Transformer Collector Tech Specs

[jaydisc]

One of the benefits of our community is the shared knowledge that we have between us. One of the problems is that we don't have any shared framework for evaluating interpersonal opinions. There's been times where I think a figure's crap and someone else thinks it's great, and vice versa, and then we have good ol' rivalries like Movie Ironhide vs. Ratchet.

So, I'd like to put forward a proposal for how we can give ourselves, as collectors, technical specifications [of preferences]. If we then use similar criteria for the reviewing of figures, a collector can mathematically assess a figure's score based on another's review, even if their opinions aren't that similar. I'll give an example in a minute.

I think step 1 is to come up with 10 criteria with which to evaluate ourselves. Each criteria is assessed a score of 1 to 10, whereas 1 means that this criteria has NO effect on your enjoyment a figure and 10 means that this characteristic means everything for your enjoyment. I think we collectively need to decide what these 10 might be. I think the number needs to be 10 for clean mathematical purposes. So, let me present an example set:

Realism
Do you like it when a figure's alt mode is as realistic as possible? This might include coloring, design and penalize Cybertron modes.

Classic/Nostalgic
Do you like homages to G1 or references to older characters?

Complexity
Do you like it when transformations bake your noodle?

Simplicity
Do you like simple transformations?

Character Appeal
How important is fiction to you?

Fiction Accuracy
Does cartoon or movie accuracy affect you?

Scale
Are you one of those sticklers for proper scale?

Value
How annoyed do you get when you buy a voyager that should have been a deluxe?

Gimmicks/Play Value
Do you like electronics, sound effects, Cybertron Keys, bundled minicons?

Originality
Is this figure unique?

Now these are the first ten I could come up with. I'm sure collectively we can finesse and improve this list plenty.

Step 2 is to assign how important these criteria are to you personally, e.g. here's me:

7 Realism
8 Classic/Nostalgic
9 Complexity
3 Simplicity
5 Character Appeal
3 Fiction Accuracy
4 Scale
6 Value
5 Gimmicks/Play Value
7 Originality

Now, step 3, is that when doing a review or the rating of a figure, try to fairly evaluate how it scores in these areas. For example, Animated Voyager Bulkhead:

3 Realism (Few figures from Animated will score high here)
1 Classic/Nostalgic (He's not really a homage to an earlier character. Is he?)
7 Complexity (The transformation is clever, but not too complex. When done in the right order, the automorphs are awesome, e.g. flip out the top flaps will auto-release the arms, so there is engineering complexity)
7 Simplicity (This might seem paradoxical, but I think Bulkhead is the perfect balance between complexity and simplicity and appeals to fans of both, hence is great popularity)
8 Character Appeal (Now, this isn't really a rating of what I think of the character, but moreover how strong a reaction he will emote either positively or negatively. In other words, he's a predominant character)
8 Fiction Accuracy (His accuracy here is seemingly agreed on)
2 Scale (His failure here is seemingly agreed on)
4 Value (Many complain he's a bit small for a Voyager)
9 Gimmicks/Play Value (Great automorphs, the wrecking ball, super punch. He's got lots)
8 Originality (Where Animated will fail in realism, they'll usually make up for it here)

So, lastly, step 4, is the fun part, where we merge these statistics with OUR PERSONAL preferences to come up with a personalized score for this figure.

7 x 3 = 21 Realism
8 x 1 = 8 Classic/Nostalgic
9 x 6 = 54 Complexity
3 x 7 = 21 Simplicity
5 x 8 = 40 Character Appeal
3 x 8 = 21 Fiction Accuracy
4 x 2 = 8 Scale
6 x 4 = 24 Value
5 x 9 = 45 Gimmicks/Play Value
7 x 8 = 56 Originality
==========
298 is this figure's rating based on my collecting preferences.

Now, I can imagine some of you groaning at the idea of performing math, but try to suspend that fear for this discussion, as I'm sure I can brew a software solution aka calculator to make this super easy. For example, I could create a simple site for you to enter your 10 personal criteria and the site would remember you. I'd also make a wizard for review writers to input their 10 criteria which would return to them a link to include in the reivew, so that when each collector clicked it, it would give them their personal interpolated rating.

So, whaddya think?

I think there are two steps required in polishing and realising this idea:

1. We have to polish the 10 criteria.
2. We have to chuck some sample data at it to see if it works.

This thread is perfect for step 1, so please do comment. And as we get a few reviews in our review section, we'll see if the reviewers are happy to score the figure against our criteria, and then as collectors we can respond with our score and see if the resulting numbers are accurate!

EDIT: Please see post #9 for a living, breathing, functioning, proof-of-concept.

[Pulse]

Jay, I believe you put waaaaaaaay too much thought into this. :) (Please don't flame me :o)

To me,

A cool figure = G1-homage, good poseability (depending on when it was released), detailed but not infuriating transformation, good QC or a mixture of the above :)

A sh#t figure = a pointless repaint, QC issues, a b#tch to transform or a combination of the above

:)

[liegeprime]

we could prolly bundle complexity and Simplicity as one and add one more criteria - Color Scheme - coz there are times that this particular characteristics makes or breaks an otherwise excellent toy ( e.g. Takara Greenscream VS G1 Taktomy MP scream VS Hasbro Battle Damage MP Screamer).

Plus with all the recolors Habsro is always dishing out, it pays to know which color version would be more appropriate/cooler to buy rather than be stuck with an uncool color version of a particular figure.

[1orion2many]

:eek:My Brain hurts:D but this doesn't mean it's a bad idea what you have started;)

[kurdt_the_goat]

Talking of Tech Specs, my BT20 Argent Meister didn't come with a Tech-Spec card! Nor did he have typical Binaltech instructions, just a regular white sheet of paper.. STL's not gonna be happy about that!

My first reaction is there's too much to consider, and that i'd never be concerned enough to do the sums :P Nice idea tho!

[jaydisc]

Jay, I believe you put waaaaaaaay too much thought into this. :) (Please don't flame me :o)

To me,

A cool figure = G1-homage, good poseability (depending on when it was released), detailed but not infuriating transformation, good QC or a mixture of the above :)

A sh#t figure = a pointless repaint, QC issues, a b#tch to transform or a combination of the above

:)

Ah, but Pulse, I know this might a perplexing concept, but not all people agree with you! :eek:

However, there is value in your contribution which is your mention of poseability, or as I prefer a real word to describe it, articulation. That was definitely included in my original thoughts, but I forgot it while writing this up. It definitely deserves inclusion as one of the 10 criteria.


we could prolly bundle complexity and Simplicity as one and add one more criteria - Color Scheme - coz there are times that this particular characteristics makes or breaks an otherwise excellent toy ( e.g. Takara Greenscream VS G1 Taktomy MP scream VS Hasbro Battle Damage MP Screamer).

Plus with all the recolors Habsro is always dishing out, it pays to know which color version would be more appropriate/cooler to buy rather than be stuck with an uncool color version of a particular figure.

I thought about bundling complexity and simplicity too. To do that, I think we'd just lose simplicity and if you ranked yourself high for complexity, it means you like complex TFs. But, for collectors that valued simplicity, figures wouldn't earn points to validate that. Example: Demonac likes things simple so he gives himself a 1. I like complex, so I give myself a 10. We evaluate a figure that has a rating of 5 for complexity. For him, that quality adds 5 points to the value of the figure, but it adds 50 for me, which is wrong. Rather, if they were separate and he had a 10 for simplicity and a 1 for complexity, and I had the reverse, the points would balance. However, it does make things confusing for the reviewer. Perhaps I can somehow obfuscate this in software. Lemme think about it.

Color scheme was one I briefly thought about, but merged it with realism. I think it has value though, so I'll add it to the list which we can then filter down later.


My first reaction is there's too much to consider, and that i'd never be concerned enough to do the sums :P Nice idea tho!

I promise you that you'll never have to do the math. You'd only have to enter your personal tech spec once (and update it if desired) and enter the specs of any figure you'd review. I'll construct a technical mockup and post shortly.

[Paulbot]

This reminds me a bit of the old TF geek code from ATT days :)
G+++ G1 G2-- BW++ MW BM+ FR FW+ M- #205 D+ AA+ N W++ OQP MUSH-- BC CN OM P250

On this I would be something like
6 Realism
8 Classic/Nostalgic
7 Complexity
2 Simplicity
9 Character Appeal
6 Fiction Accuracy
1 Scale
8 Value
2 Gimmicks/Play Value
8 Originality

However I have a gut feeling that the total scores wouldn't be that comparable.

[STL]

You stole one of my columns! :(

[jaydisc]

OK! Ive got a proof of concept.

Go here and enter your tech spec:

http://thepracticeofcode.com/techspecs/

It will remember it until the year 2032.

Once you have created your specs, you can now apply your spec to ratings. Here are some sample ratings for you to test against:

Bulkhead Rating (http://thepracticeofcode.com/techspecs/?character_name=Bulkhead&character_realism=3&character_nostalgia=1&character_compexity=7&character_simplicity=7&character_fiction_accuracy=9&character_articulation=6&character_scale=2&character_price=4&character_play_value=9&character_originality=8)

Movie Mudflap Rating (http://thepracticeofcode.com/techspecs/?character_name=Mudflap&character_realism=8&character_nostalgia=1&character_compexity=5&character_simplicity=5&character_fiction_accuracy=1&character_articulation=8&character_scale=6&character_price=7&character_play_value=7&character_originality=5) (Note that this one is a guess as I know little of this character)

If you want to create one of these rating links, you'll see a link to do that on this page. Does that make sense? See what I mean about having to do no math?

[Demonac]

But, for collectors that valued simplicity, figures wouldn't earn points to validate that. Example: Demonac likes things simple so he gives himself a 1.

Just to clarify, I like 'elegant' transformations. Doesn't need to be simple...just well thought out.
E.g. Cybertron Downshift & Movie Optimus are 2 examples of what I'm talking about.

[jaydisc]

Just to clarify, I like 'elegant' transformations. Doesn't need to be simple...just well thought out.
E.g. Cybertron Downshift & Movie Optimus are 2 examples of what I'm talking about.

:D I was only playing. However, you may be on to something. Perhaps we can ditch complexity and simplicity in favor of a more generic "Quality of Transformation" or just "Transformation" allowing you to weigh how important the transformation is....

EDIT: The problem is that we lose objectiveness, i.e. I'd be curious to hear what you rate Ironhide vs. Ratchet in that area.

FURTHER EDIT:


You stole one of my columns! :(

That'd be 3 now ;)

And, I didn't steal. I beat you to it!

FURTHER EDIT:


However I have a gut feeling that the total scores wouldn't be that comparable.

Only to ourselves, not amongst each other.

[STL]

That'd be 3 now ;)

And, I didn't steal. I beat you to it!


True. But yours is different to mine. I was actually just going to examine the criteria and look at how each criteria weigh with different segments of collectors so it's not really stealing.

That makes it 2 :p

I should add I really dig the premise. It'd be great to start from what I've got now but I don't think I could stomach going thru my entire collection to do it.

[STL]

Jaydisc, is it possible u can put this into a program for me (cos my DB is on my PC which has no net connection)? The more I think of this, the more I'd love a version of this for myself.

[jaydisc]

Absolutely. If you keep your collection in a spreadsheet or database, you could assign scores for your criteria to each figure. Then, elsewhere on the spreadsheet, you could have YOUR criteria to use for weighing the scores. Later on, if you decided that your personal evaluation criteria had changed, your figures' scores would auto-update.

[STL]

Absolutely. If you keep your collection in a spreadsheet or database, you could assign scores for your criteria to each figure. Then, elsewhere on the spreadsheet, you could have YOUR criteria to use for weighing the scores. Later on, if you decided that your personal evaluation criteria had changed, your figures' scores would auto-update.

That's absolutely awesome. It'd mean a slight reworking of my DB but i love the whole concept and how personalised it is. See, I'm not a ludite! :p

[Geminii]

How would you represent a strong liking for both realistic modes and Cybertronian modes? Then there are the multiple value criteria... is the local store price good? Is the online price good? Is the aftermarket price good? I know that the official price tag or price point on a toy doesn't affect how good I think the toy itself is, but I will go to certain lengths to get the deepest discount I can.

Regarding the realism, I tend to tilt it more towards detail - it doesn't matter if the core vehicle exists, as long as it doesn't look like a half-sucked jellybean.

I'd also make a distinction between clever, elegant complexity (Masterpiece), and complexity for complexity's sake (some of the Alternators).

That said:

ALT 8
CLA 4
CPX 7
SIM 2
CHA 2
FIC 4
SIZ 2
$$$ 9 if personal buying, 0 if considering official price points
GMK 1
ORI 8

[STL]

Whoa, I got 404 for Mudflap. That's a high score, I think. still working it out...

Bulkhead got 395.

But for these stats we can't rate the criteria ourselves, right? Only our preferences.

Mine are:

realism: 8
nostalgia: 10
compexity: 8
simplicity: 2
fiction_accuracy : 7
articulation: 10
scale: 9
price: 7
play_value: 10
originality: 6

[jaydisc]

404 does seem like a high score (or a common internet error ;)), but it all depends on what your average score should be based on your personal specs. I've added a blurb at the bottom of the comparison to show this to the user.

It would be easy enough for me to enable for you to adjust the comparative figure's stats as well. I'll try to add this tonight.

[STL]

GRRRR.... I was typing this up and then the board stuffed me up and I couldn't recover what I typed!! Here goes again....

I gave a lot of thought to the criteria and decided to break the criteria into three main categories as below. Duplication of criteria was one of the first things that sprung to mind but I think I can justify that b/c for instance play value in alt mode can be not enhanced in alt mode by cyber keys such as with Galaxy Force Starscream where his blades contribute very little. On Cybertron Defence Scattorshot, the play value is enhanced in both modes by the planet key gimmick. However with CD Scattershot, he's also got mini-con ports in alt mode which are pretty damn cool. Nostalgia can be justified twice too b/c say with Cybertron Downshift, the alt mode says nothing about nostalgia but the head sculpt in robot mode does.

I also particularly like having the 3 major categories b/c it offers the opportunity to rank your toys according to what stands out about them. For instance, a toy like Animated Blackarachnia has a very meh transformation but stellar robot mode. Cybertron Evac for me would have an average alt mode b/c of the gaps but score highly in both transformation and robot mode. So this gives me a wonderful option to know why I like the toys that I do.

I added durability b/c certain toys are more prone to wear and will require replacement or modding in the long run. BWs and Animated toys come to mind especially here.

I also added paint applications which I'm not entirely sure about. The reason I added it is b/c paint apps don't necessary always go to cartoon accuracy or realism. They can be merely details that enhance your enjoyment of a toy. I'm thinking here especially the upcoming Classics 2.0 (Universe), Henkei and, in the past, Superlink/Galaxy Force. For collectors like me w/ Japanese and Hasbro versions it really makes sense.

Alt Mode
- Nostalgia:
- Gimmicks:
- Play Value:
- Realism:
- Scale:

Robot Mode:
- Nostalgia:
- Gimmicks:
- Play Value:
- Scale:
- Articulation:

Transformation:
- Complexity
- Originality:

Fiction Accuracy:
Character Appeal:
Paint Applications:
Durability:
Price:


Thoughts? Or do i just have too much time to kill?

[jaydisc]

You've entered your rating as a toy. When I follow that link, I get:

"Based on your specs, an average figure would earn 305 points. LCZ128 scores 403. We anticipate that you will like this figure." :D

[lcz128]

LOL!
I was rushing through this as I'm prepping for dinner with the folks :b lcz128 (http://[URL]http://thepracticeofcode.com/techspecs/?character_name=lcz128&character_realism=8&character_nostalgia=5&character_compexity=8&character_simplicity=3&character_fiction_accuracy=3&character_articulation=8&character_scale=7&character_price=6&character_play_value=6&character_originality=6) <--this was the link before that I deleted :)

Uhh... good to know I'm liked? ... :|*sweatdrop*

[jaydisc]

STL, just got around to reading yours. I think lots of thought is great, but if we're looking to offer something widespread, it's gotta be short, terse and sweet.

However, if you're only hypothesizing about what you'd like me to build for you specifically, dream on! (not sarcastic :D)

[STL]

STL, just got around to reading yours. I think lots of thought is great, but if we're looking to offer something widespread, it's gotta be short, terse and sweet.

However, if you're only hypothesizing about what you'd like me to build for you specifically, dream on! (not sarcastic :D)

:p

I actually stayed up last night to four o'clock trying to work it out in an excel spreadsheet. It's working smoothly now. Just the criteria I need to nail down. I do agree we need something a lot more simpler if we want to encourage people to use it.

But for me personally (which is what this is for) it's become an invaluable toy for comparisons. I'll show you it tmrw if we decide the meet is on. It's a bit windy but hell, it's a lot of fun. I spent plenty of time with toys I hadn't touched in awhile to enter in scores. It was nice to reacquaint myself with toys I hadn't touched in half a year. :D

But the best part is having a thorough and more objective understanding of the merits of each toy rather than saying "I just like it". Kudos to you though for coming up with the weighting idea. It's an absolutely great idea.