CCBS or Technic?

[Owlexander]

Now this is an argument that is going to most likely go down in Lego history... which do you prefer; CCBS or Technic? I honestly love CCBS in combination with Technic because of how smooth CCBS is and how there's so much more customization with it as well as being able to be used in combination with Technic. What're your opinions?

 

(Please nothing harsh or bashing, this is only my opinion and my opinion alone, I'm just wondering what the community thinks)

Edited January 5, 2015 by Forgeta

[Aanchir]

I picked the third option. Really, CCBS was never meant to completely exclude Technic-based building, and since its introduction there has been at least one Technic-intensive Hero Factory set every year (Witch Doctor, Speeda Demon, Jet Rocka, Evo XL Machine). BIONICLE is continuing that with Lord of Skull Spiders and possibly even other sets later in the year.

 

When you get right down to it, even CCBS itself falls under the Technic umbrella, since the 10.2mm ball joint originated as a Technic connection style, and all of the larger CCBS beams have Technic connection points. Technic is not what separates older BIONICLE and Hero Factory sets from later CCBS-based sets, and the new BIONICLE sets demonstrate that more than ever before. Some of the new BIONICLE sets are more technically intricate than even many classic BIONICLE sets. The new Gali set has more basic Technic parts than any previous version of the character!

[Voxumo]

Personally I'm more of a fan of the original bionicle building style, so i voted for 2, though I also can appreciate the CCBS to a point. The reason I dislike, bordering on plain hate, the CCBS is because of the freakin simplicity. I like being challenged when I build something, especially when it comes to titans. I didn't buy many hero factory titans, only Witch Doctor and Black Phantom, but Witch doctor I felt had a more technic focused build than most other hero factory sets.

[Latrodectus]

I haven't had enough experience with CCBS to vote, but they seem to have different purposes. I built a lot of Technic stuff back when Bionicle was big (And used a lot of Technic stuff for MOCing), so I really love Technic's versatility and focus on function. However, the CCBS stuff seems like the best evolution of the ball-and-socket system that started with Throwbots, offering far more versatility with ball joints for poseable figures than was offered before. 

 

Honestly, I want to combine both of them (though I'll probably have to buy some new Technic sets for that, since I gave most of my legos away when I left Bionicle). The new Bionicles are the best combination of poseability and function we've had in the history of the line, and it's thanks to the combination of CCBS and Technic.

[Owlexander]

I picked the third option. Really, CCBS was never meant to completely exclude Technic-based building, and since its introduction there has been at least one Technic-intensive Hero Factory set every year (Witch Doctor, Speeda Demon, Jet Rocka, Evo XL Machine). BIONICLE is continuing that with Lord of Skull Spiders and possibly even other sets later in the year.

 

When you get right down to it, even CCBS itself falls under the Technic umbrella, since the 10.2mm ball joint originated as a Technic connection style, and all of the larger CCBS beams have Technic connection points. Technic is not what separates older BIONICLE and Hero Factory sets from later CCBS-based sets, and the new BIONICLE sets demonstrate that more than ever before. Some of the new BIONICLE sets are more technically intricate than even many classic BIONICLE sets. The new Gali set has more basic Technic parts than any previous version of the character!

 

Right, I understand that, hence the 3rd and 4th options.

[Click]

I've worked with Technic for years and I've always been happy with the result. The large variety of pieces makes it much easier to add all the right details exactly where you want them. That being said, I love the look of CCBS and my MOCs are turning more and more towards it. Usually I'll have a Technic frame with a few HF shells thrown on, or some of the limbs will be CCBS parts (the one thing we can really thank CCBS for is those tiny, 3L and 4L limb pieces). I've tried CCBS nearly exclusively, and it is difficult to work with for someone who uses mostly Technic, but for those that are willing to try it, it can produce very cool MOCs. I just prefer the fourth option.

[LegoSWfan]

I much prefer technic over skeleball, as it is a far more detailed and adaptable system, able to include mechanisms and motors, gears and pulleys. skeleballs "frame with shells" design limits the amount of versatility it has, your pretty much left with a basic humanoid shape. not only dose it leave your creations felling light, but when viewed from the back or certain angles, it clearly revels the underlying frame.

[Chro]

A mix of both, but my style tends to favor more Technic-heavy builds with a smaller amount of CCBS parts

[Irrie]

I use more Technic, but still some CCBS.

This is because I don't have as many CCBS parts in my pieces bin than I do Technic. Sort of a choice based on my resources. 

They've both got their pros and cons, which are mostly stated in previous posts. But choosing CCBS or Technic (if I was given unlimited resources) would depend on what I'm trying to build. 

[Aanchir]

I much prefer technic over skeleball, as it is a far more detailed and adaptable system, able to include mechanisms and motors, gears and pulleys. skeleballs "frame with shells" design limits the amount of versatility it has, your pretty much left with a basic humanoid shape. not only dose it leave your creations felling light, but when viewed from the back or certain angles, it clearly revels the underlying frame.

Since you seem to think that all my replies to you are attacks, let me take the time to say that THIS is a good, thoughtful post. You stated your opinion, and you explained yourself thoroughly.

 

That doesn't mean I agree with your opinion, of course. There are plenty of Technic models that expose the underlying frame (in fact, often all Technic IS is a frame), and there are CCBS models that don't. There are also plenty of ways to build a non-humanoid CCBS model, just as there are plenty of ways to build a non-humanoid model with Toa Inika or Toa Metru torsos.

 

But do you see why I like this post of yours? You're not just saying "Skeleball is awful" or "Skeleball is weird" or "Skeleball ruined BIONICLE". You're actually explaining your opinion in a way that even a person who disagrees can respect and understand.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Aanchir

[Nescent]

I haven't built with CCBS too much, but I'm used to a Technic-dense building process, and I think that will work well with CCBS. I voted #4.

[Blueblur21]

Comparing the two systems, I prefer CCBS. Everything just snaps together so cleanly and you have a good idea of what you're making. Plus, the CCBs models look more like actual action figures, while Technic sets look a bit bare to me.

 

Case in point: Compare Gali 2001 to her 2015 version. There's a big difference.

[Banana Gunz]

I have my problems with CCBS, and with Technic no less. So now which one will the Banana choose to be the best?

 

Sorry, not sorry. But ultimately, CCBS just works so well for me. I have a lot of stuff against CCBS, from the skeleton layered with shells look, to the gaps, to the almost too standardized and easy way of building, but when it comes down to it, the convenience, the fun, the satisfaction, the ability to easily make cool looking models and still use cool techniques to make them unique all come together and make it so worth it. It's less reliant on new molds, and incredibly easy to pull apart.

 

Not to say Technic doesn't deserve its love. To me, I personally really enjoy the more solid look one often got from a set to what I've seen with CCBS. The parts weren't always just layered on, but also hidden inside, clipped together in complex and really interesting ways. CCBS has this sometimes, but to a far less degree and looks gappy.

 

When it comes down to it, I'm still waiting for CCBS to evolve into something even better. Perhaps I'm asking for too much, but I still feel like there are some things that could make the system loads more amazing, such as more modular limbs/torsos, more varieties in basic armor parts, a less "layered" look. It's great, but I still feel has room for improvement (though it's also worth noting that CCBS is growing, coming out with new armor pieces often and becoming much stronger in terms of variety than the original 2.0 hero's were).

[Jobber]

I picked both CCBS and Technic equally. I think the reason why we haven't seen any titans that use CCBS is such good way like the smaller sets have (Witch Doctor doesn't count, 'cause he's mostly technic), is because lacks a certain complexity that Technic can provided.

Though, my opinion is proven wrong by the CCBS 'titan' creature that this Lego designer built at the end of this video, at 5:32: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9si1OJimKI

I really wish there was instructions for this beast.


 

Edited January 6, 2015 by Chasm

[Aanchir]

I picked both CCBS and Technic equally. I think the reason why we haven't seen any titans that use CCBS is such good way like the smaller sets have (Witch Doctor doesn't count, 'cause he's mostly technic), is because lacks a certain complexity that Technic can provided.

 

Though, my opinion is proven wrong by the CCBS 'titan' creature that this Lego designer built at the end of this video, at 4:32:

 

I really wish there was instructions for this beast.

In fairness, that model DOES seem to use a fair amount of Technic. It's hard to tell how much is used in the skeleton due to the video quality, but some of the armor is made from Technic panels.

 

This poll is kind of an odd one because while I prefer mostly CCBS for a constraction theme just in terms fo the articulation and whatnot, really what building system you want will depend on the model and what you want it to do. Technic is useful in any theme (even System themes) for adding structural support or functionality to a model. But there are also ways to build a large, sturdy, elaborate CCBS model with very little Technic, just as there are ways to build a large, sturdy, elaborate System spaceship without a lot of Technic. It's entirely possible to have a theme like BIONICLE or Hero Factory that has some models almost entirely CCBS, some models almost entirely traditional Technic, and others that are a combination of the two.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Aanchir

[Jobber]

 

I picked both CCBS and Technic equally. I think the reason why we haven't seen any titans that use CCBS is such good way like the smaller sets have (Witch Doctor doesn't count, 'cause he's mostly technic), is because lacks a certain complexity that Technic can provided.

 

Though, my opinion is proven wrong by the CCBS 'titan' creature that this Lego designer built at the end of this video, at 4:32:

 

I really wish there was instructions for this beast.

In fairness, that model DOES seem to use a fair amount of Technic. It's hard to tell how much is used in the skeleton due to the video quality, but some of the armor is made from Technic panels.

 

If you pause the video, you can clearly see that all the red panels are just red HF underarmor, and the only Technic that can be seen cleary are the lime-green Bohrok eyes, and some attachments on the thighs. I'm going to try and find a better video, this convo has got me interested in CCBS titans.

[fishers64]

I voted for all of the options.

 

While building my first entirely Technic model was a bit stressful, it's grown on me with time. I've come to understand and admire it's layering technology and functionality. It makes slick vehicles and boxes.

 

CCBS was like at first touch. It's beautifully intuitive vectors. Technic is lines and planes - CCBS is arrows. You need both for a humanoid model. 

 

Putting them together is delightful, because combining the two allows for more sets of vectors in more directions. Any of those combinations have potential, up to the point that deciding on one over the other would be rather limiting unless I had a specific project on the table to consider.

Edited January 6, 2015 by fishers64

[Munty]

I went with options 4 and 5, that is to say as much or more Technic than CCBS.

 

I never did Hero Factory so the 2015 Toa are my first foray into CCBS and I think it's a really good progression of the constraction theme. HOWEVER, I think what sets the new Bionicle sets apart from the last HF sets we got is all of the extra detail and more intensive builds. The gearbox and shoulder assemblies are ALL technic and it makes for a much more enjoyable build than just snapping shells onto frames as most HF sets seemed content with. I think as long as the new sets continue to include a decent amount of non-CCBS construction and detailing in their builds then we'll see some great advancement in the theme. I don't want to see the new sets regressing back to point and click HF building though. It's like those model kits that don't need glue or paint, they're no fun, take five seconds to build and never look as good as 'proper' ones!

 

As far as Titans go I'd like to see Technic retained for the majority of the builds as it's simply so good for large, unconventional builds. Of course an alternative to this COULD be a further development of the CCBS system which introduces larger frame pieces and possibly even a new size of ball joint for larger sets. On the whole I think this would be very costly for Lego to implement though and I think most fans would hate it as we'd be paying more for 'big' sets only to find they have fewer pieces. Having never built a large set from the CCBS era I don't really know what to expect. I do know there are a few HF sets that I have always liked the look of though and now I learn that one of them (witch doctor) is a mainly technic build I see why! Hopefully the new Bionicle Titans can do as good a job as some of these did and there's really no reason they can't improve on them too!

[Rooster Nui]

I initially favored Technic, but the CCBS has proven its potential to me, and I hope it continues to get better in the future, especially seeing as my favorite Lego theme has returned. 

 

CCBS now takes the cake because of its variety in pieces it now offers.

[Pohatu: Uniter of Stone]

I've found CCBS useful for creating large, sturdy creatures that aren't covered with pin holes.

 

But Technic is so easy to integrate stuff and make complexity...

[Trijhak]

CCBS with a hint of technic.

 

That's pretty much what most of the 2015 sets we know of are, regardless (the gearbox does fall under technic and not CCBS, right?) Also the easiest to build with. Not to mention I'd argue that CCBS is sturdy and kid-friendly, though CCBS and (Gen 1 BIONICLE) Technic pieces (e.g. inika build) are just as simple as each other most of the time, though I would also argue that CCBS offers more potential for variation.  

 

Technic is a fairly wide umbrella though - do you mean Technic in general or technic as in gen 01 BIONICLE? I'd say that Gen 1 BIONICLE pieces are simply compatible with technic; with their own name like CCBS has a name; despite originally launching under the Technic name.

[Latrodectus]

That's pretty much what most of the 2015 sets we know of are, regardless (the gearbox does fall under technic and not CCBS, right?)

Yep. All the connections to it are pin connections and it has no extraneous detail. It's a really awesome piece that could even be used in pure Technic builds.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Latrodectus

[Meiko]

Not something I can choose either over the other. I use both of them for different things. I don't build action figures in Technic but I also don't build mechanical things using CCBS. They're both equally useful, just for different purposes.

[Some Random Phrase]

I like a mixture, mainly becuase Technic gives better torso flexibility where CCBS is so much better for those wierd arms and such that Technic has trouble with.

[hiddenderek]

As others have said, a mix is best. Assuming we're talking about bionicle styled technic. One of the problems G1 bionicle sets had was they were littered with holes and pistons everywhere, which kind of made them look ugly. Detail is fine, but then there's too much. Not to mention many of these pieces were heavily specialized and really could only be used on robotic things.  CCBS provides streamlined parts that can be used with anything, although it makes for a very repetitive and extremely quick and easy build. Combining both of these can make something really special. I feel like the 2015 Toa do this very well with the gearboxes, although it could still be improved upon even more with more bionicle styled shells (without overdoing it) and a little more variety between the builds. Onua is a great example of the variety I'm talking about.

 Maybe next year the new Toa could have a different type of torso, maybe more technic oriented, than the generic CCBS torso/chest shell that returned again this year.

Edited January 18, 2015 by hiddenderek

[YpsiFang]

For me, it's CCBS. I think in general that it's a better system due to its actually BEING a system. However, that's probably because I used Technic for stuff that's better-suited for CCBS. However, Technic has its strengths- namely the aesthetics and its ability to be used for things like the action features. I think that the best choice is probably a mix, for the reasons stated. For example, my Toa of Lightning MOC, Aknoth, uses mostly CCBS but has G1 armor on her upper legs because it just looks better.

Edited January 24, 2016 by YpsiFang

[-Windrider-]

For me, it's CCBS. I think in general that it's a better system due to its actually BEING a system. However, that's probably because I used Technic for stuff that's better-suited for CCBS. However, Technic has its strengths- namely the aesthetics and its ability to be used for things like the action features. I think that the best choice is probably a mix, for the reasons stated. For example, my Toa of Lightning MOC, Aknoth, uses mostly CCBS but has G1 armor on her upper legs because it just looks better.

 

Please check the date of the last reply before posting! If it's been over 60 days, then it would be better to leave the topic in peace.

See this topic for more information on topic revival. And if you have questions, please PM me.

 

Revived topic closed.