On 7/24/2023 at 6:56 PM, howitzer said:

I actually thought about the same contest idea, take a small set and enlarge it while adding as much functions as possible (but only such that would be realistic to the kind of machine the original is about). 

Wait I have one more idea. This will be hard to join for some user but how about shrink our MOC? Each user must choose one of their own MOCs that has a record on the Internet and shrink it. Other rule will same or different with current contest.

  On 7/24/2023 at 6:49 PM, howitzer said:

Grohl already won that contest: 

Not really because his skoda was really big. I'm talking about car transporter fitting scale again, not a big scale car. I remember someone having a racing peugeot with front engine in TC19 or something like that - that was the challenge.

  On 7/24/2023 at 6:49 PM, Jundis said:

Not a bad idea as TC19 was one with the highest number of entries, but this part you mentioned would result in the same front build over and over again. Considering small size (with 30.4 rims), there aren't many possibilities for this setup.

Front engine/front drive was an example of what mundane could mean, I didn't mean it as a rule. But I'd want to go far away from supercars and muscle cars that are in the sets as possible

  On 7/24/2023 at 6:50 PM, msk6003 said:

Now time for discuss another contest idea?

When is it not a good time to talk about ideas for next contest? :D

  On 7/24/2023 at 6:50 PM, msk6003 said:

 And those idea is sound not so different with TC19 anyway.

Well, it needs a bit more restrictions, like for example not a real life car/branded one, but with some parts optimisation etc

  On 7/24/2023 at 6:50 PM, msk6003 said:

 My idea - reverse current contest. Each entry need to pick set which has part less than 300~500.(At first I think 500 is good limit but after find some sets 300 will better.) And expand it as much as possible with lot of new functions. Of course must include function on original set. And allow electronic in this time.

I like the spirit of this idea to reverse the rules, but effectively this wouldn't bring as many people as TC19 unless the size restriction would be similar. It could make sense to upscale $10 sets into $50 size for example, but not a $30-$50 300-700 piece range into 2000-3000 piece range. Whenever we go above certain spot around 500 pcs/car transporter sized vehicles, we end up with something that gets more pay2win when it comes to being able to gather enough pieces in specific colors matching your design for the contest entry. Small sized builds are more welcoming for more people and don't need a lot of time spent assembling and money on sourcing parts, and I feel like some previous events have proven that people like entering in contests with size limitations or about scaling down things. It's just that TC19 was unique because it was exclusively about cars and we all like cars and there's a lot of car-specific parts in Technic that are usable, which multiplies interest in such contest.

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:06 PM, SaperPL said:

When is it not a good time to talk about ideas for next contest? :D

At least after finish current contest? 

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:06 PM, SaperPL said:

pay2win

Hum. That's right. It will be hard to join. How about my other idea?

Also 'excluding supercars and muscle cars' can be tricky to categorize. At least cars like the Porsche Macan and Lamborghini Urus are expensive enough for the average person can't own, but they aren't supercars. If we set limit to car's brand, Benz AMG one, BMW M1, Hyundai N vision 74 will take it.

Edited July 24, 20231 yr by msk6003

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:10 PM, msk6003 said:

How about my other idea?

Was just responding to that :)

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:06 PM, msk6003 said:

Wait I have one more idea. This will be hard to join for some user but how about shrink our MOC? Each user must choose one of their own MOCs that has a record on the Internet and shrink it. Other rule will same or different with current contest.

This would be tricky to judge the results I think. First of all it'd get into a contest of who entered with more interesting MOC in the first place because you have to showcase what you're shrinking down. Secondly if someone enters with some moc that is really bricky/sharp corners, he can easily shrink it down while maintaining the shape. It would be a really tricky contest to evaluate without being highly subjective.

Set models give everyone an equal entry point, while requirement for having existing reasonably sized MOC to shrink down makes it so that newcomers have limited options.

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:10 PM, msk6003 said:

At least after finish current contest? 

Well, I know that talking about next contest while the current one didn't finish yet was disrupting the voting, but now it's gonna be jury vote, so maybe it's not that bad? Also what's wrong with talking on the side about ideas of what's next? It's still up to Jim to decide on what makes most sense for the next contest and to figure out when it can be launched.

Anyway when it comes to figuring out next contest topic I would try to focus on what works (the size on type of topics) and what haven't been done before either as contest or as the set. My idea of mundane cars is exactly because we mostly focus on sport cars and work trucks/work machines, but mundane cars are also cool. How cool would be to see someone make a small fiat 500 with suspension and tiny engine etc in a car transporter scale? Or some other iconic car? Or maybe a contest where we're supposed to explicitly design our own mundane cars that feel like lego quality sets?

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:10 PM, msk6003 said:

Also 'excluding supercars and muscle cars' can be tricky to categorize. At least cars like the Porsche Macan and Lamborghini Urus are expensive enough for the average person to own, but they aren't supercars. If we set limit to car's brand, Benz AMG one, BMW M1, Hyundai N vision 74 will take it.

Yeah, that's the tricky part. That's why I thought about non-branded lego designs. I keep remembering this awesome non-branded TC19 entry:

As a perfect example of a MOC made at a Lego quality at the specific scale.

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:22 PM, SaperPL said:

Yeah, that's the tricky part. That's why I thought about non-branded lego designs. I keep remembering this awesome non-branded TC19 entry:

Yes I also remember that. It has very great shape and looking but depending on the viewer, that entry can also be judged as a supercar. Take a muscle car for example. And if you take off the logo of the third and fourth generation fox body Mustang and bring it to Korea, no one will know it's a muscle car. Or most of people will don't know even logo still on there. Because I did before.

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:22 PM, SaperPL said:

That's why I thought about non-branded lego designs. I keep remembering this awesome non-branded TC19 entry:

I like the idea of a size-limited non-branded non-supercar contest. Just make sure off-roaders are also included :) I'd like to build something inspired by small Suzukis, they have a cool retro vibe (for me).. And I like when a model flows well with available lego parts instead of trying to hack parts to match a real-world shape. That entry looks pretty cool, never saw it before!

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:51 PM, gyenesvi said:

And I like when a model flows well with available lego parts instead of trying to hack parts to match a real-world shape.

Exactly my point - when you go through the non-branded sets, its often how cool existing parts flow together and not trying to mash up thing to roughly match some curve of the real life car.

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:38 PM, msk6003 said:

but depending on the viewer, that entry can also be judged as a supercar.

This was just an example of how can you make a non-branded car that feels like original set quality. The only part where that model was lacking was the edge of bumper which was to rough/sharp for the rest that was really well sculpted. But overall it presents my concept of Lego-set quality for models that many people could achieve without the need to aim for matching specific real life branded vehicle.

Note that even in current contest we're recreating existing sets, while such contest about creating a non-branded car could be more open and less constrained this way, with just size requirements.

I already have the next contest in mind, so don’t bother  

  On 7/24/2023 at 7:06 PM, SaperPL said:

I like the spirit of this idea to reverse the rules, but effectively this wouldn't bring as many people as TC19 unless the size restriction would be similar. It could make sense to upscale $10 sets into $50 size for example, but not a $30-$50 300-700 piece range into 2000-3000 piece range. Whenever we go above certain spot around 500 pcs/car transporter sized vehicles, we end up with something that gets more pay2win when it comes to being able to gather enough pieces in specific colors matching your design for the contest entry. Small sized builds are more welcoming for more people and don't need a lot of time spent assembling and money on sourcing parts, and I feel like some previous events have proven that people like entering in contests with size limitations or about scaling down things. It's just that TC19 was unique because it was exclusively about cars and we all like cars and there's a lot of car-specific parts in Technic that are usable, which multiplies interest in such contest.

Being rich doesn't make you a better builder in itself so it really isn't pay to win in - at most it could be considered a threshold for entry. 2000-3000 pieces is the part count of a single flagship-size set which costs around couple hundred euros new. If you're both new to Technic and short on money (so you haven't had time to gather parts cheaply and can't buy them when needed), then it indeed can be an obstacle to enter the contest, but most interested people here should have enough parts for this kind of enlargement contest in their collection. Plenty of contests in the past have allowed even very large entries but that isn't to say that those have been the most successful ones. And you could always pick a 10€ 100 piece set and make it 500 piece set, even that scaling factor allows plenty of improvement in functions.

That being said, I like contests with smaller entries, as those are easier to manage. But another car contest so soon would be boring, I like variety. A truck contest in the scale of Mack Anthem might be nice alternative to cars while being popular enough for many entrants.

  On 7/24/2023 at 9:23 PM, howitzer said:

Being rich doesn't make you a better builder in itself so it really isn't pay to win in - at most it could be considered a threshold for entry.

In contest with popular vote I've seen big builds that on the inside just used standard techniques thanks to standard suspension and engine parts etc, and what made them complete was the amount of panels they could assemble. And those did compete in number of votes with some of smaller ones that were more thought through and more challenging because the smaller ones had to precisely think through the inner mechanics.

  On 7/24/2023 at 9:23 PM, howitzer said:

2000-3000 pieces is the part count of a single flagship-size set which costs around couple hundred euros new. If you're both new to Technic and short on money (so you haven't had time to gather parts cheaply and can't buy them when needed), then it indeed can be an obstacle to enter the contest, but most interested people here should have enough parts for this kind of enlargement contest in their collection.

A lot of people have sets that they don't want to take apart and for a 2000 pcs MOC you either need to have two or even three sacrificial sets, or you spend additional money and/or time to source the parts in specific colours. Pick-a-brick isn't ideal and bricklink or local marketplaces are limited to what the current reseller has at the moment, so you end up piling up the costs of shipping. Unless you just have a pile of sets stripped for parts, but that again costs. It's either that you've got a huge pile of loose bricks in specific colours you tend to use and that matches the thing you need to make for the contest or you need to start sourcing parts and separately they definitely cost more per piece than in sets.

And from my experience, building something similar in size to $50 set may easily get up to $150 when you're getting bricks from multiple sources. And my point isn't that I or others are short on money, but that getting into 2000 pcs region it's getting too expensive and more importantly too much time consuming to source the parts needed, especially when bigger models tend to have more situations where you need to rethink your strategy and buy something else.

  On 7/24/2023 at 9:38 PM, SaperPL said:

In contest with popular vote I've seen big builds that on the inside just used standard techniques thanks to standard suspension and engine parts etc, and what made them complete was the amount of panels they could assemble. And those did compete in number of votes with some of smaller ones that were more thought through and more challenging because the smaller ones had to precisely think through the inner mechanics.

A lot of people have sets that they don't want to take apart and for a 2000 pcs MOC you either need to have two or even three sacrificial sets, or you spend additional money and/or time to source the parts in specific colours. Pick-a-brick isn't ideal and bricklink or local marketplaces are limited to what the current reseller has at the moment, so you end up piling up the costs of shipping. Unless you just have a pile of sets stripped for parts, but that again costs. It's either that you've got a huge pile of loose bricks in specific colours you tend to use and that matches the thing you need to make for the contest or you need to start sourcing parts and separately they definitely cost more per piece than in sets.

And from my experience, building something similar in size to $50 set may easily get up to $150 when you're getting bricks from multiple sources. And my point isn't that I or others are short on money, but that getting into 2000 pcs region it's getting too expensive and more importantly too much time consuming to source the parts needed, especially when bigger models tend to have more situations where you need to rethink your strategy and buy something else.

Contests are aimed at those who build rather than those who collect - if you want to keep your models assembled, that's fine but then you're not the target audience for contests. You must have some amount of loose parts (easily in the order of thousands or more) if you ever intend to build anything. Colour schemes indeed can get tricky, not just because one might not happen that specific part in that specific colour but it might not even exist or it could be very expensive to acquire. But that's a limitation with which everyone has to deal with and it affects small builds too. Yes, sourcing parts for a moc can get expensive, but the parts are not consumed in the process, they are later available for your next build and you'll have a bit easier time building.

I still don't agree with the big = successful argument. Granted, I haven't familiarized myself with the contest entries from the time before I joined this forum, but since then every contest winner has been deserving, such that it is well built and designed, rather than just big and flashy. Sometimes the big happens to win though (such as the GBC contest) but not because it's big, but rather because it's a great build. Also, the most important rule is that contest are for fun. I know there's little chance of me winning as many much more skilled people are also entering but I enjoy the challenge of building which is why I enter contests, whether I do well or not in the voting isn't that big deal.

  On 7/24/2023 at 10:01 PM, howitzer said:

You must have some amount of loose parts (easily in the order of thousands or more) if you ever intend to build anything.

My point of this being pay2win. You see, I don't think I have thousands of loose parts, and I like keeping some custom MOCs that came out well for a longer time on the shelve. For me spending $100 on custom parts while also using up some of other parts that I already have for a contest that I might take part in twice a year is fine, but having a few thousands of pieces just to be ready or buying multiple sets for the contest to strip for parts etc, feels like far more than a simple hobby contest for fun and is not worth it anymore considering the time I'd have to put into it as well.

  On 7/24/2023 at 10:01 PM, howitzer said:

I still don't agree with the big = successful argument. Granted, I haven't familiarized myself with the contest entries from the time before I joined this forum, but since then every contest winner has been deserving, such that it is well built and designed, rather than just big and flashy.

What I noticed few times is not that those big and flashy sets did win, but they chipped away big portion of points making some close contenders (IMO in quality of their submissions) further away from the podium. But yes, they still need to be well built and designed, so it's not just big thing always wins, but small thing also needs to be well built and designed, and I feel like big builds with parts in proper colours will often win over smaller ones when quality-wise both are good for their scale. Combine that feeling with what I said above, and you can see it that I'm biased against contests that could go that way.

How about we just stop to saying about big entry? That's to many post about that and it can be easly fixed to have jury like current contest. And if you still want talk big set=win, than I bring back studless contest. I submitted 1334 parts Aston martin and all 3 winner looks like use less part count than mine.

  On 7/24/2023 at 10:01 PM, howitzer said:

I still don't agree with the big = successful argument. Granted, I haven't familiarized myself with the contest entries from the time before I joined this forum, but since then every contest winner has been deserving, such that it is well built and designed, rather than just big and flashy.

Exactly this. Spot on.

Also, I’m getting somewhat tired of the “this is not fair, that is not fair” discussions. We have been running contests for ages and we had very few issues and very few complaints. So, let’s simply enjoy building for a contest and stop whining.

Besides that, I will come up with my own idea for the next contest instead of having elaborate discussions about it, like last time.

  On 7/25/2023 at 12:44 AM, msk6003 said:

How about we just stop to saying about big entry? That's to many post about that and it can be easly fixed to have jury like current contest. And if you still want talk big set=win, than I bring back studless contest. I submitted 1334 parts Aston martin and all 3 winner looks like use less part count than mine.

I will clarify this because I see you didn't get my point. Whenever you have two entries that are same visual quality, the bigger model will get more votes in popular voting. No offense, but your aston wasn't on par with quality of other submissions, but there's a reason for that we both know - recreating it perfectly was a challenging task, which means you picked a hard set to recreate.

When we get back to studless recreation topic, note that there are quite a few perfect recreations of smaller sets that get barely any votes, and there's one 8440 that was pretty simple construction thanks to panels, and that was a good choice, and so still got significantly more points than smaller entries that were recreated properly.

  On 7/25/2023 at 6:17 AM, Jim said:

Also, I’m getting somewhat tired of the “this is not fair, that is not fair” discussions.

My point isn't that it's not fair, but the fact that if people join a contest, give the contest a try and there's no specific size requirements, they enter with something smaller and there's barely anyone voting for their submissions, we'll lose those contestants in following contests because of that. And my understanding was that this topic was for figuring out how to set up the next context in a most optimal way which means as much contestants as possible. So my view of that is to set a fixed relatively affordable size restriction so people with limited amount of free cash to spend and time to tinker on the entries can also participate and not assume that if you want to participate you have to have few thousands of bricks laying around. That is why I'm calling the lack of size restriction a pay2win. But I'll stop talking about it now.

  On 7/25/2023 at 6:31 AM, SaperPL said:

My point isn't that it's not fair, but the fact that if people join a contest, give the contest a try and there's no specific size requirements, they enter with something smaller and there's barely anyone voting for their submissions, we'll lose those contestants in following contests because of that. 

This is a personal opinion and not a fact. We are still going strong and the number of contestants doesn't depend on size restrictions, it does depend on the chosen subject, time of the year, etc. The last couple of contests have been very specific, but check out the broad TC20 contest. No size restrictions and 47 entries. So, please  don't confuse your opinion with actual facts.

  On 7/25/2023 at 6:31 AM, SaperPL said:

And my understanding was that this topic was for figuring out how to set up the next context in a most optimal way which means as much contestants as possible. 

Of course you can discuss the contest setup here, but the "bigger always wins" is simply not the case. And we do have plenty of contests for small builds or builds like motorcycles (which automatically is restricted due to tire scale). So I don't think we need to be discussing size restrictions over and over again.

  On 7/25/2023 at 6:31 AM, SaperPL said:

That is why I'm calling the lack of size restriction a pay2win. But I'll stop talking about it now.

It's never a level playing field when it comes to contests. Size restrictions might level the playing field somewhat, but then there will be other things. I can already tell you that next contest will have color restrictions 

I do appreciate your opinion (I really do), but you seem to be one of the few people constantly debating the contest setup and rules. 

  On 7/25/2023 at 7:02 AM, Jim said:

but the "bigger always wins" is simply not the case

Ehh, again the misunderstanding what I meant by pay2win... in competitive games pay2win problem is not exactly literal/self-explanatory from the name as you: pay money, you win. It's about the odds being uneven. If it was to be implemented literally, it would obviously kill the live games doing it this way. So I'm talking about competitive edge that premium/paid items give in competitive games. And I'm using the pay2win definition as such when talking about contests where having more bricks gives you competitive edge. When there are restrictions on the size, it gets clear that everyone has a fixed entry point, if there's no restriction, having more inventory/more money to get the inventory and therefore option to build bigger and more complex things and more detailed things will give you competitive edge. And the problem is not only about the amount of competitive edge actually mattering in the outcome, but more importantly about the perception of whether it matters to the players.

Getting back to this simply because of the oversimplification here - I stated that two models of the same visual quality with different size will be treated differently. And you can say that if there's a contest allowing to enter with various sizes, it's a choice to go with a smaller entry model, but it's a choice IF you can actually build the bigger one when you have enough inventory of bricks, it stops being a choice when you're constrained with limited amount of bricks you've got loose. So it's an uneven odds at the entry point when it comes to how much money you've spent on loose inventory, and it of course may depend on whether you keep the sets intact etc, but still it affects the odds. And of course quality matters, so just going bigger and making a subpar entry isn't a "throw money at the problem" plan to win.

I guess it's my fault for taking the pay2win term from competitive GaaS (Game-as-a-Serivce) games and using it here without explaining this precisely first...

  On 7/25/2023 at 7:21 AM, Jim said:

 I do appreciate your opinion (I really do), but you seem to be one of the few people constantly debating the contest setup and rules. 

I think I might have OCD when it comes to rules because of my job as a game dev.

And also we end up debating it over and over again when someone throws an idea for a contest which is not size constrained and I point out that it may get pay2win, and someone contests that/asks for more explanation and the whole debate starts again...

Edited July 25, 20231 yr by SaperPL

  On 7/25/2023 at 7:37 AM, SaperPL said:

I think I might have OCD when it comes to rules because of my job as a game dev.

So maybe we need to start discussing more interesting things....like game development. Have done some myself  (some simple web and mobile games)

And let's end the pay-2-win and bigger-is-better discussion. I understand your point of view and with your background I understand where it comes from.

  On 7/25/2023 at 7:21 AM, Jim said:

I can already tell you that next contest will have color restrictions 

Is it a contest in which we have to build something only with 42039 green / 42099 orange / 42145 yellow 

Edited July 25, 20231 yr by Ngoc Nguyen

Not a new idea, but did we do a Control+ only TC?

I know the new electronics are not that welcomed by most of us, but maybe we can promote them a little with a future contest?

To not make this a pay2win, maybe online 1 standard control+ hub allowed and max of 4 motors. But built the model as you wish?

Edited August 22, 20231 yr by Jundis

Next thing I know, there will be an upscale contest. 

 

@Jundis - no we’ve done a pneumatic contest and a power functions contest but not a Control+. I think this would be quite restrictive as it would mean people would need expensive sets and I know many have stayed away from control+.

I got my first control+ set this year only as it was on sale

 

can we also wait for TC25 to have its voting before we all start planning for TC26. Give Jim and Milan a bit of time 

Edited August 22, 20231 yr by Seasider

  On 8/22/2023 at 2:12 PM, Seasider said:

can we also wait for TC25 to have its voting before we all start planning for TC26. Give Jim and Milan a bit of time 

You're right. I just saw Jims facepalm when Control+ got mentioned, so I was triggered :D

  On 8/22/2023 at 1:57 PM, Jundis said:

Not a new idea, but did we do a Control+ only TC?

I know the new electronics are not that welcomed by most of us, but maybe we can promote them a little with a future contest?

I actually like the idea to popularize Powered Up stuff (I guess that's what you meant), and because it is rather challenging to build smaller models with Powered Up.. It could be interesting with a size restriction.

  7 hours ago, Jundis said:

To not make this a pay2win, maybe online 1 standard control+ hub allowed and max of 4 motors. But built the model as you wish?

That sounds like a reasonable restriction as well.

  On 8/22/2023 at 2:12 PM, Seasider said:

@Jundis - no we’ve done a pneumatic contest and a power functions contest but not a Control+.

What was the judging criteria on the PF contest? Did the functions need to be showcased in a video?

  7 hours ago, Seasider said:

I think this would be quite restrictive as it would mean people would need expensive sets and I know many have stayed away from control+.

I can see that that indeed may be the case unfortunately..