MOCs vs Official Sets

[nerdsforprez]

15 minutes ago, syclone said:

1. Of course suspension is better on this model, but that HAS to go in-hand with proper clearance - of which there is none
2. PUp is a failure imo. Sbrick was released 5 years ago (I won't even talk about BuWizz), and TLC still has the same power cutoff problems from 2007. 12 years and still lacking power to even justify "crawler" name. Non-stackable connector and huge size of the receiver aren't helping either, but yes, they finally used bluetooth and you can ride your monster truck on flat terrain with your sunglasses on. 
3. Planetary reduction sounds cool but these are simply hubs (black ones were released not too long ago as well) 1 function, that's all. Of course, my specialty isn't large offroad MOCs. However, from what I can see, people on this forum have done amazing offroaders without those.

Most probably I'm too picky, but how hard it is for an enormous company to make something using current parts lineup, and make it good - there are thousands of MOCs that are a million times better than official stuff. I grew up admiring crazy sets like 8675, 8110, 8466, 8258, 8043, 8275... wtf happened now? Sometimes I wish I were born earlier to enjoy these in their days of glory.

In all fairness, you did warn us prior to your rant . 

Here is a little one of my own.  But just a small one - I swear - your points are well taken.  I actually agree with many of your complaints about the model.  But, about the comparison of TLG products and individual MOC builds, you lost me......

Folks need to understand a few things.  And I know I sound like a broken record but apparently people are not getting the message.  And I am not stating this as a Lego apologist.  I have been critical on several aspects of this and other recent sets as well.  But we need to be fair and balanced of our opinions of TLG - and the following is not merely an opinion.  It just is. 

You cannot compare MOCs and sets TLG puts out.  You just cannot.  MOCs will ALWAYS be better.  It is not an opinion, it is simply a fact derived from deduction.  You state "being an enormous company" as if it is a positive thing in the context of building the best set. But it is NOT. "Being and enormous company" in the context of what is being discussed is something that holds TLG back.  Not helps it forward.  It has so many hoops, opinions, constraints, etc. that is has to go through prior to approval.  Guess how many constraints, boards, or opinions a MOC has to go through.  Zero (unless you count the builder).  Take our best builders, have them produce something, then have that MOC go through 100 different opinions, a hundred constraints, the approval of a dozen folks that likely aren't even mechanically educated or focused (company brass), all with the authority to change the product and you will get a diluted product relative to the original.  Then... on top of all that, change the population the MOC has to be built for (MOCs have no constraints here, whereas a Lego product has a ton) and well, you can see where I am going here. 

And as bad as it sounds... it really is not.  The fact that TLG is first and foremost concerned about their bottom line IS NOT A BAD THING.  Here is why:

It allows them to be enormous.  It allows them to be huge.  Which allows them to expand and produce billions of parts for the world to play with.  Billions upon billions.  This allows each individual on this site to have thousands, tens of thousands, some with hundreds of thousands of parts to create, build, etc.  If TLG were not concerned about its bottom line it would not allow them to produce the amount of product it now does.  Our collections would be in the hundreds, not thousands of pieces.  Simply a number game. 

Succinctly put: TLG's target population goals for production, etc. for a set is different than individual AFOLs MOCs which limits, not enhances, the end product.  And I am glad this is the case.  If they tried to build the biggest, baddest model, it undoubtedly would sell less because the target population is smaller.  Again, not an opinion, just numbers sense.  You see it in the world of product production the world over.  Less product means less pieces produced.  In the end, that limits my collection, and it limits yours.  Which hopefully we can agree  is a bad thing.  

It is not different in the world of other similar products one might enjoy.  You will  never get an RC crawler/race car as cool as the one's modified or built by the most talented and ardent fans.  World of computer building - good night! Same thing and multiply it by like a billion.  Real off-road crawlers, drag racers, etc., same thing.  Virtually everywhere in hobby you will find this phenomenon.     

[Anio]

7 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

MOCs will ALWAYS be better.

Disagreed.

[nerdsforprez]

5 minutes ago, Anio said:

Disagreed.

Perhaps this would be a great thread to start as debating this will detract from  the topic.

But to your response I respectfully say "prove it."  And lets be clear here.  I was talking about MOCs from the most talented among us - not novices or your run-of-the-mill hobbists.  Not folks like me

As I said before, this is not an opinion.  It is a mere fact arrived at from deduction.  One has not only some constraints, but many.  The other has none.  Unless you consider individual thinking versus groupthink - which our MOCers have proved this does not hold.  One does not need to look far for proof here.  Look at Lego Ideas. 

 

[Anio]

You made your opinion by only looking at playability (typically, RC MOCs with 1 motor per function) and other thing made to easily dazzle people. Typically : combo big size + LEDs.

MOCs are generally poorly optimised and offer a meh building experience.

 

edit : you see constraint as a limit.

Think outside the box, and you will see constraint as a way to necessarily boost your creativity.

[syclone]

@nerdsforprez After carefully analyzing your post, I completely agree with you in this topic. Afterall TLC was on the verge of bankrupcy in 00's with 800$ million in debt... they wouldn't like that to happen again, so marketing team is the one ruling probably.

@Anio Isn't that TLC sets right now - BIG, high number of functions through gearboxes, eye catching (Liebherr, 6x6...). There are definitely MOCs that break these stereotypes - check this one. Not that typical, yet very popular and even for sale. In regards of building experience, imo there's not much of it when the process isn't challenging.

+1 about the actual limits of those parts, but bet they're quite tough - the planetary gears are probably very similar to those inside PF motors.

 

Again, just imo, I have weird tastes afterall.

[Anio]

3 minutes ago, syclone said:

BIG, high number of functions through gearboxes, eye catching (Liebherr, 6x6...).

It is indeed a growing trend at TLG. And I don't like it very much.

Still, I think offical models have some cleverness in many aspects that most MOCs just don't have. Modular design for example. Or strong/reliable build without using gazillions parts.

[nerdsforprez]

58 minutes ago, Anio said:

You made your opinion by only looking at playability (typically, RC MOCs with 1 motor per function) and other thing made to easily dazzle people. Typically : combo big size + LEDs.

MOCs are generally poorly optimised and offer a meh building experience.

 

 

Well, in all fairness we didn't lay out the definition of what "better" means did we. My original comment was made in reference to the "better" made by @syclone.  So we really don't know what "better" means here - But in that spirit, you have no idea what I based my "opinion" on.  Playability, looks, etc. - you are not sure.  Also, you mention "typically" and "generally" to argue your point thus demonstrating that you didn't even fully read my comment.  I specifically said that I we are discussing "MOCs from the most talented among us - not novices or your run-of-the-mill hobbists (sic)". This does not fall under the definition of typical or general builder.  So, respectfully, you have offered nothing to back your claim and only once again demonstrated that you don't fully read others comments before you respond.   

 

1 hour ago, Anio said:

 

edit : you see constraint as a limit.

Think outside the box, and you will see constraint as a way to necessarily boost your creativity.

This is  cute saying, something that would go great on the inside of a book cover or bumper sticker.  Unfortunately, it simply does not apply here.  The reason is simple.  Let's define what we mean by constraint.  We are not talking about outside forces that are constraining the building process of two individuals building something with a common goal.  If that were the case you could possibly be right.  But no.  The "constraint" isn't an outside force limiting the building process - it is that the goal itself is not the same as AFOLs building MOCs as it is for TLG.  I am not saying that TLG builders are not capable of building something better than or equal to AFOLs, I am saying they can't possibly because its not ever their goal in the first place. THAT  is the constraint. 

I am not trying to be divisive here.  It really is simple.  You cant compare the "best" MOCs to the "best" original sets produced by TLG, no matter your definition of "best" because the goals each is trying to produce are entirely different.  One is building for pleasure and self interests (whatever that may be) and the other is building to sell a product to the masses.  And, to take the argument further we shouldn't even WANT to the two compared.  If TLG started to be concerned entirely with competing with individual MOCers then undoubtedly their audience would shrink.  Less demand means less product.  Less product means less.... well, you get the picture, I already laid that out in my last comment. 

Again, not trying to be divisive - this phenomenon manifests an innumerable amount of times the the world over.  Two entities can't be judged on the outcome of their product when their goals for that product are incompatible in the first place. 

The ONLY way this does not hold is if TLG comes out and says - okay for 421** we are not going to try and sell it to folks.  We just want to make the best build possible (what ever that means).  Our GOAL for producing 421** is to build the coolest, most functional, etc. blah blah blah build out there. 

**break**

I don't really want this to go down a worm hole and detract from the thread.  I would love to continue discussing it, because I do think it is an important discussion.  Just not here.  Jim - if we get more comments for this please just create a new thread or something. 

 

 

[Jim]

While @nerdsforprez has a point, I tend to lean towards Anio in this matter. MOCs seem to be way more awesome when you look at them. But when it comes to building experience and techniques, I think most officials sets are better than MOCs. Sometimes simplicity beats complexity.

21 minutes ago, Anio said:

Still, I think offical models have some cleverness in many aspects that most MOCs just don't have. Modular design for example. Or strong/reliable build without using gazillions parts.

This.

[Maaboo the Witch]

I prefer retail sets and always will.

[jorgeopesi]

I think that a good MOC always will be better beause all Lego sets are in some way limited, they usually use more pieces that the set really needs because the building process have to be clear for children, only for this every Lego set could be better but not better for a easy assemble  .

[Anio]

34 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

This does not fall under the definition of typical or general builder.

Don't want to point fingers, but unfortunately, in most cases it does.

34 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

it simply does not apply here.

It totally does, and I am sorry for you if you can't see it.

19 minutes ago, Jim said:

Sometimes simplicity beats complexity.

And this concept has a name : the simplexity.
Something that virtually all MOCs are missing.

[nerdsforprez]

9 minutes ago, Jim said:

While @nerdsforprez has a point, I tend to lean towards Anio in this matter. MOCs seem to be way more awesome when you look at them. But when it comes to building experience and techniques, I think most officials sets are better than MOCs. Sometimes simplicity beats complexity.

This.

Ok, Game On!  No just joking, I am  not trying to be divisive here.  But thanks for making this thread.  Also, is there a way no not put @allanp's comment here?  B/c it does deal with the 42099 content, not this tread content. 

But really guys if we are to debate this then we need to remain precise.  I am not saying that official sets can't beat "some MOCs".  Of course they can!  Take a look at mine! Nearly EVERY official set is better than something I could produce.  But as I said like several times before, that is NOT what is being debated here.  We are discussing pitting the BEST of what original sets have to offer against the best MOCS.  One has like a gajillion constraints on it, and the other does not.  

It also remains to be seen what we mean by "the best."  If are going to define "the best" by building experience, then that is a whole different argument.  I guess for this to really go anywhere.  That would need to be decided.  But good luck with that

And com'on! Modularity and not using a zillion parts for simple mechanisms?  Are you guys building the same sets as everyone else?  If your using modularity and judicious piece count decision-making as metrics then I'm sorry I just don't see it.  42042 and 3 were jokes in both those departments where several MOCs are terrific there.  I guess MOC selection really is also an issue because i know several MOCs that beat original sets hand over fist in both these departments  Again, we are not referring to general or common MOCs, but the best out there. 

[Jim]

Just now, nerdsforprez said:

Ok, Game On!  No just joking, I am  not trying to be divisive here.  But thanks for making this thread.  Also, is there a way no not put @allanp's comment here?  B/c it does deal with the 42099 content, not this tread content. 

Done

Granted, I haven't built much MOCs, so I am not a fair judge. However, the ones I built had sub-optimal building experience. The only one I absolutely love is Nathanael's modular car, but him being a former TLG designer might be unfair competition.

[nerdsforprez]

25 minutes ago, Anio said:

........in most cases it does.

 

  "in most cases it does" - no man, again I don't think you are understanding.  Perhaps there is a language barrier, and I get it if there is.  If that is what is going on, then perhaps we should just call it 

Here is the whole statement:

  I specifically said that I we are discussing "MOCs from the most talented among us - not novices or your run-of-the-mill hobbists (sic)"  This does not fall under the definition of typical or general builder. 

and to that last part you said .... "in most cases it does"

Are you trying to suggest that when i say MOCs from the most talented among us those are the same as novices and run-of-the mills builders?  B/c that just plain does not make sense. 

25 minutes ago, Anio said:

It totally does, and I am sorry for you if you can't see it.

@Anio- you need to offer some logic or rationale to your statements.  I did to all mine.  You simply cannot say "it totally does" and leave it at that.  I know you see yourself as an authority figure here but you need to back your statements up. 

25 minutes ago, Anio said:

And this concept has a name : the simplexity.

Something that virtually all MOCs are missing. 

 

Wow, this is a generalist statement.  Virtually ALL MOCs? Okay, i'm sounding like a broken record here.  Again, not what we are discussing. 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by nerdsforprez

[jorgeopesi]

11 minutes ago, Anio said:

And this concept has a name : the simplexity.
Something that virtually all MOCs are missing.

Maybe you understand nice MOC as a supercharged of pieces MOC. I always search functionality with less pieces and motors as I can but this type of MOCs don't usually attract attention. When you try to use less pieces and the aesthetic part comes I think why the hell I have to use more pieces now. 

[TeamThrifty]

2 hours ago, Anio said:

MOCs are generally poorly optimised and offer a meh building experience

Who for? A MOC is for the person that is creating it, no-one else... the poor building experience you mention is presumably for others who buy their instructions? For me, thats not moc-ing, that buying a set.. just so happens its not official Lego. Don't buy-in ideas, let your mind run free!

A MOC only truly belongs to the creator, and is only a moc for them, no one else.. and when i'm sat messing around trying to make something work, it might not be the textbook "sell-able" gloriously optimised build... but for me, the moc-er, the building experience is awesome! Official sets give me ideas, ways that things can be optimised, but official sets are about 3% of my lego pleasure. Everything else is moc-ing.. building, failing, taking apart, rebuilding. Thats what i love, thats lego for me, and that building experience is about as good as it gets. Thats why i'm approaching my 40th technic anniversary - its not the official sets that keeps me hooked, and its definitely not other peoples moc's, great though some are. Its the trial and error - PLAYING - cos its a toy, and i love that about it.

If your idea of moc-ing is building someone elses moc, then thats not moc-ing, so the building experience argument fails....

Ultimately, as was summed up in the original post - Lego are targeting mass sales with hundreds of constraints. And the more money they make, the more new parts they create, so the longer i can keep building stuff, from my own mind, for my own pleasure and loving the building experience. Which is better? Thats easy, (my own) MOC's, because thats where (97%) of the pleasure lies for me...

[Anio]

5 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

Maybe you understand nice MOC as a supercharged of pieces MOC.

Actually quite the opposite.

6 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

why the hell I have to use more pieces now. 

Couldn't agree more.

[Jim]

13 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

Who for? A MOC is for the person that is creating it, no-one else... the poor building experience you mention is presumably for others who buy their instructions? For me, thats not moc-ing, that buying a set.. just so happens its not official Lego. Don't buy-in ideas, let your mind run free!

While you might be right. The current discussion is about the quality of MOCs vs Official sets.

[allanp]

38 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

Also, is there a way no not put @allanp's comment here?  B/c it does deal with the 42099 content, not this tread content. 

Of course you are right. But there was a snippet within that comment that mentions this topic so I'll paste that snippet here, with some notes in brackets for it to make sense out of context:

But even with all the constraints (that a TLG designer must work with) I still think this (42099) is better than any MOC crawler. The difference between a designer working at TLG and a MOCcer designing purely for him/herself isn't just the constraints that a TLG designer has but also the advantages (a TLG designer has), such as being given the time to work "9 till 5" on a creation (as opposed to a MOCcer who can only design in their free time at home), and also more importantly for me the TLG designer has the option of releasing new parts. The extra time given normally leads to Lego sets being cleaner, more optimised (note) and more durable in design than most other MOCs (made by the most talented MOCcers) and these new parts (such as the planetary gear hubs) make this (42099) a set I want to own more than any MOC (crawler) right now.

NOTE: I say optimised, I'm not sure that's the right word as they seem to use way more parts than needed in some cases. But if you want to compare the best MOCs from the best MOCcers then you should compare that to the best sets. While there are many MOCs that beat 42082 in terms of optimisation, and 42070 in terms of everything else, there's nothing in the sub 3k piece range that can come close to the Arocs at the time of it's release, constraints or no constraints. And why would there be? Like I said, MOCcers who build for their own enjoyment can only build in their free time and are limited to what ever parts they have available to them. While TLG designers are constrained by profits and safety I think having more time, budget and resources can more than compensate for that. And I think the fruits of this is evidenced by the fact that when I see the new Technic sets, there are some that I'de like to buy but there are very few MOCs that I would pay for just the instructions. In fact, I have over 150 sets, and have only ever bought 1 single set of MOC instructions. Maybe we should do a poll of how much actual real money we have spent on official sets VS how much we as a fan community have spent on building MOCs. Would this be a good indicator as to how well MOCs compare to official sets?

So in short, Official sets are better over all, but they should be!

Edited June 30, 2019 by allanp

[ozacek]

1 hour ago, Anio said:

> [...] high number of functions through gearboxes

It is indeed a growing trend at TLG. And I don't like it very much.

I'm a bit puzzled, how is that a bad thing..?  I would think functions are the #1 thing to look for in a technic set. Unless you're referring about the gearboxes, but I don't see how that's bad either.

[nerdsforprez]

2 minutes ago, allanp said:

Of course you are right. But there was a snippet within that comment that mentions this topic so I'll paste that snippet here, with some notes in brackets for it to make sense out of context:

But even with all the constraints (that a TLG designer must work with) I still think this (42099) is better than any MOC crawler. The difference between a designer working at TLG and a MOCcer designing purely for him/herself isn't just the constraints that a TLG designer has but also the advantages (a TLG designer has), such as being given the time to work "9 till 5" on a creation (as opposed to a MOCcer who can only design in their free time at home), and also more importantly for me the TLG designer has the option of releasing new parts. The extra time given normally leads to Lego sets being cleaner, more optimised (note) and more durable in design than most other MOCs (made by the most talented MOCcers) and these new parts (such as the planetary gear hubs) make this (42099) a set I want to own more than any MOC (crawler) right now.

NOTE: I say optimised, I'm not sure that's the right word as they seem to use way more parts than needed in some cases. But if you want to compare the best MOCs from the best MOCcers then you should compare that to the best sets. While there are many MOCs that beat 42082 in terms of optimisation, and 42070 in terms of everything else, there's nothing in the sub 3k piece range that can come close to the Arocs at the time of it's release, constraints or no constraints. And why would there be? Like I said, MOCcers who build for their own enjoyment can only build in their free time and are limited to what ever parts they have available to them. While TLG designers are constrained by profits and safety I think having more time, budget and resources can more than compensate for that. And I think the fruits of this is evidenced by the fact that when I see the new Technic sets, there are some that I'de like to buy but there are very few MOCs that I would pay for just the instructions. In fact, I have over 150 sets, and have only ever bought 1 single set of MOC instructions. Maybe we should do a poll of how much actual real money we have spent on official sets VS how much we as a fan community have spent on building MOCs. Would this be a good indicator as to how well MOCs compare to official sets?

Sorry for cutting your portion out.  I guess I need to read more thoroughly myself. 

Good points.  I guess we will continue to disagree though - but that's not a problem   I think the discussion, in and of itself is good.  I actually interpret the time issue completely opposite.  Go figure right?  Yea, TLG folks have 9-5 to work.  But they have a deadline and we ALL know there have been several set releases prematurely due to rushes because of this deadline(*cough* 42056 *cough*).  MOCers have NO deadline other than their own patience.  For some (and again, we are talking the best of the best) will spend a year or more on a MOC.  Therefore, for the time factor - I see it totally in the favor of MOCers not TLG.  They could take 5 years if they wanted. 

And about the AROCS - indeed it was a good set. But sorry man, ever build Madoca's builds, or @Didumos69's or a host of others?  And 42099 better than current crawlers?  Oh wow - no.  Lets use something objective - say, actually climbing abilities.  @PunkTacoNYC's crawler's beat TLG hand over fist.  I know he uses buwizz and sbrick but like you said TLG is creating new elements all the time so I don't think that is really a valid complaint given the disparity of different climbing abilities. 

[allanp]

Just now, ozacek said:

I'm a bit puzzled, how is that a bad thing..?  I would think functions are the #1 thing to look for in a technic set. Unless you're referring about the gearboxes, but I don't see how that's bad either.

While I may praise TLG in my last comment, nothing is perfect and this is where I would agree that the high number of functions through gearboxes is a trend that I don't like simply because it's not realistic or in any way analogous to the way real life machines work. It was great and novel the first time it was done with 8480 (ok, this wasn't the first time multiple functions was powered through a gearbox but it was the first time to be done on a big complex flagship in the modern style using gearbox change over pieces) because it was something new and it brought a heightened never before seen level of complexity. But since then it's been done to death and it's novelty wore off long ago. 

[ozacek]

5 minutes ago, allanp said:

it's not realistic or in any way analogous to the way real life machines work

I see, so it's really again the matter of some (most) people preferring a realistic match to existing machines, vs some people (like me) preferring function design over 'realisticness'. But that's another topic.. :)

Personally I really like the concept of high number of functions through gearboxes, it always amazes me how functionality can be dispatched at the four corners of a set all from a centralized control point. I'd say, bring in more!   Although I fully agree with the growing parts count issue, I don't like it, it's getting out of hand. I find 1000-2000 pieces best for a big set. Bigger than than, it's just endless frame building and very little actual mechanisms in comparision.

[allanp]

22 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

Sorry for cutting your portion out.  I guess I need to read more thoroughly myself. 

Good points.  I guess we will continue to disagree though - but that's not a problem   I think the discussion, in and of itself is good.  I actually interpret the time issue completely opposite.  Go figure right?  Yea, TLG folks have 9-5 to work.  But they have a deadline and we ALL know there have been several set releases prematurely due to rushes because of this deadline(*cough* 42056 *cough*).  MOCers have NO deadline other than their own patience.  For some (and again, we are talking the best of the best) will spend a year or more on a MOC.  Therefore, for the time factor - I see it totally in the favor of MOCers not TLG.  They could take 5 years if they wanted. 

And about the AROCS - indeed it was a good set. But sorry man, ever build Madoca's builds, or @Didumos69's or a host of others?  And 42099 better than current crawlers?  Oh wow - no.  Lets use something objective - say, actually climbing abilities.  @PunkTacoNYC's crawler's beat TLG hand over fist.  I know he uses buwizz and sbrick but like you said TLG is creating new elements all the time so I don't think that is really a valid complaint given the disparity of different climbing abilities. 

Also good points. I guess my patients runs out before a year 

I didn't want to name names, there are surely some fantastic MOCcers out there, but still I've never wanted to own those MOCs as much as I wanted to own the Arocs. Someone made a huge fire truck on 8 8110 wheels, but comparing MOCs like that is a little unfair when that would have cost more than the millenium falcon if it was an official set. Think back to 2015 and to the MOCs around at that time that you would favour over the Arocs. Now if TLG were to release those MOCs as official sets, how much would they cost? Maybe there's some MOcs I don't know about (well, definitely in fact), but I can't think of a MOC around in 2015 that TLG could have released at a similar price point that would compete with the Arocs. Of course that's just my purely subjective opinion.

In terms of 42099 being better than all other MOC crawlers, I get your point about climbing ability, an issue that I think can easily be fixed by using 16:16 gears instead of two stages of 20:12. In terms of what makes a set "better" I keep coming back to asking myself, is it something I'm willing to pay money for. As great as the MOCs are, they don't have new 5.5:1 planetary gear reduction hubs, which I believe will make for a very capable crawler when the gearing is changed out to something less aimed at kids who wants all of the speeeeeedz and more aimed at AFOLs that want to do some serious crawling. And you just know that there are going to be a lot of crawler builders out there that will be using these new parts as soon as they get their hands on them. I'd be surprised if Zerobricks isn't designing a new 8x8  tatra using these new hubs in his head already!

6 minutes ago, ozacek said:

I see, so it's really again the matter of some (most) people preferring a realistic match to existing machines, vs some people (like me) preferring function design over 'realisticness'. But that's another topic.. :)

........... it always amazes me how functionality can be dispatched at the four corners of a set all from a centralized control point.......

Of course there's an answer to that, the way real life vehicles do it, but that's for another topic 

Edited June 30, 2019 by allanp

[Anio]

4 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

And about the AROCS - indeed it was a good set. But sorry man, ever build Madoca's builds, or @Didumos69's or a host of others?  And 42099 better than current crawlers?  Oh wow - no.  Lets use something objective - say, actually climbing abilities.

The thing I think I understand from your messages is that you value the quality of a model only in absolute terms.

I consider the model as a whole thing. Final result is only one of the many factors to be considered. As much as part count, ref count, building experience, sturdyness, weight, efficiency of part used, cleverness in the design, how the model catches the spirit of the real vehicle, playability, maneuverability, and probably many others. Not only the final abilities of the model. Honnestly, I don't think it is very interesting to design or reproduce a MOC where the main goal is just to have "good capabilities".

Not sure my wording will be relevant.

But let's imagine a 2,100 part MOC with climbing abilities that could be rated at 85 (imaginary unit). With several motors for driving, and a powerful motor for steering, blablabla.

And a 1,200 part MOC where climbing abilities would be only 60.

=> I would totally go for the 1,200 part model as I would consider it as a much smarter build.

In this regard, I tend to agree with allanp : 42099 will very likely be better than every MOC crawler.

Just like 9398 was at the time.

Which, if you ask me, was totally hilarious : with one single model made out of 1,325 elements only, TLG totally crushed the work of AFOLs who were working on their TT's for years (there was a lot of hype in TT at the time).
 

That was totally fascinating.