i personally really like ccbs, it is expensive, yes, but the peices are great
3 Likes
Okay Iāll go do the math. Be back in a couple of days.
EDIT:
Iāve done the math, and now Iāll go ahead and admit I was wrong. All 35 sets released in G2 had a grams/dollar ratio between 11-13, while the 35 randomly selected sets I picked from G1 could spike as high as 22. At least for Bionicle, CCBS actually used less plastic (or just as much) than G1. All weights were taken from Bricklink, and all prices came from Brickset. The 35 randomly selected sets were selected using a JAVA program.
1 Like
Itā¦ Functions exactly the same, has the same precise measurements into the spacing, itās only that you donāt like it. The pin holes were almost never used. The ball joints are all spaced exactly the same.
And I think youāre forgetting Likusā most valuable and valid point:[quote=āLikus, post:14, topic:40509ā]
Ccbs bones have technically lasted long before they were introduced, since all they really are are modified technic beams. The armor is the only thing in the system thatās actually new. IMO thatās the only thing that needs to be replaced.
[/quote]
This is just poorly done technic.[quote=āAzani, post:30, topic:40509ā]
Do you see where Iām going with this? Itās also cheaper to include in large sets and, as noted, significantly more stable without the need to sacrifice anything else.
[/quote]
That doesnāt disqualify the fact that he replicated the basic function of the ccbs torso - like it or not - with pieces he happened to have. Proving you can replicate a piece with other pieces and then claiming itās better just to make the standard piece disproves the point that nothing new has been added with this part. Itās either a clone of something else with some new tweaks or itās CCBS, and thatās just how it rolls.
You can nitpick the faults here, but itās a fact. He built it. And he could slip it into a set and youād never even notice.[quote=āDinosaursUnited, post:42, topic:40509ā]
All 35 sets released in G2 had a grams/dollar ratio between 11-13, while the 35 randomly selected sets I picked from G1 could spike as high as 22. At least for Bionicle, CCBS actually used less plastic (or just as much) than G1. All weights were taken from Bricklink, and all prices came from Brickset. The 35 randomly selected sets were selected using a JAVA program.
[/quote]
Thatās true. However, that doesnāt negate the fact that the CCBS system either needs to be heavily updated or scrapped. It has a lot of potential being absolutely trashed by the newer sets because they cling to the old format - CCBSās bone and armour system which, majority opinion stated, isnāt really good. LEGO forcing themselves to detract from it as much as possible has given us sets like Darth Vader and the 2016 Bionicle sets, which were also regarded as bad and incompatible with previous ideas and builds.
The inika system was far, far worse - but CCBS is still bad. No amount of pampering and jewelry can change the fact that CCBS is dead.
what if the new ccbs line has a bunch of heavily detailed ccbs add ons with ball socket attachments kind of like the ones the beast sets had
no no no no
Stop giving me nightmares.
No, it doesnāt. Iām totally blown away that you arenāt seeing this. It isnāt. How is this not getting across when you know what a CCBS torso looks like?
Again, there is value to prefab parts. Plenty of commonly used system parts remain so.
1 Like
why donāt you like the beast sets? storm beast is awesome, quake and lava beast are ok/meh
The technic leg construction is an eyesore, IMO. Even with UTD it looks awful.
1 Like
lava beastās legs look like a little kid made them
Totally agree with you here. The only reason I posted what I did was because I had repeatedly made the claim that CCBS was costing Lego more in materials than non CCBS figures; a claim which is not supported by evidence. I felt that I had a duty to share that, so that others would have the most accurate information possible for this debate.
Are Vader and 2016 Bionicle good or bad in your opinion here? I quite liked 2015 Vader, and some sets in 2016 Bionicle, though I concede neither is perfect. [quote=āGhidora131, post:43, topic:40509ā]
Darth Vader
[/quote]
Are you referring to the 2015 version, or his 2018 re-release? UGH. Lego, come on. The removable helmet isnāt going to be that cool, and the old one isnāt even off the shelves. [quote=āTealFire, post:44, topic:40509ā]
the new ccbs line
[/quote]
Is there a new CCBS line Iām unaware of?
ā¦The only difference is it doesnāt have the pin holes. Thatās it. Otherwise the ball joints line up exactly.[quote=āAzani, post:46, topic:40509ā]
Again, there is value to prefab parts. Plenty of commonly used system parts remain so.
[/quote]
Thereās also little value to useless ones. LEGO made the torso better by taking away the top ball connectors and adding axles at a shorter height. Thereās not much to save.
Vaderās fine, but I was specifically referring to the Bionicle 2015 sets. Over their previous wave they were much better builds but were aesthetically far worse, and the fans proclaimed it right to the cemetery.[quote=āDinosaursUnited, post:50, topic:40509ā]
Are you referring to the 2015 version, or his 2018 re-release?
[/quote]
Weāre not going to discuss leaks, potential leaks, or anything of the sort. Sorry, thatās against the rules.
1 Like
I remember when there was a whole topic devoted to just that. I feel so old. In any case, mea culpa. [quote=āGhidora131, post:51, topic:40509ā]
Bionicle 2015 sets
[/quote]
Ah. Yes. Them. I understand completely where youāre coming from with this, excellent point.
Although, I think that those sets do help explain why @Azani says that the bone torso is difficult to replace with a custom build like @Likus made. Thereās no way to attach the 2015 gearbox to the custom. You need the pinholes. However, I will grant you that for at least 90% of HF, @Likusās custom torso would have served just fine.
Can I ask how, as a Mod? And can I ask why, as a Mod, you are trying to moderate this conversation? I recommend taking a nice look over our site rules again, under āBehavioral Rulesā.
8 Likes
Itās not a matter whether or not I like it - itās a matter of how useful it is. I donāt really have any issues with whether you understand how CCBS works or not - that said, I do believe that the functionality is significantly altered when you remove six connection points and screw with the stability. Any jokes that you might make about it being a āuselessā part donāt chnage the fact that it objectively is useful as a pre-fab element. Itās cheaper to include in sets, more stable, and includes more connection points. Itās really as simple as that.
Except itās not useful, and you seem to like it. See where I stated that they improved it later.[quote=āGhidora131, post:51, topic:40509ā]
LEGO made the torso better by taking away the top ball connectors and adding axles at a shorter height.
[/quote]
To be honest, I donāt know what youāre trying to prove here.[quote=āAzani, post:54, topic:40509ā]
that said, I do believe that the functionality is significantly altered when you remove six connection points and screw with the stability.
[/quote]
Hmā¦ I think that, with a few more editing pieces, you could significantly increase the stability and use other pieces to make up for the lost connections. A little creativity goes a long way.[quote=āAzani, post:54, topic:40509ā]
Any jokes that you might make about it being a āuselessā part donāt change the fact that it objectively is useful as a pre-fab element.
[/quote]
Umā¦ Show me the pieceās existence on Darth Vader.
Not only can LEGO get away with not using it, but they can do it easily, and make more money by charging for more parts. Currently theyāre increasing the number of pieces they can shove into a standard inika build CCBS character by throwing unnecessary pins and little bits that add virtually nothing to the model and often confuse the builder as to why theyāre even there. With a newly redesigned torso construction using more than one piece to make the skeleton, youāve increased the part count and made the set a bit more worth it to buy.[quote=āAzani, post:54, topic:40509ā]
Itās really as simple as that.
[/quote]
I think youāre thinking Iām trying to prove LEGO should sell Likusā model of the standard frame. Iām not. I want them to make a new frame.[quote=āDinosaursUnited, post:52, topic:40509ā]
Although, I think that those sets do help explain why @Azani says that the bone torso is difficult to replace with a custom build like @Likus made. Thereās no way to attach the 2015 gearbox to the custom. You need the pinholes. However, I will grant you that for at least 90% of HF, @Likusās custom torso would have served just fine.
[/quote]
The pinholes do prove problematic, but aside from one of the holes (which goes right through a ball in the waist) they can all be worked around depending on the type of connection required. I imagine most of the 2015/16 sets would unfortunately be incompatible without some heavy redesigns - as if they didnāt need them anyway.[quote=āChronicler, post:53, topic:40509ā]
And can I ask why, as a Mod, you are trying to moderate this conversation?
[/quote]
Iām sorry, I wasnāt trying to moderate. I apologize to you and to @Azani. Iāve removed the offense from my post.
LEGO would never sell my frame. It wouldnāt pass sturdiness tests and parts cutting isnāt allowed for regular kidsā set because scissors are sharp.
3 Likes
No, I fundamentally believe that it is useful, and that said fact is pretty self-evident. I donāt think that that implicitly deems the alternatives āuselessā, and I think that itās fine to like all of them for their respective benefits, in conjunction with their drawbacks.
You know, youāre right - I shouldnāt have said that. Not trying to sound like a jerk.
Thatās not what Iām arguing, man. Iām a MOCist as well, and I understand how to work with and manipulate the system. Said fact does not eliminate the benefit of certain prefab parts, because som of those parts retain benefits that exceed those of the sum components.
Iām going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt here with this one.
I think that you understand that this isnāt how you go about proving something one way or the other.
Iāve been arguing this since the start of day one. At the end of the day, TLG is going to lean in the direction of bringing in more profit. Sure, that might not guide everything that they do, but theyāll see if they can work it in.
If they can suceed at both providing opportunities for creativity and innovation while saving money by avoiding the creation of new molds, than theyāll do it. That torso piece that you seem to dislike so much is pretty obviously versatile in a million idfferent ways - it was used in Savage Planet for beasts, in HF for XL figures, in Chima for figures with tails and long necks, for the 2015 Masters, and for most standard humanoid builds. Thatās what TLG wants, and I frankly donāt have an issue with that if they continue to switch it up with two or three figures each year, as they always continue to do.
Even though you might not see it this way, thatās a totally subjective āissueā that really depends upon what you personally like and desire for parts.
Nope.
Iād like that too, yeah.
I guess that itās unfortunate that you disliked the Masters so much. Tough luck sometimes; I sure as heck donāt like everything that TLG does either. That said, itās not so clear-cut.
But I thought Bunkle was fer xperiensed buldurs :c[quote=āAzani, post:57, topic:40509ā]
No, I fundamentally believe that it is useful, and that said fact is pretty self-evident.
[/quote]
Merriam-Webster:
Definition of useful
1 :capable of being put to use; especially: serviceable for an end or purpose | useful tools
2 :of a valuable or productive kind | do something useful with your life
So youāre right, it is useful - technically, so is Galidor, so thereās that.[quote=āAzani, post:57, topic:40509ā]
Said fact does not eliminate the benefit of certain prefab parts, because some of those parts retain benefits that exceed those of the sum components.
[/quote]
Yes, but could they use other pieces? I remember many of my friends overjoyed with the ugly butt-gears introduced in Bionicle 2016, solely for the fact that they now had waist articulation. It couldnāt be that hard.[quote=āAzani, post:57, topic:40509ā]
Iām going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt here with this one.
[/quote]
Umā¦[quote=āAzani, post:57, topic:40509ā]
I think that you understand that this isnāt how you go about proving something one way or the other.
[/quote]
Itās a good example of a good set that does away with the piece, makes up for it in every way, still uses the CCBS armour plating, and still makes monies. And, out of the SW Buildable Figures, I think itās received the least negative reaction.[quote=āAzani, post:57, topic:40509ā]
That torso piece that you seem to dislike so much is pretty obviously versatile in a million idfferent ways - it was used in Savage Planet for beasts, in HF for XL figures, in Chima for figures with tails and long necks, for the 2015 Masters, and for most standard humanoid builds.
[/quote]
You mean, they found a zillion ways to do it, despite most of the models being pretty ugly in conclusion. Thatās kind of the have-to when youāre LEGO. You make a part, you find ways to continue to use it or itās gone, yāknow?
(Although to be fair LEGO has dropped a significant number of perfectly fine pieces for little reason at all.)[quote=āAzani, post:57, topic:40509ā]
Even though you might not see it this way, thatās a totally subjective āissueā that really depends upon what you personally like and desire for parts.
[/quote]
How exactly?
I just got the Death Trooper, and the instant I had him together I regretted making his legs. The new hip armour makes them look so deathfully out-of-proportion that I instantly scrapped him for parts.
This isnāt something new. Weāve gotten tons of horrifying builds thanks to this standardized system, like Fire Lord, Onya Master of Onions, Rocka XL, most every set from Brain attackā¦ The system leaves an incredible lot to be desired. And the main offender to this is the torso. When LEGO disregards the rules of its piece or the piece entirely, the sets donāt end up that bad.[quote=āAzani, post:57, topic:40509ā]
I guess that itās unfortunate that you disliked the Masters so much. Tough luck sometimes; I sure as heck donāt like everything that TLG does either. That said, itās not so clear-cut.
[/quote]
I mostly dislike the Uniters, for doing the job right and yet still failing at it. The only Master I donāt like at all is Onya.
Iām not going to keep debating this. Everything that Iāve said on this subject is very straightforward and frankly shouldnāt come across as controversial - it doesnāt even oppose your desire to see a new frame. Nothing is wrong with that.
Youāre welcome.
did this topic turn into which is better left or right?
which can simply be awsered with the question if I chuck both at a wall which one stays together
6 Likes