davee123

That's an interesting idea-- perhaps some sort of enemy where the strength is equal to the number of dice that you have to roll when attacking it, and you take the worst of rolls? For the curious, that works out to: | Best of 2 | 1 die | Worst of 2 | Worst of 3 | Worst of 4 | Worst of 5 | -----+-----------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ Win | 75.0% | 50.0% | 25.0% | 12.5% | 6.3% | 3.1% | Tie | 13.9% | 16.7% | 19.4% | 17.1% | 13.5% | 10.1% | Lose | 11.1% | 33.3% | 55.6% | 70.4% | 80.3% | 86.8% | You could perhaps have it such that rather than "hit points", they have a number of dice that gets reduced by 1 each time you defeat them, or some sort of item or weapon that reduces the number of dice you have to roll in order to achieve victory. DaveE

Well, the bricks he used each time weren't necessarily the same bricks in the same orientation-- but yes, I'm sure the stress on the plastic was sufficient to start warping the bricks! If it weren't glued (it's one of the few parts of the Millyard that's actually glued), I expect if you took those pieces off they'd be BADLY bent. But mostly, it was just funny to periodically look over at his table when he was building it, and seeing a sudden spurt of 1x2 bricks go flying into the air as the model flew apart. It's hard to tell the tight diameter in this picture, but here's one that I found of the bent wall: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=949629 I don't know exactly what radius is, but I'm the one that took measurements on the buildings for the overhead map, and looking at my electronic notes (not my handwritten ones, which would have better info), it looks like 11-12 studs of radius. You can see in the picture where he interspersed some rows of 1x2 plates in with the 1x2 bricks (the old-brown horizontal stripes), but I don't remember why he ended up doing that. DaveE

The most extreme use of this technique I've ever seen was a radius of roughly 11 or 12 bricks, being done by one of the Master Builders on the Millyard Project. The wall kept literally EXPLODING from the strain, and he had to repeatedly start all over again. Not sure how many times he built it before it finally stayed together! DaveE

Actually... I guess we've played all 4 adventures TRULY concurrently. So, rather than playing them in linear order, we just let you jaunt off on your merry way to whichever mission you want. The 3 times we've played, we each try to beat Draida Bay, and then one of us goes off into the Waldurk, and the other into Nathuz-- and then it's a mad dash from our respective missions to get to the final reward in Fortaan. The only problem with it has been the Magic Doors, which all start in Waldurk, and in theory can be placed on any "dark" spot on the board (including non-Waldurk spaces). Hence the variant I proposed above, and also the obvious variant that the Magic Doors have to stay within the confines of Waldurk. DaveE

For the record, Matthew Verdier coined the acronym "AFOL" back in 1995, saying: DaveE

I think if they were rescue-able characters they'd be difficult to get by virtue of their position on the board. I envision them locked behind a door (so you need a key), and guarded by several guards, off on a separate area of the board. Hence, you can spend your time trying to rescue him, but that's time you're not spending trying to complete a mission. So it's only worth your time to go off on such an excursion if they're super-cool (IE, if you get them early in the game, they'll make up for the extra turns it took to get them). DaveE

After playing a few times, it seemed rather difficult to acquire, honestly. Playing the full 4-game expansion as the Thief (who should get more gold than anyone else), I got a whopping 5 gold for the entire game, which seemed pretty low. Gold was basically very hard to come by (and only got enough towards the end of the game), and there wasn't ever a reason to spend several valuable turns in order to take a side-quest to pick some up. So I figured I'd make the party members pretty powerful. But obviously, I haven't actually PLAYED with them, so maybe they are a bit much-- I have no idea. If so, you could always knock off 1 of the extra healths or make them cost 1 extra gold. DaveE

Some ideas I've toyed with: (A) Magic Doors/Squares. One issue we had with the Magic Doors is that playing two-player, we reached an impasse. We would each use our turn to remove the Magic Door blocking our path by opting to end our turn standing on the Magic Square-- but we would then move the Magic Door to block the other player from progressing. Since we were each trying to get to the same location, we just sat there trading the Magic Door back and forth. Solution: When you step on a Magic Square, you move a Magic Door as normal. However, you then move the Magic Square to the location that the Magic Door was moved FROM. (B) Points. We played a game and tied, with the same number of missions completed and the same amount of gold. Who won? Solution: Everything's worth points at the end of the game: - Each completed mission counts for 10 points - Each monster killed counts for the number of points equal to their power - Each remaining health point is worth 1 point - Each gold piece is worth 2 points - Each un-consumed item (keys, torches, potions) is worth 1 point - Each purchased weapon is worth 4 points © Parties. Similar to the previously suggested "hire-able" barbarians, you can acquire more party members by either hiring them (4 gold) or rescuing them (they start as an NPC somewhere on the board). New party members are kept on your Hero Pack (rather than moving around the board), and allow you to: - Use that party member's special power when a "Shield" is rolled - Receive 2 extra maximum health - Carry 1 extra key, and one extra torch (normally restricted to one per Hero) (D) Thief Ability. The Thief is kind of lame, considering that his special power is *equal* to the power of the dagger (each other Hero's ability is slightly better than the power of the corresponding weapon). A few options (probably just choose one to balance the game a bit better): - Thief takes 2 gold when defeating a monster - If standing next to a door at the start of his turn, the thief can attempt to pick the lock (roll shield or sword), or lose the turn if he fails - Thieves don't take damage from treasure chests (they simply disarm the trap) DaveE

I think I would consider that to be a quality issue, not a color change. IE, it's a problem, but the "target color" hasn't changed. LEGO is still attempting to achieve the same color they were always attempting to achieve, but they're getting sloppier at it (while saving money). So, I wouldn't call it a "color change", since that implies that the target color has shifted. I'd just say that it's a quality issue with color consistency. DaveE

That would be my guess as well-- LEGO never said that it wouldn't change (say) its molding technology without consulting fans, which might AFFECT the resulting colors (hopefully slightly). But I'm alarmed if it's considered to be intentional. Regarding "Material ID"-- is it actually a "Material ID", or is it a "Color ID"? When I was working on verifying the color chart with LEGO, one thing that stuck out in my mind was the fact that "Material" was distinct from "Color". As I recall, the "Color" of the Millennium Falcon's transparent blue tubing (used for the engines) had an identical "Color ID" to ... uh ... Darn, I'm forgetting. I want to say that it was the same as the transparent-tinted-blue windshields, but I forget if that's correct. Anyway, I remember the "Color" being distinct from the "Material" in their database, although I don't know much if anything about internal LEGO "Material ID"'s. Yeah, I certainly don't recall hearing anything about it from fans, apart from the normal discontentment regarding color consistency. I'll have to check what I have that I KNOW is from 2004-2006 (I have some things that I KNOW are from 2007 and later). DaveE

Was this an intentional or unintentional color change? As LEGO assured us in 2004, they would never intentionally change any of the "core" colors without "serious discussion [...] including adult hobbyists". DaveE

Old brown (which didn't start really coming in buildable elements very often until the early 1990's) was pretty consistent color-wise, unless you left it out in the sun, in which case it might sun-fade. The newer brown ("reddish brown", from 2004) I don't think has been a major offender in terms of color consistency that I can think of-- but generally colors since 2004 have had more color consistency issues than older parts (again, apart from sun-fading). I'm not sure what you mean if you don't mean "various shades listed". There is no such thing as "normal everyday brown", at least not since 2003. The "common" brown color was used starting in the 1970's, starting off mostly as minifig accessories like hair, brooms, pirate flintlocks, battle axes, etc. In the late 1980's, LEGO started producing a scant few bricks and plates in Brown, but they were few and far-between-- mostly, they were used as the 1x2 bricks/plates on the backs of horses. Sometime in the early 1990's (I recall 1993 specifically with Dragon Masters), Brown started appearing more commonly in bricks, and became increasingly common up through its discontinuation at the end of 2003. It's also now called "Old Brown" sometimes, and was referred to as "Earth Orange" (of all things) by LEGO. In 2004, LEGO decided to change the brown color. So they stopped producing "Brown", and made a brand new color, which henceforth has been referred to as "Reddish Brown" (or sometimes "New Brown" or "Blown"). After an uproarious outcry from the hobbyist community, LEGO vowed never to change "core" colors ever again, "Reddish Brown" included. In 2005 (and maybe 2004 and 2006?) SOME LEGO sets were sold containing BOTH "Old Brown" and "Reddish Brown", in an effort to use up leftover Old Brown parts. So, that's the story-- there are TWO colors which you might mean by "common brown". "Old Brown", on BrickLink, is called "Brown". "New Brown", on BrickLink, is called "Reddish Brown". If you get a color that does NOT match in your BrickLink order, that's most likely the seller's fault for not understanding the very complicated circumstances for the colors. It could also be that the bricks are sun-faded, but that's not as common in Brown elements. Otherwise, there's Dark Brown, Dark Orange, Dark Tan, Dark Flesh, etc, etc, which are all essentially a different shade of brown, depending on your definition. [edit] I see 11 different colors (9 have BrickLink names?) that LEGO acknowledged that could be considered "brown": #12 - Light Orange Brown (we call it "Earth Orange") #18 - Nougat (we call it "Flesh") #25 - Earth Orange ("Old Brown") #38 - Dark Orange ("Dark Orange") #128 - Dark Nougat (not sure what this is) #138 - Sand Yellow ("Dark Tan") #192 - Reddish Brown ("Reddish Brown") #216 - Rust (not 100% sure what this really is) #217 - Brown ("Dark Flesh") #308 - Dark Brown ("Dark Brown") #312 - Medium Nougat ("Medium Dark Flesh") [/edit] DaveE

I believe this is a result of the technique used to create them. They're not injection-molded in the same way that regular LEGO elements are-- they're pressed into forms, and flat baseplates are then cut into appropriately-sized rectangles. Because they're cut AFTER being formed, it makes them more difficult to have the edges bent down to make them plate-sized (like the raised baseplate in question). DaveE

BTW, the design group at LEGO is "LEGO Futura", not "Futuron"-- Futuron is the space subtheme from the late 1980's :) There are a lot of design jobs at LEGO, of course: - Set Designer - That means you're designing the actual construction of the sets that are going to be released. From my understanding, much of the time you're given specific tasks like "Design a farm vehicle based on these pictures". Some groups (like Creator) have a little more open-ended freedom to build whatever strikes your fancy. - Concept Designer - This is more like what LEGO Futura works on. They come up with concept ideas like "Hey, let's make a theme were there are UFO's trying to attack Earth!" or "Let's make a theme where a zany professor travels through time!" My wife worked for them, and has told me about a few things she did while there, which was very open-ended, but boiled down to "Do something for kids age 2-4 involving constructing music!" - Master Designer - These are the folks that design models for public expositions, store windows, and so forth. They build a lot of different one-off models (usually glued), and sometimes design for other specialty projects for the company. Sometimes it's sculpture, sometimes it's minifig-scale, sometimes microfig-scale, etc. - Master Builders - Supposedly these are the folks that build LOTS OF COPIES of what's been designed for them already. So the Master Designer might design a 4-foot SpongeBob model, and the army of Master Builders get to build 300 copies of them to get distributed in stores worldwide. However, there's also some crossover with the name that's attributed to people that work in the LEGOLAND theme parks. They get to repair and sometimes design models that get displayed at the parks. They also have to deal with the public a lot, talking to kids, judging contests, etc. There's also all sorts of other creative jobs like element design, general product design, web design, game design, printed media design (catalogs, boxes, magazines, instructions, etc), and tons more. Getting these jobs means basically impressing the folks at LEGO with what you can do. There's no one particular field that you ought to research, but in general you want to have experience doing design work in physical media. DaveE

Oddly enough, one technique that sometimes works is to re-apply and re-remove repeatedly, very quickly, maybe 10-30 times in rapid succession. Basically, the glue that's on the sticker tends to stick to the glue that's left on the brick moreso than the glue that's on the sticker RE-sticking to the brick. It can take 30 second to 2 minutes or so, but I've had good luck with it. At first it may not appear to be doing anything, but after a few dozen sticks-and-re-sticks, you can probably tell whether it's starting to work or not. DaveE

Yeah, as I believe, they decided to do that on the precedent of the NBA license. I would guess that the immediately upcoming Star Wars characters for 2003 were already in production and slated to be yellow, so 2004 was when we started seeing Star Wars following suit. As for why the "original" themes stayed yellow (and didn't switch to flesh tones), I'm not sure if we've ever gotten an in-depth answer, other than "we wanted to follow the precedent". I'm sure a lot of hobbyists would be outraged if they stopped making yellow-skinned minifigs altogether. DaveE

From my understanding, the thing that pushed the issue was the NBA license, not Lando specifically. The NBA license just didn't look "right" with tons of yellow-headed minifigures. And since the majority of the NBA personalities they chose to model in LEGO happened to have darker skin tones, it threatened the entire license if they didn't do it. In contrast, Star Wars mostly had white-skinned characters, with only a couple exceptions (offhand just Lando and Mace Windu?). So Lando and Mace were sort of a side thing, and the NBA license really forced them into making the decision. DaveE

Honestly, I took particular issue with you saying "let's not put on the rose-colored glasses just yet", which is precisely what's implied by the statement (IE that problems WERE as bad or WERE as frequent), in contrast to what you just said above. I believe we're perfectly justified in believing that color consistency was pretty freaking high quality up until 2004-- IE, those AREN'T rose-colored glasses. We're seeing the past just fine, thank-you-very-much. If you aren't aware of any more explicit examples than the ones I listed, and you weren't really into the hobby at the time, I don't think it's fair of you to characterize other hobbyists' viewpoints of that timeframe as "rose-colored glasses". For the record, the only color issues I remember being discussed from 1999-2003 (and in all the history I've read from 1993-1998 on ATL and RTL) were: - Color fastness (sun fading), which was not really held against LEGO, since care could be taken in order to avoid it. - Color anomalies in gray (I believe there were 2 instances) from back in the 1980's, which had been fixed in "present day" as it were. It was more like "wow, I found this not-quite-normal gray clip! what's the deal with that?" To my recollection, they ONLY appeared in one or two particular elements from one or two particular years of production, and did NOT affect any parts in current production. As I recall, that happened in 2006, not 2004, after Jorgen took over as CEO. But there have been scant few details regarding the process and switchover from LEGO. LEGO still claims in much of their public media that they use pre-colored granulate, even though they've admitted to fans that this was explicitly done in 2006 with the 2007 set assortment, and was at fault for some of the inconsistency seen in 2007. Are you suggesting that it was started in 2004? Precisely. It's expensive. LEGO changed the process to save money-- but now that they're rolling in dough, you don't see them talking about returning to their previous quality levels. It says something about the character of the company that's changed. As for whether or not it would "guarantee" solving the problem, I think it would be guaranteed to solve the problems that I'm most annoyed with. (That is, if all their facilities used the exact same style of pre-colored granulate, implying also that the Chinese-production facilities ALSO used the SAME plastic). But yes, I think other color discrepancies existed (like new-dark-gray, purple, and dark green) with the old molding technique, and obviously needed perfection in 2004/2005. I don't know the particulars of why those colors behaved strangely, but I suspect it's due to the particular dyes used those elements, and more testing was necessary to find something that worked better-- they (again, just guessing) just didn't keep at it because it cost too much money and possibly threatened their release schedule. Why wouldn't the experimental runs replicate mass production? If they're not good indicators, what would be the point of such tests? Are you suggesting that color inconsistencies didn't show up in initial tests, and that tests were made to sufficient parts to verify? As for the alternative, my vote would be for not using colors that aren't shown to work. What was wrong with the metallic silver used in, say, 8417, BTW? (I'm not sure of LEGO's ID for that color/material) That part I agree with you on-- the old colors looked muddy and ugly. If I could wave a magic wand and *poof*, turn all my old grays and old browns into new grays and new browns, I'd do it. (Actually, dark gray I'm 50/50 on-- the new one's too blue, the old one's too brown) Darn. You had me, and then you lost me at "time for a change". Again, as a hobbyist, I'm in it for the long term. I do NOT WANT COLORS TO CHANGE. I'll say it again: I want the colors that I bought 10 years ago to be the same colors that I buy 10 years in the future. I don't believe in "it's time for a change" when it comes to colors. I don't think anyone's said in this thread that the particular palettes used way-back-when were better than the current palette. There might be a few people out there that liked the limited palette from the 1980's because of its simplicity-- but by and large, I think people LIKE having a variety of colors like lime and tan and dark blue. But seeing those fringe colors appear only to disappear a short while later is what annoys me. DaveE

I believe the sentiment is that there isn't a need for additional colors, and that existing or out-of-production colors ought to suffice rather than new ones. I'm in more-or-less agreement if that's what was intended. To what previous imperfections are you referring? Prior to 2003, the only color discrepancies of which I'm aware was the switch to ABS plastic from CA, and a few batches of light gray for small elements like 1x1 plates with vertical clips. As an active member of the hobbyist community since 1999, I have to say that I never saw color discrepancies come into question from fans until (I believe) 2004. As I recall, the 2004 Harry Potter Knight Bus had color problems (and was bemoaned by fans), and people also found the new dark gray to be variable (in addition to hating the color change). Other issues were brought up in that time frame regarding element quality, but they were few and far between. The only ones I recall being: - Color fastness (mostly sun fading) - Tolerances (minor inconsistencies being of lower quality in more recent parts) - Plastic rigidity (newer elements being "squishier") If there were other complaints, I don't remember seeing them-- at least as far as element quality goes (there were others regarding juniorization, set design, customer service, packaging, and other things). Anyway, I believe it's within LEGO's power to produce high-quality color consistent parts. My guess is, however, that it's been deemed to expensive to do that, so LEGO has accepted lower quality in the color process. I agree that producing new colors isn't making anything worse, and it's not more expensive. But if what you say below is true, then it's not as laughable as you suggest. I wasn't aware that they were introduced to solve color inconsistency issues-- but if that's true, then I agree even moreso with the original complaint. IE, try to stop introducing "intermediary" colors that are sub-par only to get rid of them in a few years with a different solution. There it sounds like you're agreeing with the sentiment of the poster, which I fully agree with as well. Ultimately, from a hobbyist perspective, we're in it for the long haul. I want the elements I buy today to be of the same tried-and-true palette that was active 10 years ago, and will be active 10 years from now. I find the constant revision of the palette disconcerting, although thankfully its changes (apart from 2004) have been to lesser-used colors. DaveE

Or, at least they did in 2003-- that's when LEGO gave Peeron the color palette (JUST before they switched to the new colors, oddly enough). They also gave us the RGB and CMYK values that they use, again (assumably) for the 2003/2004 palette. Technically, the RGB/CMYK colors that LEGO uses aren't necessarily the color of the BRICKS, but rather the color that they print in various printed media to try and match the color-- possibly including instruction (I'm not sure). Also, remember that your printer's calibration could be different than what's used in LEGO. Plus, you're using an inkjet, which can vary depending on the ink levels in your print cartridge. You MIGHT get better results with a color laser printer (but those are expensive, of course). DaveE

Well, here's one possibility: Note, the light-gray bricks are 1x1 plates with horizontal clips, where they can clip on to a long bar behind the lettering. Also, a few positions are 1x1 technic bricks turned sideways with half-pins so they can attach to the 1x4 tiles in between letters. And obviously you wouldn't use all 1x1 plates, just combine into other plates/bricks where it makes sense. DaveE

They do when you use the headlight bricks back-side down! There are so many ways to do this that it's difficult to provide advice without knowing very very explicitly what you're doing. But there are a lot of workarounds using SNOT! DaveE

I've experienced every problem on the list at one point or another. But what's missing from the survey is how many LEGO products I've actually built or bought, or how many different sets I've actually built. - Problem due to instructions (steps wrong or not clear enough) That's likely the rarest problem. I've had it happen once or twice with Technic instructions, where I had to align a gear in a certain way and didn't realize it. Probably has only happened 1-5 times out of maybe 1300 builds. - Problem due to instructions (Not following them) This is also pretty rare, but sometimes I'll jump the gun and try to build something's mirror image, expecting it to be the next step, only to find out that it's not really right. Probably 1-10 times, again out of about 1300 builds. - Problem due to parts (faulty or missing from new) I've had that happen about 21 times out of roughly 2500 new sets purchased between 1981-present: 2 sets with deformed elements 1 set with a broken element 11 sets with missing element(s) 7 sets with swapped elements (correct element, incorrect printing) - Problem due to parts (broken during use) Pretty rare, but it's happened sometimes-- mostly due to misuse (like accidentally building Xmas lights into my model and melting a bunch of plates): - At least 12 pieces I've broken due to being flimsy (like a super-battle-droid leg that broke too easily when attaching to the body, or a faulty motor breaking unexpectedly) - Roughly 44 that I've broken thanks to misuse And that's out of maybe 600,000 elements. - Problem due to parts (not suitable for design, breaking due to weakness) This might be talking about the above, I'm not sure. I would say about 8 of the above 12 element breaks were due to element design being flimsy. The other 4 were unknown flaws, like a light bulb in a light element not working, or (as stated) a motor breaking for unknown reasons. - Problem due to design (Not designed / tested enough) Again, difficult to say. Some sets' features aren't well implemented, like the Indiana Jones Temple of Doom, where the cart doesn't slide down the rails very well. Also the Carousel, where axles would work themselves out of the holders after extended periods of running. This sort of thing doesn't happen very often, but I'd guess maybe 2-10 sets that I've had a problem with, out of about 1300. - Problem due to process (steps were in wrong order or parts hard to add due to design) This happened a lot with the Harry Potter sets, where they were floors on top of pillars, and the pillars would collapse when adding a roof to them. There have been some similar instances, but nothing terribly major. Maybe 10-20 sets out of 1300? DaveE

It's frustrating and awesome. At any given time there are maybe 50-70 different parts on the wall, and they're mostly things you don't care about. 2x4 blue plates, 1x4 yellow bricks, black staircases, etc. Really coveted parts are pretty rare on the wall-- they show up now and again, but not all that often. When we first got the PAB walls in our area (2003?), we thought they were a godsend. People filled up cups routinely and got hordes of brick. But as time went on, it became less of a thrill. Nowadays I'll only fill up a cup if there's something really awesome (which I haven't seen in a while, actually). For the record, I've gotten roughly 64 PAB cups (25 small and 39 large), and about 22,191 parts out of it. I tried packing things a few times, but honestly, I stopped because it wasn't worth the extra time to me. Depending on how serious you are about packing a cup, it can take as much as an hour for one cup! (that was pretty exceptionally long, admittedly). I also bought a box of 4,812 1x2 old gray bricks back in 2003, which they used to let you do for pretty cheap. Anyway, I wouldn't say it's the PRIMARY source of bricks in general. It's nice for certain things, and it's pretty cheap considering how many parts you can get out of it (my average is about $0.03 per piece). But when something really cool hits the PAB wall, THEN it's the primary source of THAT brick. Examples: - Flower stems - 4x3 foliage pieces - Dark Green 1x2 tiles - Lilly pads - Sand green 1x2's - Brown 1x4 tiles - Dark Brown 1/2 arches - White 1x2 jumper plates - White 1x4 fences When those have hit the wall, I've filled a couple cups with them and have never been left wanting those particular elements ever again. DaveE

1) Tolerances - I recall seeing some analysis that fans had done investigating tolerances of newer elements versus older elements, where newer elements weren't as accurate to the system as they should be. I've also noticed this in various elements when assembled. It's minor, but it's noticeable. 2) Color - inconsistency with color has been an issue in recent elements, since about 2004. 3) Chinese plastic - newer China-produced plastic is more translucent than normal ABS for LEGO, and seems to have a different sheen quality (not as shiny) 4) Color fastness - This I believe is actually improved in the current lineup, although I'm not really sure. I think older plastic has a tendency to yellow versus the newer plastic. 5) Element softness - Newer LEGO seems to "moosh" together moreso than older LEGO. Fans began commenting on this back in 2000 or so, and I noticed a difference between elements that I assembled in 1999 (the pieces were probably circa 1996-1998) compared to elements molded in 2004. The assumption is that LEGO has done this intentionally to allow younger kids to assemble pieces more easily, although that's just a guess. It's arguable as to which is better, but I personally prefer the more rigid ABS. I think of it as more of a "sweet spot", which I think was hit in the early 90's. I dunno if I'd categorize it quite as "negative" so much as "less positive" :) It's all debatable I guess :) I remember <insert that tiresome argument> parts back in the day (castle walls, car chassis's, boat hulls, base-sized windscreens, etc), but they didn't dominate the builds. I agree it was *MISERABLE* between 1997-2003 or so, and has gotten better. And of course there ARE sets today that are geared towards AFOLs that are NOT <insert that tiresome argument> very much at all, like the modular town buildings, Market Village, etc. But again, I felt like the sweet spot overall was the 80's. DaveE