[CONTEST] Who would join a GBC contest?

[pinwheel]

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

As for the GBC standard, these modules aren't going to be connected to a single large loop so there's no need to comply with the standard. If someone wants to have their module presented in an event, surely they can be modified to comply with the standard, I see this contest more as a proving ground for new kinds of machines instead of an exhibit of finalized versions.

All the GBC contests I’ve seen in the past have introduced new kinds of mechanisms while still being fully compliant.

[1980SomethingSpaceGuy]

Yep, totally agree with @howitzeron this. 

[msk6003]

16 hours ago, howitzer said:

Or, just state the GBC standard in the rules and and be done with it.

Perfect

[doug72]

Every other previous TC contest has had a set of criteria to abide by in order to enter the contest, so why should a GBC contest be different !
As GBC follows certain guide lines that should be sufficient.

 

Beware GBC is adictive.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Doug72

[Jim]

On 3/1/2021 at 3:25 PM, Lasse D said:

As a GBC builder I surprisingly voted "no". This is due to my experience with GBC contests in the past, and the way that I see the comments are heading in this thread.

GBC contests often favour nice "gadgets" over more technically impressive modules due to the audience (and for contests the audience also becomes the judges). I have blatantly exploited this, and with great success, whenever I have brought new GBC modules to events where there have been competitions involving GBC. But honestly this is not fair: GBC should encourage new and inspiring ways of moving balls... and this is also why you see Akiyuki being so popular - he is really inventive! But would a module by him win against a huge "rainbow" module where the lifting mechanism is a simple stepper, while the rest of the module is huge, impressive, vote harvesting, and ultimately not-ball-lifting MOC?

Another problem I see already with this competition is that you are talking about deviating from the GBC standard (such as different types of balls being used). Deviating from the GBC standard makes modules less likely to be used in events. We already have issues with existing modules that are not able to accept badges, or do not deliver 1 ball per minute (thus slowing the whole circuit), and it would be a shame to see so much effort into designing new modules be wasted since the modules cannot be used in circuits. Designing a module to use Bionicle balls, for instance, would not work with normal GBC since the 14mm standard balls go through a 2 stud wide gap, while the Bionicle balls do not.

While your objections and issues are very valid, I do tend to agree with @howitzer. For this contest, there's no real need to have the modules connected and be 100% compliant. It's about having some fun times with GBC's and maybe pull a couple of members out of their comfort zone.

[Berthil]

31 participants so far in the poll, enough for any contest right? :)
Already started to prototype some ideas :) 

[howitzer]

I also have an idea, but that requires parts I don't have and I'm not going to start buying until the contest is actually announced, so I hope I'll get a bit of heads-up to get the orders in place in time...

[dr_spock]

I would wait for the official contest rules first. 

 

[Jim]

We will surely go forward with the contest. Not entirely sure about the rules, since I have little knowledge of GBC. But I will check my PM’s because we were already planning something a while ago.

[Seasider]

The more I think about this I may actually try the challenge. Depends on if i can come up with something ingesting to build from the rules. 

[pinwheel]

5 hours ago, Jim said:

there's no real need to ... be 100% compliant.

Technic Forum Ball Contraption? 

[Bublehead]

While GBC does showcase the intricacies and complexity of Technic, the real world application of this is limited to, well, moving balls around.  Now I am not sure about others, but the need to move balls around is something of a non-realistic task to ask a person to engineer if you are trying to inject some STEM learning into the mix.  Granted, it is limited in scope, does not have a lot of "rules" per se, just those that let the devices coexist in the same GBC world and interface between each module with the least amount of hassles. I mean this could just as well be a "mousetrap" competition to build the most elaborate method of catching a mouse, but I don't find that as challenging as making a real world machine that actually performs a task.  Now in the realm of Technic, we have not seen many TLG designed machines that actually perform a real world task other than lifting, dumping, sorting, moving, or loading, along with mimicking functionality of other complex vehicles.  Not too many Technic models actually float, fly, or do any actual real world work (cement mixer doesn't mix real cement, bucket wheel loader doesn't actually excavate, nor does the Liebherr.  They can move around bricks that simulate these tasks)

So the short answer here is, nope, not interested in a GBC competition because it will undoubtedly be another "who owns the most Technic Lego" competition combined with an "over the top" display of gee-wizardry meant to do nothing but garner votes out of shear brute force of a high part count.  If I was looking to hold a GBC competition, the rules would be very simple... "with the least amount of parts possible, create a mechanism that when ganged together could move a GBC ball from point A to point B,  without dropping the ball at a rate of 1 ball per second average, giving the hight of point A is X and the height of point B is Y, and the distance between A and B is Z.  The model should not include any driving mechanics, a completed module, or any added parts not required to actually move the ball.  This way we should only see novel ways to move a GBC ball and should not see any additional "bling" added on to help harvest votes.

But that would be a very boring competition to judge and would not be entered by anyone... so the current idea will probably go forward, but since my collection of Technic Lego is not as infinite as some, the actual probability of me winning is low, so my interest is naturally as low as well.

[Sgtmcnugget]

1 hour ago, Bublehead said:

It will undoubtedly be another "who owns the most Technic Lego" competition combined with an "over the top" display of gee-wizardry meant to do nothing but garner votes out of shear brute force of a high part count. 

Yeah, except that doesn't hold true for almost any GBC contest I've seen before. Both of these https://www.greatballpit.com/2018/12/2018-great-ball-pit-challenge-winners.html https://www.greatballpit.com/2019/11/challenge-2019-winners.html had totally reasonably-sized winners, even though there were plenty of bigger and flashier entries. 

Also yes, the contest you described does sound pretty boring. Might as well specify that all of the parts used must be Dark Bluish Gray. GBC needs a bit of creativity, it's not just engineered skeletons

 

 

Kinda wonder how this would be a GBC contest if we wouldn't be using the GBC standard. If it's just experimenting with moving balls of any size, then go for that, but calling it GBC when it isn't GBC just.....doesn't make a ton of sense

Edited March 3, 2021 by Sgtmcnugget

[msk6003]

2 hours ago, Bublehead said:

it will undoubtedly be another "who owns the most Technic Lego" competition

The same sentence can be applied to the pneumatic contest.(TC 10) Not just who has more technical parts, but who has more pneumatic parts. And as we all know, except for some small entries, the rest of the entries used a considerable amount of pneumatic components, and the contest ended successfully without any trouble if I remember correctly. There's no reason why we can't apply this to the GBC contest anymore.

Of course, I know that there are very few GBC users, but considering the number of members of the GBC discode and the amount of activities of the GBC topics here, I don't think the number of entries will be so smal.

@JimI have one question. One of my module idea is fully working module and perfect accept GBC standard. But 99.99% of module is system brick except just one 2L axle for motor driving. And if I use 71427 or 43362 old 9V motor, I can eliminate even that 2L axle and make my module 100% system brick build except motor.. Is this module is allow for competion?

Edited March 3, 2021 by msk6003

[howitzer]

7 hours ago, Bublehead said:

While GBC does showcase the intricacies and complexity of Technic, the real world application of this is limited to, well, moving balls around.  Now I am not sure about others, but the need to move balls around is something of a non-realistic task to ask a person to engineer if you are trying to inject some STEM learning into the mix.  Granted, it is limited in scope, does not have a lot of "rules" per se, just those that let the devices coexist in the same GBC world and interface between each module with the least amount of hassles. I mean this could just as well be a "mousetrap" competition to build the most elaborate method of catching a mouse, but I don't find that as challenging as making a real world machine that actually performs a task.  Now in the realm of Technic, we have not seen many TLG designed machines that actually perform a real world task other than lifting, dumping, sorting, moving, or loading, along with mimicking functionality of other complex vehicles.  Not too many Technic models actually float, fly, or do any actual real world work (cement mixer doesn't mix real cement, bucket wheel loader doesn't actually excavate, nor does the Liebherr.  They can move around bricks that simulate these tasks)

So the short answer here is, nope, not interested in a GBC competition because it will undoubtedly be another "who owns the most Technic Lego" competition combined with an "over the top" display of gee-wizardry meant to do nothing but garner votes out of shear brute force of a high part count.  If I was looking to hold a GBC competition, the rules would be very simple... "with the least amount of parts possible, create a mechanism that when ganged together could move a GBC ball from point A to point B,  without dropping the ball at a rate of 1 ball per second average, giving the hight of point A is X and the height of point B is Y, and the distance between A and B is Z.  The model should not include any driving mechanics, a completed module, or any added parts not required to actually move the ball.  This way we should only see novel ways to move a GBC ball and should not see any additional "bling" added on to help harvest votes.

But that would be a very boring competition to judge and would not be entered by anyone... so the current idea will probably go forward, but since my collection of Technic Lego is not as infinite as some, the actual probability of me winning is low, so my interest is naturally as low as well.

Umm, what realistic, practical applications Technic or any Lego anywhere has? I mean, sure, you can use them for various purposes like for example as a camera stand, but that would be a waste of money as you can buy much better camera stand for much less money than was spent on the bricks. GBC's are indeed completely pointless as something practically useful but that's not their purpose at all. Nobody expects Lego builds to perform tasks in real world applications, it's a toy and a hobby. Making a Lego build that does a real world task might be a nice challenge of course, but in the end it's equally pointless to making a GBC, as purpose-built machines are better in every way. So yeah, you can build a lawnmower out of Lego but even the cheapest one bought from a hardware store is just better.

And yeah, as myself and others have stated, the GBC competition won't be any more problematic than other contests with the high part counts or simple but flashy designs, functionality does matter. Of course aesthetic also matters and nicely finished entry is more likely to do well than an entry without much in the way of finishing touches, but isn't that as it should be? The motorcycle competition winners were also well-finished in an aesthetic sense and the rules required to show the internals too so that functionality could be analyzed - a rule which I'm sure will also be implemented in the GBC contest.

While doing well in a contest would of course be nice, I don't enter those with an expectation of winning because I see them more as a learning experience and a way to engage with the community here. Playing to win is pretty boring to me anyway, so I play to have fun.

[1980SomethingSpaceGuy]

7 hours ago, Bublehead said:

So the short answer here is, nope, not interested in a GBC competition because it will undoubtedly be another "who owns the most Technic Lego" competition

Kinda sums up my feeling about the average reaction (or absence thereof) on MOC posts here, competition entry or not. I'm not sure things will be radically different for a GBC contest, but I think the theme matches well my usual approach: trying to find the most elegant or creative way to get the job done, with the minimum amount of parts (and out of a limited pool).

I now know that I can't win on EB doing so, but quite frankly, I don't care. I like to see what other people submit and compare. It's a bit sad of course that I can only rely on myself to rate my builds, but I can't take votings on EB too seriously; they'll always favour the biggest pile of assorted color parts, with the best post-prod photos. Even if the build is in fact fragile, unnecessarily complex or slightly off the theme of the contest. But things may be different with GBC, as it may drag a different population. I look forward seeing this. 

[howitzer]

43 minutes ago, 1980SomethingSpaceGuy said:

Kinda sums up my feeling about the average reaction (or absence thereof) on MOC posts here, competition entry or not. I'm not sure things will be radically different for a GBC contest, but I think the theme matches well my usual approach: trying to find the most elegant or creative way to get the job done, with the minimum amount of parts (and out of a limited pool).

I now know that I can't win on EB doing so, but quite frankly, I don't care. I like to see what other people submit and compare. It's a bit sad of course that I can only rely on myself to rate my builds, but I can't take votings on EB too seriously; they'll always favour the biggest pile of assorted color parts, with the best post-prod photos. Even if the build is in fact fragile, unnecessarily complex or slightly off the theme of the contest. But things may be different with GBC, as it may drag a different population. I look forward seeing this. 

It's true that presentation matters. Great photos and a nicely edited video provides for a better presentation and because it's impossible to handle the entries and get a good feeling on how it's built and how well it stays together, all the voters can do is to view the photos and video. While it's not useful for the upcoming GBC contest, I wonder how for example the small car contest or motorbike contest entries would've fared if the rules had stated that there must be a drop test, like a video of the vehicle being dropped of a set amount of height (like 50cm) to see how sturdy it is? As for the GBC's, reliability is a big factor so some sort of assessment on it might be nice, though I'm not sure how to formulate that into the rules.

Fragility, unnecessary complexity and excess part usage are indeed something that many amateur builders struggle with, and they tend to set the really skilled builders apart from less skilled ones. I wonder if some kind of contest could be envisioned where the voters could make an assessment of these factors, like a contest where a building instructions must be included with a part count limitation and parts palette would be limited to common ones so the voters could actually build the models themselves? I have no idea on the feasibility of such a contest (maybe it could work as a C-model contest?) but it's just a thought. Or maybe I'm taking this far too seriously, most importantly we should have fun with the contests after all.

[Bublehead]

4 hours ago, howitzer said:

most importantly we should have fun with the contests after all.

I agree, they should be fun, however, without a hope of winning, I see no fun in competing.  I don't have the time or resources to put together some high production quality video and photo presentation just to garner a slim chance at winning some small prize and the accolades of a handful of expert builders on a very slimly focused hobby forum.  I guess the real problem is the lack of granularity in the skill level required to compete, the amount of actual bricks which can be used, and the amount of time in which to complete the contest.  Almost every competition winner on here, if you go by the past winners, are users with the most time/money/skill, and if you lack one of the three, your hopes of winning plummet.

[pinwheel]

1 hour ago, Bublehead said:

Almost every competition winner on here, if you go by the past winners, are users with the most time/money/skill, and if you lack one of the three, your hopes of winning plummet.

It sounds like an issue with the competitions themselves. In other GBC build contests (mentioned by @Sgtmcnugget above) most of the winners weren’t about the biggest most expensive time consuming builds.

[LucyCol]

15 hours ago, Bublehead said:

since my collection of Technic Lego is not as infinite as some, the actual probability of me winning is low, 

The same applies to me, but that doesn't mean it is not worth trying, there are infinite ways to move a ball from A to B, the fun is in trying to think of a way that has not been tried before.

[Bublehead]

9 minutes ago, pinwheel said:

It sounds like an issue with the competitions themselves.

I agree, but a touchless competition is what we have to work with here... I know that if some models were more heavily scrutinized by someone picking it up, futzing with it, and inspecting it, these competitions might be more balanced.  Point in case, I know I can hide a TON of "sins" in a model and you would not know it, however, if I had to give up said model for inspection, the ruse would collapse.  And let's face it, would you take a video of a function "not working as designed" and include it in your presentation?  So what we actually see here is "the best models that can have its weaknesses camouflaged by a good video" and any "non-purist" hacks can be hidden from prying eyes.  I believe this is why we get so little comments on static MOC posts as well.  Nobody wants to see a picture, they all want to see a slick video presentation... almost like every model must get the "Saturday Morning Toy commercial" treatment before it gets any real attention... again just my $0.02 opinion

[Bublehead]

22 minutes ago, LucyCol said:

the fun is in trying to think of a way that has not been tried before.

I agree, that is the fun of coming up with a new GBC module, but balancing the scoring of the mechanism, combined with the scoring of theme, color choices, piece counts, longevity, robustness, point of task, etc... could actually be a hard thing to do in a touchless competition.  Successfully designed GBC modules have operating requirements that are not necessarily ingrained within the GBC rules. You need to move balls from A to B at a rate of 1 ball a second...  but how many balls can your module "consume" and be called successful? Lost or dropped balls should be a factor that is measured and gauged.  What is the MTBF of your module?  Power requirements? How do you gauge the "cool" factor? How do you put a point scale on all these variables and then judge against them?  I think a GBC competition is a great idea, but not sure how it could be judged without physically observing the modules, and testing them independently (such as placing them all under a test monitor volunteer who runs them all and collects the results) So that is my take on a GBC competition, where I think it makes sense when done at an event, but not as an online competition.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Bublehead

[doug72]

On 3/1/2021 at 9:09 AM, Erik Leppen said:

Isn't GBC mainly an event thing? As far as I know, GBC units by different builders are joined so they form a giant loop. A single module always needs hand assistance, putting the balls from the endpoint back to the startpoint.

It would be fun, but I don't have the required balls, but I may be tempted to order some from Jim's link above if such a contest would be started. And I do have lots of system bricks in all kinds of colors here. But I do think such a contest would need a longer time than usual. I would way 3 months or so. 6 weeks feels too short for something like this.

As a non-GBC-builder, I'd say, go for it. After all, there are many people who don't build motorbikes, and we still had a motorbike contest that looks successful. Except for the balls, GBC isn't really that much different. Also, lots of folks here love non-vehicle builds, and GBC would be the perfect showcase for that.

I would go fo as little restrictions as possible, but conforming to the standard GBC rules such as bin placement/size etc. so that the resulting builds will be eligible for meetings, if we can keep them assembled until after the pandemic. (Now I say this, wouldn't a GBC build contest be more appropriate in non-pandemic times? Then everyone can use their builds at meetings.)

[Jim]

1 hour ago, LucyCol said:

The same applies to me, but that doesn't mean it is not worth trying, there are infinite ways to move a ball from A to B, the fun is in trying to think of a way that has not been tried before.

Amen!

That's the spirit. It's not only about winning. It's about having fun and maybe learning a thing or two.

[Sgtmcnugget]

1 hour ago, Bublehead said:

I agree, that is the fun of coming up with a new GBC module, but balancing the scoring of the mechanism, combined with the scoring of theme, color choices, piece counts, longevity, robustness, point of task, etc... could actually be a hard thing to do in a touchless competition.  Successfully designed GBC modules have operating requirements that are not necessarily ingrained within the GBC rules. You need to move balls from A to B at a rate of 1 ball a second...  but how many balls can your module "consume" and be called successful? Lost or dropped balls should be a factor that is measured and gauged.  What is the MTBF of your module?  Power requirements? How do you gauge the "cool" factor? How do you put a point scale on all these variables and then judge against them?  I think a GBC competition is a great idea, but not sure how it could be judged without physically observing the modules, and testing them independently (such as placing them all under a test monitor volunteer who runs them all and collects the results) So that is my take on a GBC competition, where I think it makes sense when done at an event, but not as an online competition.

As I've posted, there have been quite a few GBC competitions that were held entirely online and had none of the problems you've mentioned. Power requirements don't vary, coolness is easily gauged, reliability is assumed. It's much easier to build a functional module compared to making a video where a nonfunctional module appears functional, doing it right is easier than faking it, so it's reasonable to assume that entries aren't dropping every other ball. 

 

Also, we're not looking to find out which one is scientifically proven to be the best module. Often, competitions have specific requirements (make a themed module, make a wheel motion, seed part challenge) and *that* is the strongest metric by which entries are judged. There's no reason to score color choices or piece counts to the hundredth of a percent

 

I would understand the confusion if this hadn't been done before, but it has, plenty of times. Online GBC competitions aren't new