What was the worst construction set?

[MakutaOfWar]

Which is the only part that was customized on the "more complex" sets from the Inika area you mentioned. ;)

There's no winning with you, buddy. But I gave an example of what you could do with the shoulders due to pin holes. Every armor piece had pin holes, so just because TLG didn't implement too much creativity in it doesn't mean people can't, and truthfully some of the best MOCs ever, in my opinion, were made with the gen 1 system in a way CCBS as is can not. And that is very possibly due to the lack of technic pin holes in comparison.

Edited April 24, 2015 by MakutaOfWar

[DuckBricks]

There's no winning with you, buddy. But I gave an example of what you could do with the shoulders due to pin holes. Every armor piece had pin holes, so just because TLG didn't implement too much creativity in it doesn't mean people can't, and truthfully some of the best MOCs ever, in my opinion, were made with the gen 1 system in a way CCBS as is can not. And that is very possibly due to the lack of technic pin holes in comparison.

Personally, I think that CCBS is far greater than the Inika torso, but of course, isn't perfect as well. The CCBS torsos have both Technic pins AND balljoint connections, opening up WAY more possibilities than the Inika torsos. As for Technic pins on the armor shells, yes, I think having Technic pins on CCBS armor shells would be nice to see as well. But CCBS did away with two types of connections. You couldn't attach, say, an armor piece from Gen 1 to a balljoint as they used two different mini systems inside their own big system (Ball joints and Technic pins)

While there are several amazing MOCs using the old build, CCBS just opens up so many new possibilities. Wanted a snap a ball joint in the center of the torso? or between the leg area? Or even on the shoulders? With the Inika build, tails were quite hard to achieve without adding on a floppy Technic pin and an extra balljoint element, shoulder armor could only be shoulder armor, and not wings, back spikes, or extra arms, and you couldn't attach balljoints to the center of the torso (or anywhere else on the torso) without floppy blue pins and an extra balljoint element that were prone to falling off with too much weight. Now, with CCBS, we can even create non-humanoid characters based on that entire torso (Case in point, IfB Wave 2). Yes, this kind of thing was possible with Gen 1 parts, but CCBS makes it so much easier! CCBS has truly made Bionicle building a system, which is what LEGO is all about

(Anyway, this topic has degraded to CCBS vs Gen 1. I'm sorry for carrying it on.)

[dviddy]

There's no winning with you, buddy. But I gave an example of what you could do with the shoulders due to pin holes. Every armor piece had pin holes, so just because TLG didn't implement too much creativity in it doesn't mean people can't, and truthfully some of the best MOCs ever, in my opinion, were made with the gen 1 system in a way CCBS as is can not. And that is very possibly due to the lack of technic pin holes in comparison.

I am well aware of the constraction MOCing world and its reliance on cluttered and visually clashy G1-style technic heavy builds. You don't have to tell me about it again! I've been in it since the beginning. ;)

[MakutaOfWar]

^I've been here since the McToran, I've got all day. ._.

[Lord-Vorahk]

Honestly, I think that while the classic style is good for complexity, I think that far too many Gen1 Bonkle moccers value complexity, custom, and greebles over solid aesthetics. And that's a bit dumb, in my humble opinion. Sure, your MOC might be complicated and a very clever build... but it looks like a mismatched pile of crap. If I had the parts and the colours (Dark Blue!) I would convert most of my Gen 1 MOCs to CCBS in a heartbeat.

[Logan McOwen]

Yeah, a lot of the time, even in sets, you'd have so many different textures all over the place with G1 builds, whereas the CCBS has a much more unified look to it. "But details!" you cry, Tahu Mata clutched tightly to your nostalgic heart. Yes, detail is great - if done right. I don't mean to say that G1 MOCs or sets are intrinsically mish-mashed - as long as similar shapes and textures are used throughout the model, it's all good. But, for example, having the slick sloping of the Piraka leg pieces next to the blocky nature of things like the Vahki leg pieces, and then a hurricane of exposed Technic beams all over the shop, just looks naff. Sadly, this is all too common.

I think MOCists especially need to remember that the most complicated solution to a problem isn't always the best. Yes, engineering something really unique with much ingenuity is impressive, but does it look good? Yes, Lego is a practical medium, but it's also an aesthetic medium.

Edited April 24, 2015 by LewiMOC

[DraikNova]

While we're getting of topic completely, I'd like to point out just how easy CCBS makes complicated builds. To make complicated MOCs with the old system, you'd need to buy lots of technic sets. With CCBS, you can buy only the constraction sets and still make things that are incredibly complex and huge. I've been making constraction MOCs for years, and the CCBS system allows me to do something that I considered impossible with the old one: making MOCs that actually look menacing and scary. The old system only had as many part placement options as the amount of different technic beam angles. CCBS gives you (360°)² placement options.

[bidiminished]

You couldn't attach, say, an armor piece from Gen 1 to a balljoint as they used two different mini systems inside their own big system (Ball joints and Technic pins)

Except you wouldn't need to do that in G1 unless you were really trying for something outside of the box. G1 used ball/sockect joints to connect limbs, and technic pins/axles for armour. CCBS goes a step further by using 3 systems; Technic pins/axles, balljoints, and System bars. This means you'll get more cases of not being able to connect piece A to B because they have a different connection type, and like G1, workarounds can be quite messy.

With the Inika build, tails were quite hard to achieve without adding on a floppy Technic pin and an extra balljoint element

While I don't really get what you mean, I agree that the Inika build is poorly proportioned, with the legs/arms being way too long for the body.

shoulder armor could only be shoulder armor, and not wings, back spikes, or extra arms

While the Inika and Piraka thigh armour is slightly less versatile, the shoulder armour pieces were very versatile. I don't really get how a CCBS shell (or any shoulder armour piece) can be used as a wing, spike, or arm by itself either.

and you couldn't attach balljoints to the center of the torso (or anywhere else on the torso) without floppy blue pins and an extra balljoint element that were prone to falling off with too much weight.

Once again, G1 doesn't need balljoints to connect shells/armour like CCBS does. The problem that you're describing seems to affect CCBS as well; want to move a shell one module up? Use one of these, but the shell will be one module forwards as well.

The first CCBS set that I brought was Aquagon, so that didn't set a good impression. The Inika builds could be bland and unappealing with some sets (like Tarix), I but don't think they were ever used in a way that would make the set the "worst construction set" ever.

[Logan McOwen]

I think this particular discussion should go to a different thread.

[MakutaOfWar]

^I'm doing it.

[Lord-Vorahk]

CHanged my mind on the worst set: It's Morak.