TheMegazordman1 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 What would everyone think if Lego was to make a more dynamic hybrid between the two building systems of CCBS and Technic. Now I know they do kinda do this with some things having the pins and axles involved in the construction of say the gear box but I`m talking more along the lines of say the CCBS system with more pin and axle holes in the joints that way armor and parts from G1 Bionicle can work more fluidly with the new system. To me Lord of skull spiders waas a ste in this direction. Both systems have their up sides and down sides. The Technic way had some issues with certain joints breaking but to me they had more creative armor and piece molds, CCBS on the other hand has a strong way of building the skeleton and joints of the model nd has stronger joints but the armor plates and all are a lot less creative and just rather repetitive with some of them . But any way what are your thoughts ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrie Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Typically devolution is not a good design choice. 8 Quote bZpOwEr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishers64 Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I don't think it's devolution as much as a minor addition of a few pieces. We already have torsos with pin holes in them and limb points with pin joints and ball joints and limb joints with no ball joint on the middle. All we need is a limb joint with a pin joint in the middle and no ball in the middle. And a reason for it to exist. Compatibility with G1 parts is not a valid reason, because the company isn't motivated by that. In fact, they would probably want less compatibility because you have to buy more sets that way. 5 Quote Hero Factory RPG | Bionicle Mafia XXIX: Storyline & Theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Six Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Moving to Bionicle Discussion... 1 Quote Bio of a BZP Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bfahome Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 In this case, is "TECHNIC" referring to the 2001-2010 BIONICLE sets? Because as time went on BIONICLE branched further away from its TECHNIC roots and sort of became its own system. If anything, CCBS is bringing it back closer to standard TECHNIC by using minimalistic bone pieces with added decoration pieces. While CCBS is dominated by ball joints, it does not shy away from classic TECHNIC connections, and has even introduced new pieces that fill the gap better than any old BIONICLE pieces had. In fact, they would probably want less compatibility because you have to buy more sets that way.I don't think that reasoning applies to LEGO, because their products are already designed with mind-numbing levels of compatibility. If anything such a "bridge" part would be seen as an incentive to buy a set, because it would allow for more building possibilities. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klack Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 What if they introduced new rod holes/rods? Say, a square or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iruini Nuva Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I think this would be ideal. Recapture a little more of the old "mechanical" feel and add an extra hole or two for more flexibility (less restricted to character-oriented MOCs, etc.), but retain the robustness of CCBS. Realistically, I imagine that Lego's thought of this and is either carefully extending CCBS that direction, or has some good reason for not doing it. Quote Makuta: Consumed By Light • Rebrick Entry • Topic & Backstory • Blog ----------------- 2015 Sets: 18/18 + 3 • Polybags: 1/2 • SDCC x2, NYCC Clear MoF, Trans-MoF 2016 Sets: 17/17 + 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumiki Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I'd love to see more pin/axle holes in CCBS parts, if nothing else so that fusing CCBS styles and pieces into Technic, G1-style, or even System MOCs is facilitated. I know people have done some really creative things with the existing CCBS system, but the more connection points, the merrier. Quote avatar by Lady Kopaka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishers64 Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 In fact, they would probably want less compatibility because you have to buy more sets that way.I don't think that reasoning applies to LEGO, because their products are already designed with mind-numbing levels of compatibility. If anything such a "bridge" part would be seen as an incentive to buy a set, because it would allow for more building possibilities.I'm pinpointing that there are places where CCBS and standard Bionicle parts are not compatible. Let's say I got the Hero Pack from last March and had no new Bionicle sets to my name, but only old ones. I can't put the mask on any of the heads I have, so I would need to go get a new Bionicle set to use the new mask. Or let's say I have a CCBS shell in a certain color I want to use with a beam of a certain color and length. I have that in old Bionicle - but I can't use it. Instead I have to go buy a CCBS limb part or even a whole set. (Cue the invention of Bricklink. But SOMEBODY had to buy those parts from Lego, so you're not really beating the system.) So part compatibility with G1 alone would not be enough to merit a bridge part, since it only expands building opportunities (in that case) for those with G1 parts, which most of Lego's target audience does not have. I'm not going to rule out the production of that part for some other reason, but I'm currently at a loss as to what reason that would be. Realistically, I imagine that Lego's thought of this and is either carefully extending CCBS that direction, or has some good reason for not doing it.I honestly think that they are doing both. The Bionicle gearboxes and functions indicate that it's headed that way, but why they haven't gone all in is likely to reduce complexity for the kids. Quote Hero Factory RPG | Bionicle Mafia XXIX: Storyline & Theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iruini Nuva Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 In fact, they would probably want less compatibility because you have to buy more sets that way.I don't think that reasoning applies to LEGO, because their products are already designed with mind-numbing levels of compatibility. If anything such a "bridge" part would be seen as an incentive to buy a set, because it would allow for more building possibilities.I'm pinpointing that there are places where CCBS and standard Bionicle parts are not compatible. Let's say I got the Hero Pack from last March and had no new Bionicle sets to my name, but only old ones. I can't put the mask on any of the heads I have, so I would need to go get a new Bionicle set to use the new mask. Or let's say I have a CCBS shell in a certain color I want to use with a beam of a certain color and length. I have that in old Bionicle - but I can't use it. Instead I have to go buy a CCBS limb part or even a whole set. (Cue the invention of Bricklink. But SOMEBODY had to buy those parts from Lego, so you're not really beating the system.) So part compatibility with G1 alone would not be enough to merit a bridge part, since it only expands building opportunities (in that case) for those with G1 parts, which most of Lego's target audience does not have. What do you think of a bridge part that combines the standard armor mounting socket with something like a 3x1 liftarm? I can think of a quite a few ways to mount things to a setup like that. Quote Makuta: Consumed By Light • Rebrick Entry • Topic & Backstory • Blog ----------------- 2015 Sets: 18/18 + 3 • Polybags: 1/2 • SDCC x2, NYCC Clear MoF, Trans-MoF 2016 Sets: 17/17 + 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishers64 Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 What do you think of a bridge part that combines the standard armor mounting socket with something like a 3x1 liftarm? I can think of a quite a few ways to mount things to a setup like that.Yeah, that's Norik's neck. Ironically, you can already attach two ball joints to the ends of that part, although then you lose the axle holes at each end. The thing is, though, is that Lego would probably do that in their set instead of releasing a new part. Cheaper. Quote Hero Factory RPG | Bionicle Mafia XXIX: Storyline & Theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iruini Nuva Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 What do you think of a bridge part that combines the standard armor mounting socket with something like a 3x1 liftarm? I can think of a quite a few ways to mount things to a setup like that.Yeah, that's Norik's neck. Ironically, you can already attach two ball joints to the ends of that part, although then you lose the axle holes at each end. The thing is, though, is that Lego would probably do that in their set instead of releasing a new part. Cheaper. I was moreso imagining that socket on the bottom of CCBS armor being fused where the round hole is on these plates. Makes a flat surface over a CCBS bone for attachments. Quote Makuta: Consumed By Light • Rebrick Entry • Topic & Backstory • Blog ----------------- 2015 Sets: 18/18 + 3 • Polybags: 1/2 • SDCC x2, NYCC Clear MoF, Trans-MoF 2016 Sets: 17/17 + 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishers64 Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 What do you think of a bridge part that combines the standard armor mounting socket with something like a 3x1 liftarm? I can think of a quite a few ways to mount things to a setup like that.Yeah, that's Norik's neck. Ironically, you can already attach two ball joints to the ends of that part, although then you lose the axle holes at each end. The thing is, though, is that Lego would probably do that in their set instead of releasing a new part. Cheaper.I was moreso imagining that socket on the bottom of CCBS armor being fused where the round hole is on these plates. Makes a flat surface over a CCBS bone for attachments.Hmm. Wouldn't that be sort of big and chunky? Quote Hero Factory RPG | Bionicle Mafia XXIX: Storyline & Theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bfahome Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 In fact, they would probably want less compatibility because you have to buy more sets that way.I don't think that reasoning applies to LEGO, because their products are already designed with mind-numbing levels of compatibility. If anything such a "bridge" part would be seen as an incentive to buy a set, because it would allow for more building possibilities.I'm pinpointing that there are places where CCBS and standard Bionicle parts are not compatible. Let's say I got the Hero Pack from last March and had no new Bionicle sets to my name, but only old ones. I can't put the mask on any of the heads I have, so I would need to go get a new Bionicle set to use the new mask.Well, yeah. Not all pieces are going to be able to connect directly to each other. A classic 2x4 brick and a lightsaber blade, for example, have no "legal" connections that I can think of. Even two TECHNIC beams, of the same size, shape, and color, have no way of connecting without a pin or other piece to join them. If the goal were to make it so every piece can connect to every other piece, LEGO would never have branched out past brick-based SYSTEM sets. Even then, the 2015 masks are designed such that you can attach them to any two module thick TECHNIC hole, which is how the Mask of Creation and "Villain Pack" mask stands work. You could attach the mask to a single socket "hand" piece to use it, since those were plentiful in G1. I've had fun with this myself, sticking Skull Spider masks all over Bohrok on their elbows, knees, and the gray trigger piece on their back. Or let's say I have a CCBS shell in a certain color I want to use with a beam of a certain color and length. I have that in old Bionicle - but I can't use it. Instead I have to go buy a CCBS limb part or even a whole set. That's not so much "LEGO won't make that piece" as it is "I don't have that piece", which isn't LEGO holding out to make you buy more, it's just the reality of trying to build stuff. There are already pieces that help the integration of the two generations (see next point). So part compatibility with G1 alone would not be enough to merit a bridge part, since it only expands building opportunities (in that case) for those with G1 parts, which most of Lego's target audience does not have. Compatibility with G1 doesn't exist in a vacuum, though; G1 used the same hole/pin/axle system that TECHNIC uses, albeit with more ball joints. CCBS is just an extension of that, where the ball joints are used in places where pins and holes were before. And there are already pieces that allow both to be used together, from this piece and its ancestors to this newer piece that was introduced with CCBS to help attach shell pieces to TECHNIC beams. Compatibility with TECHNIC means at least some compatibility with G1 BIONICLE. I doubt there will be adapter pieces for, say, attaching 2001 masks to 2015 heads, because there's no real reason for such a part to exist; it would only really serve one outdated purpose. But I don't think it's accurate at all to say that LEGO is designing out compatibility to make people buy more, because they're still working within the same rule set as they've had for years, and they've already designed pieces that bridge several gaps in the system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSciFiGuy Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Well, I just wish there were a bit more points of access per piece for the CCBS Quote Bionicle: ANP aims to create narrated versions of all the Bionicle books, with voice actors for each character, and music taken from various media to enhance the story. Check here if you're interested in voicing a character, and here for the chapters that've already been released!Formerly: Tahu Nuva 3.0Looking for a Bionicle Beanie. Black one with the symbol on it. Contact me if you are willing to sell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_jaga_genius Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Even if Lego wouldn't make an official part like this, I bet a third party (or knockoff company) could make money making them. Maybe 3D printing would be useful for such a part. Quote Avatar by Nicholas Anderson (NickonAquaMagna)My blog: The Jaga's Nest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meowmachine Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I think that some of the larger shell pieces could have a technic pinhole. Quote What do I write here? Someone, say something funny so you can be remembered for posterity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyichir Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) What if they introduced new rod holes/rods? Say, a square or something?Of all the suggestions in this topic, this one confuses me the most. What function would a connection like that serve that isn't already served by existing connections? As it currently stands, circular axle holes allow for rotation while cross axle holes can hold a part in a single position. A square axle would basically serve the same purpose as cross axles, making it redundant at best and even less versatile than its existing counterpart at worst. Edited August 19, 2015 by Lyichir 3 Quote Formerly Lyichir: Rachira of Influence Aanchir's and Meiko's brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan McOwen Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) What if they introduced new rod holes/rods? Say, a square or something? Why would... What? You've got the round connection - pin, peg, whatever you want to call it. It's very sturdy, and if needed allows for things to pivot. Then you've got the axle connection, which is not quite as sturdy as the pin connection, but permanently holds its position and is available in a wide variety of lengths. So why on Earth would one need another Technic connection? You've got a connection which can move, and a connection which can't. There's literally no need for another. Edited August 20, 2015 by Logan McOwen 8 Quote I inadvertently predicted Vorox armour's use in G2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSurge9411 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Are you insane? Hybrids are an awful idea, I thought Jurassic World taught us all that! Oh, wait, wrong kinda hybrid. In all seriousness, I don't think it'd work out all that well. Although I do hope to see new CCBS parts in the future. 1 Quote [flash=250,100]http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/sprxtrerme/BANNERS/thornax.swf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slifer3000 Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I sorta consider G2 Bonkle sets to be hybrids since they incorporate the gear function typical of technic builds but also have armor attached via ccbs Quote Knock Knock Who's there Hoff Hoff who Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryceDuyvewaardt Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Aside from adding holes to the bone pieces (perhaps even through the sphered ends to fit rods through, though it would likely cost a contact surface when attaching sockets that line up over the holes to create small-scale gaps), I would suggest adding more to the plating pieces. Not only would there be appeal to add flat plating with sockets below to create complex machines/architecture, but I would be really intrigued to see plating that featured STUDS ON TOP OR BELOW to encourage attaching bricks, horns, windows, etc. and really promote as much building freedom as possible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hordika Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 It's just me, but I would love it if Technic and Bionicle got back together. I liked that about the first few years of Generation 1. The sets worked with Technic and branched off from the original Technic design. That doesn't mean I'm saying that every new set has to be all Technic, but like what one of y'all was saying, it would be an incentive to buy the set. I like the newer sets, but it is hard to MOC with the base set's pieces. That is CCBS's downfall. Adding some Technic into that would really make it easier to enjoy the sets. Quote I'm currently in the process of rewriting G2. PM me if interested.Feel free to follow the blog! (https://spiritofokoto.tumblr.com/) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterchirox580 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think technic and CCBS are already being used together. We can see an increased use this year. And I can't talk about 2016 but let's just day I have a good feeling that there will be more technic. 1 Quote It's time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopekemaster Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'm assuming you're meaning having sets sort of like Vezon and Fenrakk in G2. Personally, I'd love that. I really liked those kinds of sets in G1, for their complexity and even just the amount of time it would take to build them. I think this would most likely happen in the form of "Titans" (like Axxon and Brutaka). Quote My Writing Blog (more writing coming soon!) My Bionicle/LEGO Blog (defunct) Hyfudiar on Spotify (noise/drone/experimental music) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.