Classic-Castle.com


The source for all your LEGO Castle needs!

Time to abandon CCC?

Discussion and planning of large-scale Castle Themed displays and events

Is it time to abandon the CCC standard?

Poll ended at Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:33 pm

Heck, yeah! Time for a new display standard.
0
No votes
No way! It is great (but it might need some updating)
12
86%
Standards are too limiting let's just build whatever.
2
14%
 
Total votes : 14

Time to abandon CCC?

Postby Tedward » Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:33 pm

Is the CCC standard an abandoned project that the admins of CC.com no longer wish to promulgate?

It's not a decision I would agree with but like the change to Bley or the demise of 9v trains it's better to know now and move on.

Perhaps the CC.com community wishes to have a say about the future of their project.

Please take a moment to decide how you feel about the future of the CCC.
Image
User avatar
Tedward
Squire
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Postby SavaTheAggie » Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:58 pm

The admins have not abandoned the CCC standard. Much like the Moonbase module standard, the CCC standard is something the community owns, not just the admins here at CC. It isn't our place to abandon it unless it has been abandoned by everyone else.

Granted, the CCC standard could use some updating, much like what was done to the Moonbase standard, but such is the way of things. As far as I'm concerned the CCC standard has been a fantastic success and has created some fantastic displays at events all over the world.

If you are taking the idea the admins have abandoned the CCC standard from there not being a category in the CCC4 contest, then you are gravely mistaken. The categories in the contest are derived from the prizes available, and to a lesser extent the success of categories of the previous contest. Had we been able to aquire a CCC style prize, I'm sure we would have included it in the contest.

I've said it before, and I fear I am doomed to forever repeat it. Classic-Castle.com is a community website, by the community for the community. We admins are merely the custodians of this great place. We keep order, but the content is up to the community to generate. We try to spark interest, but it is up to the community to generate buzz. We may try to steer the site in a particular direction, but the community is holding the map.

--Tony
Image

Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
SavaTheAggie
Lord Sava of Aggie
Lord Sava of Aggie
 
Posts: 3060
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:36 am
Location: Houston

Postby Tedward » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:13 pm

SavaTheAggie wrote:The admins have not abandoned the CCC standard. Much like the Moonbase module standard, the CCC standard is something the community owns, not just the admins here at CC. It isn't our place to abandon it unless it has been abandoned by everyone else.


Awesome. I am glad to hear such a postive and clear statement regarding the "ownership" of the project.

Given that the CCC4 is a flagship event the lack of inclusion of our premiere project seemed significant especially when tied to the lack of updates or additions to the CCC standard section of the website. Overall it gives the apperance of being neglected or even abandoned. I am glad that was a misapprehension on my part.

If you are taking the idea the admins have abandoned the CCC standard from there not being a category in the CCC4 contest, then you are gravely mistaken. The categories in the contest are derived from the prizes available, and to a lesser extent the success of categories of the previous contest. Had we been able to aquire a CCC style prize, I'm sure we would have included it in the contest.


Now that is a better explanation than I got on the contest thread. :) I am still allowed to be dissapointed in the decision however. I am curious though, what exactly is, "a CCC style prize" and what difference does it make if the prize is a bucket of basic bricks or a reconstituted old castle set?

There is still the legitimate question of the poll as some decision needs to be made by the community about whether we move to Base8 or stay with CCC.

I was at Brendan's presentation at NW BrickCon and I am frankly still undecided. I have not even voted yet in my own poll above! :?
Image
User avatar
Tedward
Squire
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Postby SavaTheAggie » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Tedward wrote:Now that is a better explanation than I got on the contest thread. :) I am still allowed to be dissapointed in the decision however. I am curious though, what exactly is, "a CCC style prize" and what difference does it make if the prize is a bucket of basic bricks or a reconstituted old castle set?

There is still the legitimate question of the poll as some decision needs to be made by the community about whether we move to Base8 or stay with CCC.

I was at Brendan's presentation at NW BrickCon and I am frankly still undecided. I have not even voted yet in my own poll above! :?


A CCC style prize would be like what was in the original Colossal Castle Contest, the Guarded Inn for CCC wall-attached buildings, and Daniel Siskind's Blacksmith Shop for freestanding CCC buildings.

We like to have our prizes be relavent, when possible, to the category, which serves two purposes. First and foremost, it makes the contest more interesting. If all of our prizes were just piles of bricks, it really wouldn't spark that much enthusiasm in the different categories (granted, a single prize 1000 grey parts would probably be well received). Secondly, the category-themed prizes help attract those who have a specific interest in the different facets of Castle building. For example - those who like building castles but don't like building cottages would most likely enter a castle category, and would like to receive a castle as a prize. If we had a castle category, but gave away a cottage as a prize, there just wouldn't be the same interest. People might ask "Well what point is there for me to win this category?"

As for the CCC standard versus Base8, while Base8 might work well for landscaping and perhaps even be adopted for wall construction, the cons against baseplate-based construction for display purposes was the entire reason behind the CCC standard's creation.

Before the CCC standard, there was the medieval marketplace, a building standard based on the 16x16 baseplate. While this worked well in getting the displays together quickly, the displays created were too orderly, and didn't look particularly medieval. This is why at Brickfest 03 a large group of people, myself included, tried to come up with something better.

The beauty behind the CCC standard as far as non-wall buildings are concerned is that not only can anyone bring just their buildings, but you place the buildings anywhere, move them at any time, and rearrange the display as needed. Trying to work around baseplates when dealing with 20 different builders, with perhaps 2 or 3 MOCs each, can be very difficult. With freestanding buildings, roads and paths can be put in later, and you don't have to worry about dead-end roads or terrain that doesn't match with its' neighbor.

Another reason behind the CCC walls being built on 32x32 baseplates was the very fact that the CCC buildings had no baseplates. While the Base8 walls are functional, they don't add to the display, they're just walls. The CCC standard wall allows for readily available floor space on which to put the CCC buildings. This perhaps needs to be updated, but that was why it was done this way.

I think the very idea that the CCC standard does not focus on baseplates is what has made it so successful and accepted - ad hoc displays. Displays can be put up so quickly without forethought. The only thing one needs to plan with a CCC display is wall segments, everything else builds itself.

I'm not saying I dislike the Base8 standard, but I think everything has its place. I think the CCC standard could use updating, but I don't see Base8 replacing it. Rather, I see Base8 and the CCC standard working together, feeding off each other.

--Tony
Image

Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
SavaTheAggie
Lord Sava of Aggie
Lord Sava of Aggie
 
Posts: 3060
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:36 am
Location: Houston

Postby architect » Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:09 pm

Tedward wrote:Now that is a better explanation than I got on the contest thread. :) I am still allowed to be dissapointed in the decision however. I am curious though, what exactly is, "a CCC style prize" and what difference does it make if the prize is a bucket of basic bricks or a reconstituted old castle set?

There is still the legitimate question of the poll as some decision needs to be made by the community about whether we move to Base8 or stay with CCC.

I was at Brendan's presentation at NW BrickCon and I am frankly still undecided. I have not even voted yet in my own poll above! :?


Tony's answer is correct. He did a much better job of explaining how the categories/prizes work for the contest. Trust me, I have been trying to win wall section type sets such as 6067, 6061, 6062, and 6059 for this category. The ebay prices on these sets have been ridiculous lately. We will keep your suggestion in mind for next year as we search for donations.

Ben
User avatar
architect
Baron von Ellermann
Baron von Ellermann
 
Posts: 4771
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:10 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO USA

Postby Tedward » Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:35 pm

architect wrote:We will keep your suggestion in mind for next year as we search for donations.


Awesome! :D

Thanks.

And for those keeping score, I voted in the poll for "keep it". I really enjoyed Tony's post and will be saying more about why I voted that way and where we might make improvements.
Image
User avatar
Tedward
Squire
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Postby JoshWedin » Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:46 am

I voted to definitely keep it. I think some updating might need to be done, but I don't think the CC standard and Base8 are mutually exclusive. Base8 is excellent for landscaping outside the city, that is its purpose. However, the city standard still needs to be there.

Josh
AFOL and his money are easily parted.

Image The Brothers Brick
User avatar
JoshWedin
Chevalier de Chèvre
Chevalier de Chèvre
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 2:35 pm
Location: Pondering what you are pondering

Postby wunztwice » Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:49 am

JoshWedin wrote:I voted to definitely keep it. I think some updating might need to be done, but I don't think the CC standard and Base8 are mutually exclusive. Base8 is excellent for landscaping outside the city, that is its purpose. However, the city standard still needs to be there.


This sums up very well my thoughts on the subject!
in His grip, Chris

Feed my hobby? My Bricklink

My Flickr!
My Brickshelf!(not updated...)
<><
User avatar
wunztwice
Knight Bannerett
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:33 pm
Location: Eastern Oregon

Postby Merlin of Lego » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:10 am

I have not voted because I do not think that the standard is useless but that that it needs more.

This I think is were Base8 comes in. While there is alot about landscaping in Base8 I think this fills in the holes in the CCC standard. I thought one of the down falls of the CCC standard was that it was more about the city and less about the kingdom or life outside the city walls. Granted it has been a while since I have read the articl about this.

The Base8 also has the walls for the city, I belive he even uses the same walls just a different placement on the base plate, and alowing for the same buildings to be set right in the city just as they were. By adding the roads and the landscaping, alows the ideas of having a standard grow to become something that people that can only do a building add a building but those that want to add more like a small castle or a bridge like the one Josh brought to NW Brick Con the abillity to add them to what I have termed the Kingdon versus the walled City.

The battle that we had at the con would not have been Possibe in a city setting. But we still had an area that was a walled city with buildings.

I do noth thisnk that throwing a way the CCC standard is the answer but that it has holes that need filled and I think Base8 fills some of these holes. To me Base8 could be called CCC standared version 2.0.
User avatar
Merlin of Lego
Apprentice
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 9:14 pm
Location: Bonney Lake, Wa

Postby Tedward » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:56 pm

JoshWedin wrote:I voted to definitely keep it. I think some updating might need to be done, but I don't think the CC standard and Base8 are mutually exclusive. Base8 is excellent for landscaping outside the city, that is its purpose. However, the city standard still needs to be there.

Josh



I think Josh has nicely summarised where my thoughts are headed.

I think that CCC is the city standard. Base8 or 8cres should be the landscape standard. I also think both should be built on BPB.

I really like Brendan's 8cres for landscaping/terrain but moving the city walls off of the middle of the 32x32 baseplate seems of limited utility. It ain't broke, needs no fixin. IF someone wants to make a weird shape or height for a wall section they can simply reserve multiple sections together so that the "ends" meet up as per the standard. As for the idea of using smaller collections, a single wall module on the equivalent of a 32x32 baseplate does not require a large collection. I think the first module I tried to build was on one 32x16 and two 16x16 baseplates all held together by the wall section itself. :)

That said I would really like to see the Baseplate-Plus-Brick (BPB) adopted for both. It allows for some landscaping within the city and anything built on just a basplate is easily raised to meet the height. Brendan and I put together a dozen or so "risers" from plates he had brought to NWBrickCon in about 10-15 minutes which allowed all the standard CCC modules to be raised to the required height.
Image
User avatar
Tedward
Squire
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Postby BreadMan » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 am

I've been keeping out of this discussion til now because I was interested to hear what others had to say first. Here are my thoughts, as concise as I can make them.

I consider Base8 to be like an expanded CCC. There is nothing in Base8 that restricts people from putting their buildings at non-90 degree angles, I'm not sure where that misconception came from.

My purpose in creating Base8 was to create more options for displays. I felt that displays I'd seen in the past could benefit from this. I've seen many CCCs that are just buildings and walls on green grass, and while this looks fine I think the addition of, say, roads just makes it all the better.

It's really up to the people who plan the display. CCC is great because it requires almost no planning. You bring your walls and your buildings and figure out the layout the day the con starts, no headaches involved. But for people who want to go the extra step, Base8 is there to make it possible. It's meant to ease the burden of planning a more complicated display.

Regarding the shift of CCC walls for Base8: there's a very specific reason I did this. Sure, its quite possible to build a CCCity and then build Base8 terrain around it (like we sort of did at NWBC, the wall was half CCC half Base8). But I wanted more options: what if, for instance, you wanted a cliffside city? If all the walls are built in the middle of 32x32 baseplates you've got 14 studs of blank space between the wall and the next feature. But when moved to a Base8 8cre you can have walls running right along the edges of cliffs, seashores, roads, rivers, or what have you.

Btw, I was hoping to do some editing of the Base8 article and then send it over here if the admins would like to include it in the main site. Just been busy ever since NWBC so haven't had a chance to do that yet.
User avatar
BreadMan
Archer
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:48 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby architect » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:45 am

BreadMan wrote:Btw, I was hoping to do some editing of the Base8 article and then send it over here if the admins would like to include it in the main site. Just been busy ever since NWBC so haven't had a chance to do that yet.


We would certainly like to add your standard. Please send us a pm or email when you start writing pages for it. Thanks.

Ben
User avatar
architect
Baron von Ellermann
Baron von Ellermann
 
Posts: 4771
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:10 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO USA

Postby Tedward » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:25 pm

BreadMan wrote:It's really up to the people who plan the display. CCC is great because it requires almost no planning.

- snip -

I wanted more options: what if, for instance, you wanted a cliffside city?


I think we may be talking slightly at cross-purposes. As you suggest CCC is meant to be easily assembled with little overall coordination. It is also designed to be quickly assembled on a large flat surface. Any change in elevations would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis but this does not compromise the standard. It may create exceptions but what's the problem with that?

For example: if you want to build a cliffside/mountainside/seaside city then you can easily request exceptions to the CCC for specific modules in the display. So long as the display coordinator knows what is going on and each person knows the requirements for their module everything is cool. Most people can build to the existing standard and the "transitions" can be assigned to competant contributors or done by the coordinator or some combination of both.

The advantages of CCC modularity need not be abandoned to create more detailed and interesting landscapes. Sure detailed planning CAN be done - as NW BrickCon demonstrated - but why force such labour intensive planning (even with a nice mapping program) on every display coordinator. Sometimes people will just want to show up with modules and see what happens. NW BrickCon also demonstrated quite clearly that traditional CCC modules can be integrated into an 8cres landscape without too much difficulty - especially if the coordinator knows where the transitions will be needed.

As part of the 8cres standard why not include some examples of how to make transitions? Then when such need to be made you can just say "Tedward, you need to make a wall section that includes two corners into the CCC, one at each end of a section made up of three 32-stud lengths of transiton module CL-2." where CL-2 is a cliff module with a CCC-style wall along the top. Only I (or whoever was assigned) would need to make exceptional modules while most people would be free to build standard CCC modules but we end up with a cool cliffside.

OOOh, can we do something like this for BrickFest PDX? :shock: (Uhm, BTW don't mark me down as "for sure" until I have had time to butter up the wife. :? )
Image
User avatar
Tedward
Squire
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Victoria, BC


Return to Castle Displays & Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest