MOCs versus sets

[PlopiNinetySix]

Hey everyone, 

I got this kinda question floating around my head now and felt like it could have a discussion here.

Which Technic sets, in your opinion/s, are the closet to similar MOC counterparts, or even better?

Basically, which LT sets are so good/well-designed/excellent/awesome [and other superlatives alike], that these could potentially reach the standard/s of a MOC? 

*I have to note here that all MOCs (of some vehicle/machine) vary in standards, designs and functions, so this question might be a bit ambiguous

Some of mine would be 42145, 42114, 42043.

[Maaboo the Witch]

42053, 42054, and 42082 are three that jump out for me.

While I would deem 42114 as being far from the best Technic set, it does have a MOC-like feel, especially the dump skip.

[Aurorasaurus]

the zetros feels what moc-like to me because all the axles are linked and i think the motors are hard coupled, and the diff lock. while it isnt perfect, i think they did what they could given the limitation of making something that doesnt damage parts.

[PlopiNinetySix]

5 minutes ago, Maaboo the Witch said:

42053, 42054, and 42082 are three that jump out for me.

While I would deem 42114 as being far from the best Technic set, it does have a MOC-like feel, especially the dump skip.

I agree about 42053 and 42054, great stuff.

I think 42114 is comparable to MOCs because of its completedness (according to Wiktionary this is actually a word :P). It looks clean, accurate to its real-life counterpart so much, and way better than its 42030 (which would be amazing to see as another Volvo loader facelifted for the Ctrl+ components).

Just now, Aurorasaurus said:

the zetros feels what moc-like to me because all the axles are linked and i think the motors are hard coupled, and the diff lock. while it isnt perfect, i think they did what they could given the limitation of making something that doesnt damage parts.

I see^^

I personally think the Zetros could have a 3rd axle like that obscure prototype of it, but it looks and functions well for a Lego truck. Not suited the best for outdoors but it's still qualifies, at least for me as close to a trial-truck Lego could have produced.

[gyenesvi]

I have a bit of a hard time interpreting the question of this thread. To me, the best MOCs are usually pushing the limits in ways that would not be acceptable in an official set, by cramming lots of stuff in using somewhat questionable techniques. So that by definition will not really be met by official sets. Instead what best official sets could do is provide clean solutions (by introducing new parts) to problems that could only be solved by such questionable techniques before.

11 hours ago, PlopiNinetySix said:

I personally think the Zetros could have a 3rd axle like that obscure prototype of it, but it looks and functions well for a Lego truck.

11 hours ago, Aurorasaurus said:

the zetros feels what moc-like to me because all the axles are linked and i think the motors are hard coupled, and the diff lock. while it isnt perfect, i think they did what they could given the limitation of making something that doesnt damage parts.

Now to me, the Zetros is a pretty bad example of that. It could have introduced new parts for building live axles in a more elegant way (for example the part that we are just discussing in the 'Technic parts that we would like to see' thread), but it did not really (except for the long CV joint, which also turned out too long I think). Instead they turned the Zetros into a giant gearbox with giant live axles. True that they did hard-coupled motors, that's a first (but not really an achievement). But that thing has basically non-articulating suspension, almost zero ground clearance, bad steering and is unplayably slow (that's the least of the problems though). On top of that, the gearbox switching is implemented with an M motor which does not have a rotary encoder, through a ton of gears and clutch in a very convoluted way. We could have just gotten a small angular motor in that set with a rotary encoder that could have been ideal and very useful for building gearboxes. But they spared that out of a 300 Euro set and dumped out all the not so useful M motors they had at stock. Also for me the looks are toyish, not really like a trial truck (just marketing). I don't think a good MOC would have these properties. If I view the set as a parts pack, then it's a good one though :)

Or did you mean 'MOC-like' in a way that it over-complicates things because the right parts don't exist? Then, yes, the Zetros is like a MOC..

[PlopiNinetySix]

3 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Now to me, the Zetros is a pretty bad example of that. It could have introduced new parts for building live axles in a more elegant way (for example the part that we are just discussing in the 'Technic parts that we would like to see' thread), but it did not really (except for the long CV joint, which also turned out too long I think). Instead they turned the Zetros into a giant gearbox with giant live axles. True that they did hard-coupled motors, that's a first (but not really an achievement). But that thing has basically non-articulating suspension, almost zero ground clearance, bad steering and is unplayably slow (that's the least of the problems though). On top of that, the gearbox switching is implemented with an M motor which does not have a rotary encoder, through a ton of gears and clutch in a very convoluted way. We could have just gotten a small angular motor in that set with a rotary encoder that could have been ideal and very useful for building gearboxes. But they spared that out of a 300 Euro set and dumped out all the not so useful M motors they had at stock.

I agree with you about most things here; the Zetros definitely is missing a lot of stuff. Lego could've really make this set justice. Still personally I like it (hate the stickers of it, and the sets looks so, so much better without them) for what it is. A few modifications to fix the problems you've mentioned and we'd get a really nice trial truck from Lego itself.

Regarding the question itself, I think that if I for example had built a trial truck MOC (or some off-roader similar to it), most changes the Zetros will be better than it (although in MOCs there's always room for improvement ;P).

3 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Or did you mean 'MOC-like' in a way that it over-complicates things because the right parts don't exist? Then, yes, the Zetros is like a MOC..

Kinda...? This description goes well with the stuff I've been building on Stud.io recently (actually I just build in a smaller scale that makes no sense for say, a wheel loader to be designed in) 

[Gumalca]

On 12/10/2023 at 8:53 AM, gyenesvi said:

To me, the best MOCs are usually pushing the limits in ways that would not be acceptable in an official set, by cramming lots of stuff in using somewhat questionable techniques.

Agreed. I've built a good amount of Premium Technic MOCs that are on rebrickable, and nearly always there will be techniques that are questionable. Things that Lego will not do in a mass product for very good reasons.

Looking at a great MOC is one thing, but only once you have built it yourself you can really compare it to a Lego set. Even when there are good videos of a MOC, this does not tell everything. After rebuilding I've sometimes found myself wondering why functions don't run as smooth as in the video, although I keep attention to have all axles run smoothly.

So I find the question a bit strange. The opposite question (which MOCs do you think could be turned into an official product right away), would make more sense for me.

 

 

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, Gumalca said:

Looking at a great MOC is one thing, but only once you have built it yourself you can really compare it to a Lego set. Even when there are good videos of a MOC, this does not tell everything. After rebuilding I've sometimes found myself wondering why functions don't run as smooth as in the video, although I keep attention to have all axles run smoothly.

I totally agree with this. Though quite a few of those questionable techniques can be spotted by looking only, very few people do. Most often people just comment "it looks good" without thinking much about the functionality. I sometimes kind of await such questions when I present a MOC and I know that there are some weak points in it, but rarely get those questions. A bit relieving, a bit sad at the same time :)

1 hour ago, Gumalca said:

So I find the question a bit strange. The opposite question (which MOCs do you think could be turned into an official product right away), would make more sense for me.

Exactly my thoughts.

[PlopiNinetySix]

I understand the confusion, should've made it clearer.It's a question of thought (I overcomplicated it tbh), basically... which Technic sets are the closet to what a MOC would be; from one's point of view, or how MOC-like they feel. From my point of view, it'd go to what I listed in the beginning of this topic, for example 42145 is to me, imho, very very similar to what a helicopter MOC could've been designed by some builders out there.

11 hours ago, Gumalca said:

So I find the question a bit strange.

-The opposite question (which MOCs do you think could be turned into an official product right away), would make more sense for me.

-It does make a lot of sense when you think about it that way; there are dozens of MOCs that could easily be regarded as sets.

[gyenesvi]

28 minutes ago, PlopiNinetySix said:

which Technic sets are the closet to what a MOC would be; from one's point of view, or how MOC-like they feel

So what's your definition of a good MOC? What makes them better than some official sets?

A few things I could think of is

• maximizing the functionality put into the model at the given scale, and the realism of that functionality
• being a fairly good looking (maybe scale) representation of something realistic (does not necessarily have to be a licensed model)

For me, these two points are some common shortcomings of official sets mainly due to cost saving I think. It is understandable that they need to produce smaller / cheaper / simpler models as well to cater for younger kinds and beginners. But I don't really fancy when they make something empty / missing functionality (42126 rwd) or unrealistic in functionality (like 9398 and 42099 suspension, or the huge unrealistic supercar gearbox layouts), or when they pick an iconic real world model and build it on a too small scale to be able represent it properly (like 42122, both looks and functions).

So for me a really interesting model is something that has realistic and enough functions put into the available space for the scale, but not too much crammed, while also being a good looking one given the possibilities of technic panels, something like 42128.

[PlopiNinetySix]

49 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

So what's your definition of a good MOC? What makes them better than some official sets?

My definition is somewhat in the lines of these:

>1. Functionality at top. That includes creativeness, interesting mechanisms, creating rewarding playing experience for those who also wanna build that specific MOC/be inspired by it to build their own.

>2. Looks. A MOC can be any vehicle or machine [or robot, and etc], but it should look good too, without compromising the functionality. Like I wouldn't have a problem seeing a supercar model that has all the needed functionality but has some small gaps here and there, that's not really something that annoys me personally (but if it's like a huge gap in a car shell like we've seen in 42125 (I keep bashing this set too much...?) then I can't really forgive it) because after all, it's Lego and MOCs are the closet thing to the IRL one.

>3. Stability and sturdiness. A MOC should be stable at most points. This varies from builder to builder and from design to design (and in general is a pretty standard point for most MOC vehicles out there), but I always like a vehicle that's you can handle (with no worries about panels or specific sections being too loose or fiddly) carefully, not one that'll break if you would pick it from its roof (I don't really expect one to lift a helicopter from the rotors, but to be able to lift it from the undercarriage without somep parts falling off).

What makes a MOC better than some official sets?

Well, most MOCs have most, if not all points I've stated here, that many builders look after; since they're pretty common^. Also, MOCs are more carefully designed than sets, at least in the more recent years of Technic. They have pieces from a collection that's ot limited to designing only one set, but either from their personal collection of many (mostly dissambled) sets, bought and collected, or digitally (like LDD or Stud.io where the options are near-endless). On the other hand, I get that Lego is somewhat more restricted in part usage and colors, so this might be a bit of a stretch. Most MOCs also have a variety of functions while still managing to look good. I dunno but I think MOCs are personal creatives and therefore don't require a specific medium for designing them, building a MOC has many possibilities compared to a set- you could design some prototype, then if you're not pleased with it, you could design another version of it, and so on; while a Lego set has particularly only one version [until it's retired and then it can be rereleased with some minor or sometimes major changes] all the way from the final design to the review on YouTube, R-able, EB, and etc. In the Technic line, sometimes sets are better (to an amazing degree of functionality, looks, quality, and overall design) designed, both realistically and funtionally, but they still have their restrictions that prevent them from being MOC-like standard sets. 9398 for example is really awesome as a set (it also looks badass, be it stickers on none, it's realistic great) and performs well as an off-roader, but of course there are MOCs out there that can topple it- mostly by performance of the functionality like better off-roading capabilities and better torque.

49 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

• maximizing the functionality put into the model at the given scale, and the realism of that functionality

• being a fairly good looking (maybe scale) representation of something realistic (does not necessarily have to be a licensed model)

-But I don't really fancy when they make something empty / missing functionality (42126 rwd) or unrealistic in functionality (like 9398 and 42099 suspension, or the huge unrealistic supercar gearbox layouts), or when they pick an iconic real world model and build it on a too small scale to be able represent it properly (like 42122, both looks and functions).

-So for me a really interesting model is something that has realistic and enough functions put into the available space for the scale, but not too much crammed, while also being a good looking one given the possibilities of technic panels, something like 42128.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Btw, 42128 is fantastic and to me really is the worthy successor to the 8285. And about the licensing, Lego could've made many licensed Technic sets wayyy more functional and overall better, if it hadn't for the specific license that requires very speific looks, almost always being prioritized over actual functionality.

Edited December 12, 2023 by PlopiNinetySix

[Count Sepulchure]

I nominate 8443. It is modestly sized and looks rather unassuming, but upon a closer look it is brimming with functions, and everything in it serves a purpose. Oh, and most old Technic in general feels a little "sketchy", giving it extra points in this context!

[PlopiNinetySix]

18 hours ago, Count Sepulchure said:

I nominate 8443. It is modestly sized and looks rather unassuming, but upon a closer look it is brimming with functions, and everything in it serves a purpose. Oh, and most old Technic in general feels a little "sketchy", giving it extra points in this context!

Very nice set indeed ;P

There is also a studless version someone made I some time ago, and it improves the looks of the original set by miles ahead.

Edit: It was made by M1longer

Edited December 14, 2023 by PlopiNinetySix

[howitzer]

I find it hard to make meaningful comparison here. MOCs and official sets are designed with completely different and sometimes conflicting constraints and for different purpose so it's apples and oranges situation. I think both should be compared only within their own category (though even that's somewhat questionable with MOCs).

[Lipko]

On 12/12/2023 at 12:24 PM, PlopiNinetySix said:

What makes a MOC better than some official sets?

Well, most MOCs have most, if not all points I've stated here, that many builders look after; since they're pretty common^. Also, MOCs are more carefully designed than sets, at least in the more recent years of Technic. They have pieces from a collection that's ot limited to designing only one set, but either from their personal collection of many (mostly dissambled) sets, bought and collected, or digitally (like LDD or Stud.io where the options are near-endless). On the other hand, I get that Lego is somewhat more restricted in part usage and colors, so this might be a bit of a stretch. Most MOCs also have a variety of functions while still managing to look good. I dunno but I think MOCs are personal creatives and therefore don't require a specific medium for designing them, building a MOC has many possibilities compared to a set- you could design some prototype, then if you're not pleased with it, you could design another version of it, and so on; while a Lego set has particularly only one version [until it's retired and then it can be rereleased with some minor or sometimes major changes] all the way from the final design to the review on YouTube, R-able, EB, and etc. In the Technic line, sometimes sets are better (to an amazing degree of functionality, looks, quality, and overall design) designed, both realistically and funtionally, but they still have their restrictions that prevent them from being MOC-like standard sets. 9398 for example is really awesome as a set (it also looks badass, be it stickers on none, it's realistic great) and performs well as an off-roader, but of course there are MOCs out there that can topple it- mostly by performance of the functionality like better off-roading capabilities and better torque.

Interesting. I'm not following the MOC world closely lately, but actually I saw the opposite. Maybe the quality improved a lot since I was more active, but professional, famous models did look very good that time, but had poor quality. Parts falling off, functions only work on the video, zero actual playability, the chassis itself is dull and boring, etc. Okay, I only built one MOC from somebody else, it was a very famous model that time, and the build was very revealing. The model was not as sturdy as I thought and as it was hyped, and the overall experiece was only okay.
It didn't help that there were hardly any MOC reviews then, and the only ones were always very permissive, there were (and I think still are) only a very few honest reviews, where MOCs are treated equally as sets (no double standards).

[gyenesvi]

On 12/12/2023 at 12:24 PM, PlopiNinetySix said:

Well, most MOCs have most, if not all points I've stated here, that many builders look after; since they're pretty common^. Also, MOCs are more carefully designed than sets, at least in the more recent years of Technic.

Unfortunately I tend to agree with @Lipko that the situation with MOCs is not so rosy either. There are only a handful of MOCs out there that I find really well designed, and that applies to looks / functions / sturdiness. Maybe my standards are too high, or we have differing preferences, but I do see many solutions that are too hackish for me, only work more or less, or the looks could be greatly improved by adding less clutter.

On 12/12/2023 at 12:24 PM, PlopiNinetySix said:

They have pieces from a collection that's ot limited to designing only one set, but either from their personal collection of many (mostly dissambled) sets, bought and collected, or digitally (like LDD or Stud.io where the options are near-endless). On the other hand, I get that Lego is somewhat more restricted in part usage and colors, so this might be a bit of a stretch. Most MOCs also have a variety of functions while still managing to look good.

I think official sets are not really limited by inventory either, maybe in color choices, especially when it comes to recoloring smaller connector parts, TLG tends to save const on those.. And of course they won't use useful but retired parts, while some MOCs can.

On 12/12/2023 at 12:24 PM, PlopiNinetySix said:

I dunno but I think MOCs are personal creatives and therefore don't require a specific medium for designing them, building a MOC has many possibilities compared to a set- you could design some prototype, then if you're not pleased with it, you could design another version of it, and so on; while a Lego set has particularly only one version

I don't get this, since official sets also have many design iterations before they are finalized. I guess more so than MOCs.

On 12/12/2023 at 12:24 PM, PlopiNinetySix said:

but of course there are MOCs out there that can topple it- mostly by performance of the functionality like better off-roading capabilities and better torque.

Of course one advantage of MOCs is that people may throw a lot of electronics in there because they are not trying to save costs, but official sets can't really do that otherwise they come out too expensive. Also, too much power can damage parts, which MOC builders don't care about or are even okay with greasing, but that does not fly in an official set.

In terms of better capabilities, it boils down to realistic building techniques I think. In this regard, I think MOCs can have an advantage as builders experiment more and strive more for realism than TLG does. Suspensions are a good example of that, TLG really does not push the limits there, which is sad as it could be mechanically more interesting / educative and could result in cool new parts.

[PlopiNinetySix]

6 hours ago, howitzer said:

I find it hard to make meaningful comparison here. MOCs and official sets are designed with completely different and sometimes conflicting constraints and for different purpose so it's apples and oranges situation. I think both should be compared only within their own category (though even that's somewhat questionable with MOCs).

I think it varies specifically on one's own opinion though. For example I can see a MOC designed nicely, and a Lego set similar to it maybe could've outperformed it in some points here and there, so the two are somewhat comparable if they have a similar design base (I think- like a car you have a chassis, suspension, and then engine and sometimes transmission too, this appears on both MOCs and Lego sets); others would say otherwise.

4 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

1. Unfortunately I tend to agree with @Lipko that the situation with MOCs is not so rosy either. There are only a handful of MOCs out there that I find really well designed, and that applies to looks / functions / sturdiness. Maybe my standards are too high, or we have differing preferences, but I do see many solutions that are too hackish for me, only work more or less, or the looks could be greatly improved by adding less clutter.

2. I think official sets are not really limited by inventory either, maybe in color choices, especially when it comes to recoloring smaller connector parts, TLG tends to save const on those.. And of course they won't use useful but retired parts, while some MOCs can.

3. I don't get this, since official sets also have many design iterations before they are finalized. I guess more so than MOCs.

4. Of course one advantage of MOCs is that people may throw a lot of electronics in there because they are not trying to save costs, but official sets can't really do that otherwise they come out too expensive. Also, too much power can damage parts, which MOC builders don't care about or are even okay with greasing, but that does not fly in an official set.

In terms of better capabilities, it boils down to realistic building techniques I think. In this regard, I think MOCs can have an advantage as builders experiment more and strive more for realism than TLG does. Suspensions are a good example of that, TLG really does not push the limits there, which is sad as it could be mechanically more interesting / educative and could result in cool new parts.

1. I think it's about different preferences. Still, I respect your view here.

2. True, but maybe TLG should use retired parts that might be useful for some sets here and there, sets that have designs that fit the usage of those pieces.

3. I see, but doesn't it differ from set to set? Some sets have less prototypes than others; I'm not aware how many changes Technic sets go through, perhaps I should in more insight into it^

4. Completely understood, plus Lego has its safety standards for electric components and similar stuff like using clutch gears in many gearboxes (wellp on the other side of the coin, we sometimes get unreasonably/overwhelming high prices for those +18 sets which contain little to no electronics at all), so you're right^

5. True; and Lego should really push its sets to the limit if they contain new parts or motorized.

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by PlopiNinetySix

[PlopiNinetySix]

5 hours ago, Lipko said:

But professional, famous models did look very good that time, but had poor quality. Parts falling off, functions only work on the video, zero actual playability, the chassis itself is dull and boring, etc.

Okay, I only built one MOC from somebody else, it was a very famous model that time, and the build was very revealing. The model was not as sturdy as I thought and as it was hyped, and the overall experiece was only okay.

I've actually never knew about MOCs that were designed by their creators only to be a show-off 1 time model sort of thing. If that's the case with most MOCs then... I think it's.. weird? Cuz I've seen a lot of MOCs on Rebrickable w/ instructions where people in the comments were very happy with the build and barely any complaints. But that's something to look at... ^

5 hours ago, Lipko said:

It didn't help that there were hardly any MOC reviews then, and the only ones were always very permissive, there were (and I think still are) only a very few honest reviews, where MOCs are treated equally as sets (no double standards).

I don't really watch MOC reviews (except sometimes on Rebrickable), but I think RacingBrick's CaDA set reviews, which are originally MOC designs, are pretty honest.

[Lipko]

20 hours ago, PlopiNinetySix said:

I've actually never knew about MOCs that were designed by their creators only to be a show-off 1 time model sort of thing. If that's the case with most MOCs then... I think it's.. weird? Cuz I've seen a lot of MOCs on Rebrickable w/ instructions where people in the comments were very happy with the build and barely any complaints. But that's something to look at... ^

I don't really watch MOC reviews (except sometimes on Rebrickable), but I think RacingBrick's CaDA set reviews, which are originally MOC designs, are pretty honest.

Yes, it's weird. One reason might be that most adult builders build for the shelf. If not, they build very specific stuff, like trial trucks, but no one is really interested in well-balanced models (looks, functionality, building experience, interestingness, all balanced) because they don't actually play or grab the models often, if at all. Another reason might be that people seem to be much more forgiving towards MOCs (and non-Lego brands). Or simply there are only a few experienced collercors who build many MOCs and also sets to be "thrustworty" (who can judge the quality), and by chance most of them are nice guys.

Again, I'm talking mostly about models from 5 or more years ago, though I remember some recent general comments that there are more and more low quality paying instructions. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Lipko

[gyenesvi]

20 hours ago, PlopiNinetySix said:

I've actually never knew about MOCs that were designed by their creators only to be a show-off 1 time model sort of thing. If that's the case with most MOCs then... I think it's.. weird? Cuz I've seen a lot of MOCs on Rebrickable w/ instructions where people in the comments were very happy with the build and barely any complaints. But that's something to look at... ^

I don't really watch MOC reviews (except sometimes on Rebrickable), but I think RacingBrick's CaDA set reviews, which are originally MOC designs, are pretty honest.

One thing about MOC reviews or feedback, I do think they tend to be somewhat biased. Most positive comments are about the looks, or some well implemented functions. Negative feedback comes in only when something is really not working as people don't want to discourage others. Sometimes, there is negative feedback about looks, when something that models a real-life counterpart differs a lot in shaping for example. Only some people who know the source material really well call these negatives out publicly. However, there is very little feedback about functions that are not well implemented or weak (but work somewhat or just don't matter too much). Very few people understand specific technicalities that are included in niche MOCs, and they don't necessarily want to call those out. For example I do see a lot of crazy suspension lifts on FB that I think are wrong on many levels, yet I don't start debating them.

 

[Zerobricks]

I also believe that the SETs are held to a higher standard than MOCs.

I've only built one very popular MOC from another, famous person and I was verry dissapointed with the lack of structural integrity and usage of flex axles fo everything, furher reducing bodywork strength. It was a big empty shell, the driveline was way underdesigned (using 2 XL motors to drive a ball joint, breaking U joints constantly).

I think once you start building models professionally and for non-experienced end users, you see how important stability, ease of building, color coding and part optimisation are. And that kind of limitations plus more are also imposed on LEGO's designers.

So in short, IMO MOCs are usually overrated and generally not build up to the same spec as SETs.

[Jundis]

@Lipko summarized most of what I think, but I like to add one thing, which brings us back to the initial question:

In my opinion there is a big difference in the overall building quality in official models as there is in MOCs.

1. Function: We had some very flimsy models with ambitious functionality, for which I can't imagine how they passed quality control: 42080, 42097, 42158

2. Stability: We had very sturdy models, which quality control maybe reduced the number of functions or fancy features: 42079, 42136, (42168)

3. Looks: We had good looking models, but with very poor functionality, so clearly form over function: 42110, all 1:8 Supercars

4. We had models with the best of both worlds, where all 3 criteria merged nearly perfectly: 42043, 42082, 42128, 42139, (42167)

When I see reviews from non-Lego branded technic models, sometimes I have to shake my head, how such over-sized models even made it into production. They far exceeding the structural stability of what plastic bricks are capable of.

Last statements to MOCs: My goal is always to achieve the fourth category of the upper mentioned ones, but I still never made a single model where I am 100% proud and would claim, that this could be sold as an official model. I don't build that many MOCs, but I can hardly think of any, that does achieve this criteria. Please let me know, if there are any :-)

[Lipko]

Another observation, though I haven't done the research, is that the most balanced high quality MOC designers left MOCing when the boom in the MOC world happened some years ago (Madoca, Crowkillers etc). Maybe just coincidence. But Crowkillers did tell me some years ago that he was very disappointed with the direction MOCing was going (only the looks is important, and even that ín a not so good way: filling gaps at all costs, heavy reliance on stickers, etc.).

Disclaimer: I do think It's good that wastly more people do MOCing nowadays so there are much more good quality models too, I just wanted to comment on the double standards we have.

[PlopiNinetySix]

5 hours ago, Lipko said:

Yes, it's weird. One reason might be that most adult builders build for the shelf. If not, they build very specific stuff, like trial trucks, but no one is really interested in well-balanced models (looks, functionality, building experience, interestingness, all balanced) because they don't actually play or grab the models often, if at all. Another reason might be that people seem to be much more forgiving towards MOCs (and non-Lego brands). Or simply there are only a few experienced collercors who build many MOCs and also sets to be "thrustworty" (who can judge the quality), and by chance most of them are nice guys.

Again, I'm talking mostly about models from 5 or more years ago, though I remember some recent general comments that there are more and more low quality paying instructions. 

I see. All in all MOCs should be reviewrd as sets are. They're MOCs, but after all there's always constructive criticism that each one has to improve it.

5 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

One thing about MOC reviews or feedback, I do think they tend to be somewhat biased. Most positive comments are about the looks, or some well implemented functions. Negative feedback comes in only when something is really not working as people don't want to discourage others. Sometimes, there is negative feedback about looks, when something that models a real-life counterpart differs a lot in shaping for example. Only some people who know the source material really well call these negatives out publicly. However, there is very little feedback about functions that are not well implemented or weak (but work somewhat or just don't matter too much). Very few people understand specific technicalities that are included in niche MOCs, and they don't necessarily want to call those out. For example I do see a lot of crazy suspension lifts on FB that I think are wrong on many levels, yet I don't start debating them.

 

True. I was part of this 'worship' as well. 

Admittedly, I was personally obssessed watching tons of MOCs on YT (that's what got me into Technic, the MOC boom, as Lipko mentioned earlier^) n the early 2010's when I still didn't know how everything was working. It seemed 'awesome' 'amazimg' 'great' and so on. It still does, but today I know how to look both on the right side and wrong side of a lot of MOCs, both being general criticism. I'm no expert, but I would give more honest feedback nowadays than I would a few years ago, for example.

If people want to improve they gotta have some feedback (that includes me although I'm not on YT currently. I built Lego Transformers, a tiny Lego community that is found almost always on Instagram & YouTube, and some good YouTube friends of mine did give me criticism, which I gladly recieved. When I started the channel I didn't really get a lot of criticism on my designs, because most people seemed to like them, although I knew that every build I made have its goods and bads. Unrelatedly I also tried opening a Technic theme for the channel to showcase some of my MOCs; it didn't work because my subscribers weren't really fond of the sudden change).

4 hours ago, Zerobricks said:

I also believe that the SETs are held to a higher standard than MOCs.

I've only built one very popular MOC from another, famous person and I was verry dissapointed with the lack of structural integrity and usage of flex axles fo everything, furher reducing bodywork strength. It was a big empty shell, the driveline was way underdesigned (using 2 XL motors to drive a ball joint, breaking U joints constantly).

I think once you start building models professionally and for non-experienced end users, you see how important stability, ease of building, color coding and part optimisation are. And that kind of limitations plus more are also imposed on LEGO's designers.

So in short, IMO MOCs are usually overrated and generally not build up to the same spec as SETs.

Interesting^. I gotta say, I never had most of these thoughts in mind till this topic. I always thought MOCs are superior to most Technic sets in almost everything they achieve, but I see in reality it's different (and depends on the builder and their design, really). 

Despite having described my question a bit ambiguous, in the end I'm happy of the discussion here. :D

Edited December 15, 2023 by PlopiNinetySix

[PlopiNinetySix]

4 hours ago, Jundis said:

 

M goal is always to achieve the fourth category of the upper mentioned ones, but I still never made a single model where I am 100% proud and would claim, that this could be sold as an official model. I don't build that many MOCs, but I can hardly think of any, that does achieve this criteria. Please let me know, if there are any :-)

Yup, similarly to almost everything that goes on in life, no MOC can achieve 100% of the 4th category, but I have many that are, imo, are really close to that. Btw I really like the way you categorized the sets! :P

And on the defense of Lego, you're right- I'm a massive fan of what CaDA is doing and its collabs with talented MOC designers bringing us remarkable sets, but still, don't like everything CaDA releases or their sometimes problematic QC, or their lack of color-coding (I actually like the "color-splash" Lego is using. At first I despised it, but I grew on me now since I see how important is that when building certain sections correctly in a set) in sets that almost achieve perfection like in Bruno's Italian supercar set (other than that, barely no complaints about the set, and nothing against Bruno of course, quite a legend); which I think, after this discussion, can actually be compared to the 1:8 supercar line, since there are similarities and differences and both CaDA's and Lego's are unique in their own ways.

Edited December 15, 2023 by PlopiNinetySix