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 )

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]

My Brain hurts 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 )

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!

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

Movie Mudflap Rating (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.