CCBS: A Few Questions

[Trijhak]

I was thinking about CCBS - wondering what you thought about parts of it specifically. Mostly open-ended I believe, so no poll for this.

 

1. Why do you like/dislike CCBS?
2. If you like CCBS, what's your favourite CCBS piece?
3. What CCBS piece would you like to see?
4. How well do you feel CCBS has been used for impulse (small) sets? (e.g. Protectors, heroes in the first year of CCBS)
5. How well do you feel CCBS has been used for medium (smaller end) sets? (e.g. Lewa, Gali. Pohatu, HF Fire Villains)
6. How well do you feel CCBS has been used for medium (larger end) sets? (e.g. Tahu, Kopaka, Onua, Stormer XL, Furno XL, Splitter Beast - like the smaller end, but generally incorporates a bit more technic and pieces, but not as much as large sets.)
7. How well do you feel CCBS has been used for large sets? (e.g. Witch Doctor, Black Phantom, Dragon Bolt, Evo XL)
8. Do you feel CCBS is right for Generation Two of BIONICLE? If not, please explain.
9. What is your opinion on the return of the gear function? Does it work? Should CCBS now aim to include it in as many sets as possible where appropriate? 
10. What's your favourite CCBS foot piece? (Hero feet, small beast feet, large beast feet, XL feet, that's all four of them I think)
11. What's your favourite CCBS weapon piece?
12. Would you like to see CCBS be the 'main' system for constraction figures, like system is non-constraction LEGO?
13. How does CCBS compare to the G1 BIONICLE's system in your opinion?
14. How do you feel about the sometimes exposed balljoints CCBS leaves behind?
15. How would you improve CCBS?

[Zidonaro]

1 - I like it because it simplifies constructions and is extremely durable. Doesn't mean it's perfect tho.

2 - HF torso armor that first came in the small 2.0 heroes

3 - Some new shells that have more detail

4 - I don't think CCBS works quite well with small sets

5 - Very good

6 - Same as above

7 - CCBS titans are the best CCBS sets for me.

8 - Yeah, but I honestly expected more technics elements in the shells.

9 - I still don't have any G2 set, but I think gears are great and I would love seeing them in every bionicle set.

10 - Hero feet

11 - Tahu's lava board

12 - No

13 - The two are great, but aesthetically I prefer G1 system

14 - If they are well hidden like the Toa sets, I don't mind

15 - Would make new shells molds with technic elements, more colors.

[dotcom]

1. I like CCBS because it's a very versatile, flexible system, and it can be used very easily in MoCs.

2. Tough. Probably that one piece Waspix used for its extra arms. That one is great.

3. Funny you should ask. Other than that, though, I think it's high time we got some more torso components rather than full torsos. The current gearbox build, for instance, suffers from still having the arm bones stuck on unnecessarily. A piece (like the metru hips) that only consists of the lower torso would make for a better gearbox, I think.

4. Decently, I suppose. Best year of CCBS in small sets so far is probably 2012, though. Most others are a bit too standardized, humanoid builds.

5. Generally well. With the higher price point you get more options, and this generally results in more solid, cohesive builds. Generally saturated with humanoids, unfortunately.

6. More or less the same. I am a bit disappointed with how little variety is generally seen in this general pricepoint. They're not too often that dissimilar from the cheaper options as far as build is concerned.

7. Pretty well, I'd say. The larger sets do tend to have more interesting applications of the system.

8. Yes.

9. It's great, and works well. It doesn't detract from the sets at all, so I think if they want to include it in more I take no issue with that. 

10. I like the aesthetics of the small beast feet the most, but the hero and large beast feet are more functional and stable. Not really a fan of the stormer xl feet at all.

11. I like the shields Breakout Breez and Rocka had, if those count.

12. It already is, and I'm fine with it.

13. It's generally better.

14. Depends a lot on the specifics of the build.

15. More shell pieces, studded shells, and torso components rather than one-piece torsos. Also, more colors would be nice.

[fishers64]

1. Why do you like/dislike CCBS? I like CCBS because of its potential for large models.

If you like CCBS, what's your favourite CCBS piece? The 5M double-socket.

What CCBS piece would you like to see? Hmm, tricky. I'd like to see a split torso where I could place a pin in one half and snap it into the other half. I would then have excuse to connect the bottom halves of said torso together to make an even I-beam. Gloriousness.

How well do you feel CCBS has been used for impulse (small) sets? (e.g. Protectors, heroes in the first year of CCBS)  I'm not going to complain. The Protector of Jungle is definitely more posable than old Norik. That's a plus. 

How well do you feel CCBS has been used for medium (smaller end) sets? (e.g. Lewa, Gali. Pohatu, HF Fire Villains) I heart these a lot, save Lewa, so I have incredible bias. This doesn't really fascinate me though.

How well do you feel CCBS has been used for medium (larger end) sets? (e.g. Tahu, Kopaka, Onua, Stormer XL, Furno XL, Splitter Beast - like the smaller end, but generally incorporates a bit more technic and pieces, but not as much as large sets.) In general, I think you need Technic for these big sets. The CCBS elements are fine in the places that they are incorporated, but it's generally agreed that they aren't up to the task on their own. 

How well do you feel CCBS has been used for large sets? (e.g. Witch Doctor, Black Phantom, Dragon Bolt, Evo XL) It's been okay. But in my opinion, they really could do better in this area in using more actually CCBS connections and a biit less technic. If you have a set that size, there's space for more balljoints. 

Do you feel CCBS is right for Generation Two of BIONICLE? If not, please explain. I don't see why not. Especially how they've incorporated with the gearboxes and armor detailing bits. 

What is your opinion on the return of the gear function? Does it work? Should CCBS now aim to include it in as many sets as possible where appropriate? I've had a few hiccups with loose friction pins, balljoints coming loose from the box, and some posability issues, but I still like the gear function. For the most part, it works well.

What's your favourite CCBS foot piece? (Hero feet, small beast feet, large beast feet, XL feet, that's all four of them I think) Hero feet

What's your favourite CCBS weapon piece? I'd have to say Gali Trident/Lewa Axe piece. Rangatus runner-up.

Would you like to see CCBS be the 'main' system for constraction figures, like system is non-constraction LEGO? It isn't?

How does CCBS compare to the G1 BIONICLE's system in your opinion? Leaves it in the dust. 

How do you feel about the sometimes exposed balljoints CCBS leaves behind? I don't care much. If there was like five of them in a row though, I'd try to cover them up. 

How would you improve CCBS? Go bigger. Sell bigger sets. Make it so the balljoint part of the build is just as exciting as the Technic part of it. 

Edited January 27, 2015 by fishers64

[Aanchir]

Why do you like/dislike CCBS?

Simply put, it has revolutionized my own building and brought constraction building more in line with the level of "system" I expect from a LEGO building experience.

 

If you like CCBS, what's your favourite CCBS piece?

I'm not good at picking favorites, but I'm very fond of this one, which packs a lot of connection points into a tight space. I've used it in MOCs in various ways.

 

What CCBS piece would you like to see?

Since I generally get my inspiration from the parts I have on hand, I generally don't find myself needing any kind of part that doesn't currently exist. One thing that would be great, though, would be a shell that is symmetrical when attached to a figure's crotch that could serve as a codpiece. There are a lot of excellent ways to create custom armor for the upper half of a torso beam that leave the lower half rather exposed, and a piece like that would be a solution for that (and like any other shell, could be used for other parts of a model as well).

 

• How well do you feel CCBS has been used for impulse (small) sets? (e.g. Protectors, heroes in the first year of CCBS)
• How well do you feel CCBS has been used for medium (smaller end) sets? (e.g. Lewa, Gali. Pohatu, HF Fire Villains)
• How well do you feel CCBS has been used for medium (larger end) sets? (e.g. Tahu, Kopaka, Onua, Stormer XL, Furno XL, Splitter Beast - like the smaller end, but generally incorporates a bit more technic and pieces, but not as much as large sets.)
• How well do you feel CCBS has been used for large sets? (e.g. Witch Doctor, Black Phantom, Dragon Bolt, Evo XL)

Some of my favorite uses of CCBS have been small sets. The $9 sets from the Hero Factory "Breakout" series were amazingly diverse and creative, especially the villains.

 

Of course, sets at the higher ($15 and $20) price points can sometimes be more well-rounded, with more substantial armor and equipment. Sometimes they have been more generic than the smaller figures, while other times they have been more diverse.

 

It's interesting that you separated sets like Black Phantom and Dragon Bolt from sets like Furno XL and Splitter Beast, despite them having the same price point (and Stormer XL having a HIGHER price point than any of those). But I get why you did. These sets have been a bit of a mixed bag. As larger sets, they have higher expectations to measure up to, and it's easy for them to feel like they're being stretched a bit thin. The higher price point means more armor can be added, but the larger frame can make gaps or cavities in that armor more apparent. These sets do have a tendency to make great parts packs!

 

I feel like Kopaka, Onua, Dragon Bolt, Evo XL Machine, Queen Beast, and Surge & Rocka Combat Machine all had great designs. Black Phantom was not a bad design either, though it felt a bit repetitive because it took so many cues from Fire Lord and Rocka XL. I'm not sure what to think about Splitter Beast — I don't have that set. I do miss having figures the size of Witch Doctor for variety's sake.

 

Do you feel CCBS is right for Generation Two of BIONICLE? If not, please explain.

Absolutely.

 

What is your opinion on the return of the gear function? Does it work? Should CCBS now aim to include it in as many sets as possible where appropriate?

The gear functions work marvelously and add a lot of play value to the new BIONICLE sets. I want to see them continue to be used for future sets. But at the same time, I also would like to see variety in future sets' functions, like the more unconventional function used for Lord of Skull Spiders. Swinging arms are well and good but they shouldn't be the limit of BIONICLE sets' play value.

 

What's your favourite CCBS foot piece? (Hero feet, small beast feet, large beast feet, XL feet, that's all four of them I think)

Hard to pick a favorite. Different feet are good for different kinds of models. I'm not terribly fond of the feet used for sets like Stormer XL and Evo XL Machine, though. I tend to prefer the basic hero foot on most Toa-sized models, and the small beast foot on most smaller models.

 

What's your favourite CCBS weapon piece?

Really, it's hard to single out weapons as being "CCBS" or "not CCBS", since the building system has had a negligible impact on weapon design in the grand scheme of things. I do really like this piece for its aesthetic simplicity, even though its connection points are limited. It doesn't have any detail that is specialized to suit one particular theme, and it comes in lots of great colors.

 

Would you like to see CCBS be the 'main' system for constraction figures, like system is non-constraction LEGO?

Yes.

 

How does CCBS compare to the G1 BIONICLE's system in your opinion?

It's genuinely more systematic than G1 BIONICLE ever was, which I think works to its benefit. Aesthetically, I much prefer the smoother style as it means intricate textures and details can be used to draw emphasis to certain parts of a model, rather than just being an inherent aspect of every single piece.

 

CCBS also makes building stylistically consistent models a lot easier, which is great because stylistic consistency has been very important to me since G1. The disparity of textures in G1 BIONICLE was a huge obstacle in my G1 BIONICLE MOCs and drawings (how do you make a MOC where texture of the shells from Kalmah doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, or a MOC where the arms and legs have matching textures but non-matching lengths?). Now, most parts have inherent stylistic consistency.

 

How do you feel about the sometimes exposed balljoints CCBS leaves behind?

An exposed ball joint, to me, is usually no more obtrusive than any other exposed connection point. Nowadays I am actually more bothered by a model leaving exposed Technic pin holes. I will gladly use a 5M beam with no shell on it, but I strive never to leave a 6M or 7M beam unarmored. The central ball joint of a 5M beam can resemble a bulging muscle or even an implied hinge, but a Technic pin hole that lets me see right through from one side of a model to the other feels ugly to me on anything but an overtly mechanical creation.

 

An exposed ball joint is of course slightly more bothersome if it sticks off of the model considerably. But with the new BIONICLE sets, I am extremely surprised by the way some people complain about exposed ball joints, because they actually help fill the space between the torso shell and gearbox.

 

How would you improve CCBS?

Push its boundaries. Release sets that showcase new ways of using the parts that exist. Ensure that new parts complement the ones that already exist. A lot of people seem to think what CCBS needs is more parts, and I agree that if it gets more parts I'm sure they will create new possibilities. But honestly, the sets that tend to impress me the most are ones that use existing parts in amazing new ways. These sets don't just give me more tools — they teach me new ways to use the tools I already have. And that often has a far more profound impact on my building and the system's usefulness to me than any new part would.

[Bfahome]

Why do you like/dislike CCBS?
I like it because It's basically the entire BIONICLE loop coming right back around to the TECHNIC end of the spectrum again.  BIONICLE started as specialized TECHNIC, but gradually lost the TECHNIC and became more specialized.  CCBS is basically ball-joint-based TECHNIC.

If you like CCBS, what's your favourite CCBS piece?
The smaller or more structural pieces such as the 3m TECHNIC beam with the ball in the center, or the small 3m bone piece.

What CCBS piece would you like to see?
Some more small pieces.  Pieces that join a ball or socket with TECHNIC connectors to further integrate the systems.

How well do you feel CCBS has been used for impulse (small) sets? (e.g. Protectors, heroes in the first year of CCBS)
The Protectors do a better job of being impulse sets than the 2.0 heroes, thanks to the smaller torso piece.  They're pretty good sets that use the smaller bone and shell pieces well.
 
How well do you feel CCBS has been used for medium (smaller end) sets? (e.g. Lewa, Gali. Pohatu, HF Fire Villains)
Pretty well.

How well do you feel CCBS has been used for medium (larger end) sets? (e.g. Tahu, Kopaka, Onua, Stormer XL, Furno XL, Splitter Beast - like the smaller end, but generally incorporates a bit more technic and pieces, but not as much as large sets.)
Also pretty well.

How well do you feel CCBS has been used for large sets? (e.g. Witch Doctor, Black Phantom, Dragon Bolt, Evo XL)
I like the way Witch Doctor used a mix of CCBS and TECHNIC.

Do you feel CCBS is right for Generation Two of BIONICLE? If not, please explain.
Oh yes, definitely.  It keeps the adaptability of the Hero Factory and provides further possibilities for expansion.

What is your opinion on the return of the gear function? Does it work? Should CCBS now aim to include it in as many sets as possible where appropriate?
 I like the way it's done and I greatly look forward to seeing how functions could or will be integrated into future sets.

What's your favourite CCBS foot piece? (Hero feet, small beast feet, large beast feet, XL feet, that's all four of them I think)
Probably the small beast feet.

What's your favourite CCBS weapon piece?
I still quite like the blade/saw combo thing that came with Nex and Breez 2.0.

Would you like to see CCBS be the 'main' system for constraction figures, like system is non-constraction LEGO?
Yes I would.  Good thing it is now.

How does CCBS compare to the G1 BIONICLE's system in your opinion?
It seems like it's more adaptable, which should lend itself to more compatibility between the years and waves.

How do you feel about the sometimes exposed balljoints CCBS leaves behind?
I'm mostly okay with exposed ball joints.  Exposed socket joints, not so much.

How would you improve CCBS?

Further TECHNIC integration.

[believe victims]

1. I've warmed up to it because it's a pretty useful building system, though I do still find it held back by numerous unfortunate issues.

Probably the oOo piece.

Split torso pieces so we can end the plague of monopiece torsos. I'd also like more variety in feet.

I'd rate the small sets a non-commital hand gesture. The protectors are decent, but there's only one I have no strong criticism of (the Protector of Earth)

They've historically had a trend towards genericness (which imo Pohatu and Gali don't do much to help) but they also tend to at least be solid builds.

You've lumped Stormer XL in here so I feel a need to say I hate Stormer XL. Well, and Furno XL. In fact, I don't think there was a single XL I was a fan of. The Toa at this size are nice, though.

Dragon Bolt was, in my opinion, one of the single worse Hero Factory sets ever produced. Witch Doctor was bold and brash, but also belonged in the trash (for some mind-boggling reason his hips were asymmetrical in a non-aesthetic way). Overall, this size of set has the highest chance of completely disappointing me, and it's probably one of the biggest things that sours me to the idea of CCBS ever being used well in a large set.

Yeah, it works just fine.

The gear system works for Bionicle. It was clearly introduced because gear systems are a big part of what people remember about Bionicle. Because of the emphasis I'm making on Bionicle, hopefully you can realize I'm about to say it really doesn't need to be used on everything else. Not every action figure needs karate chop action, and it would honestly be detrimental to the system to limit it like that.

I like the beast feet. I really think there needs to be more foot piece variety, especially in the way of making humanoid feet with a different look than the HF 2.0 feet. The thing with feet is a generic foot isn't always what suits the model you want, so having a healthy variety is good for MOCing.

I kind of like the Chima axe head pieces? They had a neat decorative weapon look to them.

Well, that's kind of what it was made to be.

It's an improvement insofar as cohesiveness and in some ways versatility. It doesn't feel as technic-integrated as the old system to me, though, or at least the old system before probably 2008.

It tends to bother me if it's something like on the Toa, where complete balljoints just stick out. It's less annoying on limb pieces, since it actually flows with the piece, while an uncovered torso-type balljoint just sticks out.

End the reign of monopiece torsos. Bring about a new era of torso versatility.

[The 1st Shadow]

1. Well, it's got it's perks and tons of MOCing potential, but I dislike the blandness of the shells and the uniformity/lack of variety in the bones.

2. Tough to say. It really depends on what they're being used for.

3. Anything that improves the system. New shell designs, some more unique bones, etc.

4. I feel it works really well for small sets. The smaller bone pieces can allow for limbs the size of the Mata limbs, but with all the mobility of the later sets.

5. Again, it works pretty well, but here's where it starts to get a little limited in certain ways. Depends on the set design.

6. Eh, not really. I feel that larger figures aren't as adaptable when it comes to CCBS. For Witch Doctor, it worked extremely well. For a set like Tahu or Furno XL, it really is a bit of a let-down. I feel that Tahu is really only redeemed bu the Tewchnic construct on his back.

7. See above.

8. I think it works for now, but it could use some improvement, seeing as it has been using the exact same parts selection since its intro, with only a few specialty parts here and there.

9. Now, this is good! I love that they tried to make the gears work. But in the end, it was good in theory, bad in execution. They really could do better.

10. Tough to say. I don't have the larger beast feet to make a proper decision, but I think I prefer the XL feet. Then again, it really does depend on how they're being applied.

11. The Brain Attack sword.

12. Sure, but as I said before, it could use some improvement.

13. They both have their perks, but I think that in terms of design and usage, G1 trumps CCBS.

14. Remember how I said it could use some improvement?

15. Better shells, wider variety of bones, new torsos that actually implement the gears into them rather than attaching to the backs... Basically, give the entire thing a revamp.

 

So, while I appreciate the addition of something new and different, it's become redundant to the point where its downright annoying. In MOCs, I rarely build anything using exclusively CCBS. If I ever do use it, it's to fill in spots that the old system couldn't work for.

Edited January 27, 2015 by ~T1S~