to a cheaper method or the system should change. Iâm for the first two as Iâve already stated.
Mixels were technically constraction. They were cheap, but still looked really nice and played fairly well. Also, they arenât CCBS sets.
Yâknow, he includes the bandolier too. Iâm pretty sure that thatâs new as well. 
-Azani
First time weâve seen the piece in Dark brown, yes, but it isnât new. It came on Core Hunter and the Ultra Stealth raider. (unless you mean a different piece)
~W12~
2 Likes
Nope, you are absolutely correct. It wasnât listed as such on Brickset, so I assumed that it was new to the kit. My apologies; the initial post has been edited to reflect that.
-Azani