Jim

Generic Contest Discussion

Contest Setup  

227 members have voted

  1. 2. Publish result list including...?

    • All contestants
    • All contestants with more than 10 votes
    • Top 10
    • Top 3
  2. 3. Preferred building period?

  3. 4. Preferred voting period?

  4. 5. Favorite voting scheme? (multiple answers allowed)

    • 20 points (distribute all, max 10 per entry)
    • 10 points (distribute all, max 5 per entry)
    • Old Formula One style (distribute 10, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1 points)
    • New Formula One style (distribute 25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6 ,4, 2 and 1 points)
    • Eurovision Songfestival style (distribute 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 points)
  5. 6. Public or private voting?

  6. 7. Should we allow digital entries?



Recommended Posts

Just now, aminnich said:

I've said it before and ill say it again; 

Rube Goldberg machine 

That would be great, but then if someone had the brilliant idea of Legolising Italy's red tape they'd win first, second and third place in one fell swoop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of a Rube Goldberg machine is to take something simple and make it needlessly complicated. Italian institutions are the unsurpassed masters at this. So if you can somehow translate their red tape into Lego, you're unbeatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I see what you are saying.  

I was thinking of an overall common end goal task, and everyone needs to come up with their way of completing the task.  

You could get it extremely easy or super complex.  But I feel like a part limit would be required so you do not have that one person that using 6000 parts to make the most badarse setup and wins all the points.  

Just food for thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, that would even out the playing field and make for a great challenge! I'd probably go with the most (pointless) steps to accomplish a given task and yes, there definitely needs to be a limit either to the number of parts or to the volume. Kind of a highly condensed GBC, very broadly speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, back in middle school (long time ago) we had to raise a fly 3 feet, but it needed to have like 10 mechanisms to complete the task.  My favorite school project by far! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, aminnich said:

I've said it before and ill say it again; 

Rube Goldberg machine

That would make for a great contest, but considering we have just had two big contests, I think we really need to have a smaller one first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea, I've actually been thinking of this too.
 

15 hours ago, mocbuild101 said:

That would make for a great contest, but considering we have just had two big contests, I think we really need to have a smaller one first...

It could be a small competition, there could be a time limit, like from initiation to end move hast to be filmed in a continuous shot and can take no longer then 1 minute.
A part or size limit seems unnecessarily in this type of contest I'd say because you can make awesome contraptions with rather few parts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, aminnich said:

I was thinking of an overall common end goal task, and everyone needs to come up with their way of completing the task.  

I like this concept.

possible addition; keep it simple, so no Goldberg.

20 hours ago, aminnich said:

For example, back in middle school (long time ago) we had to raise a fly 3 feet, but it needed to have like 10 mechanisms to complete the task.  My favorite school project by far! 

10 is quite a lot, but we could do 3 to 5 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or...

Make something that is operated by a single mechanism. Like some GBC modules run on a single motor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hate to do a contest where the point is to have a mechanism with "pointless steps" (a.k.a. Rube Goldberg) - I think thinking about how to make things efficient is more interesting than thinking about how to make things deliberately inefficient. But the idea of having a specific end task and then building a device executing that task, sounds very interesting and could result in some neat and original builds.

But what kinds of tasks are people thinking of?

  • Pick up an object from the floor and put it on a table, 80 cm higher (but without the machine be 80 cm tall)
  • Pick up three objects and put them down in a different order
  • Hold a pen and draw some interesting shape on a piece of paper
  • Pick up a bin full of black 2L pins and empty it in another bin

Is this the direction of thought? What kind of "tasks" did other people have in mind?

Maybe, given the above list, the task shouldn't be predefined, but chooseable by each entrant. That would give an even greater variety of entries, and people can go really wild in their ideas. The competition would then be "think of any arbitrary little task, and build a machine that executes it". And then with the rule suggested above that it needs to do in one go, within one minute. And then give a list of ideas to set the general "scope", but without it being a hard limit. I think that could be really fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

I would hate to do a contest where the point is to have a mechanism with "pointless steps" (a.k.a. Rube Goldberg)

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

But what kinds of tasks are people thinking of?

  • Pick up an object from the floor and put it on a table, 80 cm higher (but without the machine be 80 cm tall)
  • Pick up three objects and put them down in a different order
  • Hold a pen and draw some interesting shape on a piece of paper
  • Pick up a bin full of black 2L pins and empty it in another bin

Sorry but this also sound pretty pointless to me unless somebody wants to try and cure cancer with it?
I think it is nice to make something beautiful out of something that is utterly pointless. But I'm a GBC builder, also pretty pointless.
May be a GBC contest with the most pointless idea would be nice.

 

 

Edited by Berthil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need is another contest which blends the opportunity for looks and functionality to be necessary in a good model. That's the reason the aircraft contest went so well: because the entries both looked good and had advanced mechanisms. Therefore, I don't think the Rube Goldberg idea is good. It leans too far toward the function side.

On the other hand, I really like the idea of size constraints, because there is no limit to the subject matter of the builds that come out. That's what makes the contests fun: the lack of limits for subject matter (aircraft is rather unlimited given the designs which exist) allows for creativity to govern the building process rather than the subject matter, and the few constraints provide a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a contest to build uncommon/unmade vehicles in Technic? Basically, anything is fair game, as long as it has NOT been done more than twice as a Technic set. (To make things easier, B models don't count.)

Thus, you could not have wheeled mobile cranes, but crawler cranes would be fair game.

So, under these rules, you could not make:

Wheeled cranes. (8+ sets)

Wheel loaders. (8+ sets)

Bulldozers. (4+ sets)

Tracked Excavators. (7+ Sets)

Supercars. (9+ sets)

No F1 cars. (13+ Sets)

and so on and so forth. But, there is plenty of equipment out there that has never been made in Technic, or only made once or twice. For instance:

  • Garbage trucks
  • Graders
  • Hook lift trucks
  • Logging trucks
  • Forestry equipment in general
  • Space shuttle
  • Tank
  • Armored Engineer Vehicle
  • Any Military vehicle, really.
  • Drag tractor
  • Submarine
  • Ship
  • Snow Groomer
  • Articulated dump trucks
  • Fire Trucks
  • Combines

And that's just off hand. I'm sure there is a lot more. Now, the rarity could be shifted either direction, either excluding vehicles that have had a Technic set entirely, or being more inclusive, like counting uncommon as 4 or less instead of 2. There should also probably be a rule about real world equivalents, as allowing "futuristic" designs would make this a little too easy. so, what do you guys think about this idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

or only made once or twice. For instance:

  • Garbage trucks
  • Graders
  • Hook lift trucks
  • Logging trucks
  • Forestry equipment in general
  • Space shuttle
  • Tank
  • Armored Engineer Vehicle
  • Any Military vehicle, really.
  • Drag tractor
  • Submarine
  • Ship
  • Snow Groomer
  • Articulated dump trucks
  • Fire Trucks
  • Combines

All good points, though there have been four A-model forest machines (8443, 8049, 42080 and 42094) and three fire trucks (8280, 8289 and 42068).

May I suggest Scrapers as well, since we haven't seen any of those outside of B-models, and only two at that.

Edited by Maaboo35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A self contained GBC loop on a 32 x 32 base plate using only one PF motor, with a height constraint of 16L with 3 or 4 stages.

Edited by Doug72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said:

[...] That's what makes the contests fun: the lack of limits for subject matter (aircraft is rather unlimited given the designs which exist) allows for creativity to govern the building process rather than the subject matter, and the few constraints provide a challenge.

I think this is a really good point. I'm not an aircraft guy but I still found some type of aircraft I found interesting to build. If the contest focuses on a single machine (say, the excavator) then people who don't care about excavators have little choice but wait for the next contest.

4 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

What about a contest to build uncommon/unmade vehicles in Technic? Basically, anything is fair game, as long as it has NOT been done more than twice as a Technic set. 

I really like this idea too. It fits right in the typical range of Technic builds (vehicles) but challenges people to build something most of us usually don't. Also, it shows the vast variety of vehicle types, which may inspire people with new build ideas to try out after the contest is over.

Also, I immediately get some ideas of things to build. Which is a good sign.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the rule "anything that has not been a set 3 or more times", because that may require people to browse through the history of Technic sets, or open a discussion about what category a certain vehicle is. What if someone thinks there has been only 2 fire trucks, and builds a fire truck, and then someone comes along saying that 8280, 8289, 8454 and 42068 are all fire trucks? Then you get a discussion about whether "airport firetruck" is a separate category or not. This is only 1 example but I'm sure such discussions will pop up sooner or later. So maybe just make an explicit list of excluded types, and leave all the rest open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

What about a contest to build uncommon/unmade vehicles in Technic?

I really like this, but it seems too open-ended. I think it needs something else to it, like size constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 9v system said:

i also agree that we should have a GBC contest

 

Definitely nothing that has vehicle wheels of any description !!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doug72 said:

Definitely nothing that has vehicle wheels of any description !!!!

Agree! Only GBC Balls description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said:

What we need is another contest which blends the opportunity for looks and functionality to be necessary in a good model. That's the reason the aircraft contest went so well: because the entries both looked good and had advanced mechanisms. Therefore, I don't think the Rube Goldberg idea is good. It leans too far toward the function side.

On the other hand, I really like the idea of size constraints, because there is no limit to the subject matter of the builds that come out. That's what makes the contests fun: the lack of limits for subject matter (aircraft is rather unlimited given the designs which exist) allows for creativity to govern the building process rather than the subject matter, and the few constraints provide a challenge.

I completely agree with your first point and the second point makes it even more of a challenge and makes it very accessible at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can also do a fun little contest, not full blown. Just a month or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.