Featuring in 3.0

Hey Everyone

Just looking for people’s opinions on something I’ve been noticing lately. That is the collab groups that have been forming in 3.0.

Now I have been part of collabs, both in 2.0 and in 3.0. Sometimes it’s because I know another artist is as passionate about an idea as I am. Sometimes it’s just to have a fun massive collab to make a huge linked toy box. I see nothing wrong with collabs in moderation.

What I am talking about is when a group of artists are tackling nearly every challenge and putting all their names on every box. To me, this is obviously the start of a summit frenzy, as there are technically no rules on collab features right now. 4 people work together on one box and all slap their name on it … if it wins … that is a feature for all of them. The worst part is that this group can get a feature with the quality of their box not reflecting the work of multiple separate artists. It just has to be good enough to beat solo artists.

My worry is that as summit fever increases, this is going to make it harder and harder for our new artists to place. When I started to feature in 2.0, there was the occasional collab but nothing big and not very often. My fear is that other groups of artists are ALSO going to form these collab groups, simply to be competitive and to get their own easy features. The advantages of this are obvious, with little to no down side. Some weeks, one of those artists might not even do ANYTHING in the box and be working on next week’s challenge, while the other’s finish this one. There is no easy way to prove that they all made significant contributions to that specific box. What will end up happening is multiple groups of artists hitting every challenge with multiple artist names on their boxes.

Some will argue that the collab is allowing other newer artists to place. The reality is that it is getting all of those artists an easy feature, and as more groups form, they will begin to stagnate the Top 5 into solely these collab groups winning. A new artist isn’t aware of all this and all they will see is that no matter how hard they try, or how good their box is, they can’t compete with multiple people working on one box. I, personally , am excited to see new artists emerge and see what fresh idea’s they can bring to the toy box. And I have a fear that this new strategy is going to be driving them away when they continue to have no luck and see the same groups feature again and again. I very vividly recall how difficult it was in 2.0 even without this added challenge.

So, how do we help ensure that this new strategy doesn’t become the norm?

My first thought, and the one that seems to make the most sense to me, is that a feature is 1 feature. 4 names on a box does not make it 4 features. So if a box feature’s and has 4 names on it, that is a quarter of a feature each. Three names a third. Two names is half. I think this will allow collabs to still occur when artists are passionate about an idea they really want to work on, but will ensure that this new crowd sourcing method of hitting the challenges becomes much less effective. If the goal is to build for fun, who cares if it is only half a feature. If the goal is a mad rush for summit level features, suddenly it is not that productive of a strategy. It would take a group of 4 people 4 features to match a single artist name featuring in just one challenge.

Please note, before the comments begin, that this idea would also affect my feature count and I am completely fine with this. I have been in multiple featured collabs this season and I see this as a fair way to ensure we keep giving newcomers a fighting chance. It’s hard enough competing against other artists who know the tools and are experienced at working in the toybox. Competing against groups of them is much harder.

I’d love to hear people’s opinions on this matter. Does anyone else see this as a new problem in 3.0?

I think that sounds fair. I haven't done any collaborations and probably won't but I too have noticed a lot of them getting featured.

This may not be popular but what about a group box of the week. This wouldn't count as a feature similar to rising star. Each week they could feature one group box that stands head and shoulders above the rest. Last week, it would have been the toy box awakens.

This would allow the artists to get some recognition but wouldn't count towards the summit. I think the summit should showcase individual builders and not teams. Exceptions being teams like erdadi, ccrunner, vasuri and king of the tunas since they use one profile.

Oh I completely agree about the teams. Those are all husband and wife or sibling teams, I don’t consider them collabs at all. They work under one artist name and only took 1 spot at summit for the 2 people. I’m speaking about the separate artist names who are adding a bunch of names to their toy box.

I don't consider them collabs either. Just wanted to spell out that features should be individuals and not the multi-artist boxes. I am not sure Disney/Avalanche would agree to the new group box spot but maybe someone on the Master Artist Panel could suggest it as an option. Either way, I don't think the collabs should count as a full feature.

I totally agree. Collabs are fun but have been abused in 3.0. I have done 2 in the 3.0 cycle not to win but just for fun. I think they should be discounted to at least 1/2 of feature count. I'm not sure if Disney would keep track of that all adding fractional features though.

I agree. Collabs have become a crutch for some to get featured rather than the special event they really should be.

Everyone should have to stand on their own feature-wise and not get to potentially coast along on others' coattails.

Guess no one else has an opinion on this?

[Sheriff Woody]

collaborative toy boxes have produced some really interesting content.

commenting as an outsider, the regular larger collaborations are looking a lot like some people may be trying to get an quick win notched up towards the summit.

when established master toy box artists collaborate rather than compete against each other it appears even more uncomfortable.

I've been meaning to reply to this since it was posted. Initially I waited to see more responses, I wanted to see what non-artists felt about it. Or newer artists still establishing themselves.

As a solo artist I can understand the temptation to lean heavily into collabs as a way of entering more challenges. As @semerien said, when the collaboration produces work worthy of the sum of its parts it can be amazing! I've had the privilege of being a part of a few successful, fun, and ambitious collaborations with my fellow master artists.

All of that being said I would gladly take an even portion of one feature spot for every collaboration I've been a part of that placed. We all did an even share of work we should split it evenly and every feature should be worth the same no matter how many people were involved. One spot on the leader board. One feature. Split amongst it's collaborators.

When one feature turns in to two, three, and four every challenge, dispersed amongst a group that is repeatedly collaborating the end result will be an intense drive up of the feature stats for 3.0. The cut off for Summit will be insane. (As @Sherriff Woody has pointed out summit is clearly a force here). And the new artists...

Well, the new artists will have an even harder time breaking through because crowdsourcing allows for entering many more challenges.

Now all of that is said, if anyone figures out cloning let me know, I could really use a second me like always.