Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

This is not really like SSC, it’s like comparing Roux and Waterman, they’re not the same.
I looked at some methods and found the first 2 steps of this is the same Human Thistlewaite method, solve EO + place E layer without solving it, then CO in some way.
So this is similar to HTA.

Edit- PapaSmurf I feel like my posts have been sort of mean to you, I'm sorry

Well, however similar or otherwise it is to SSC, you could use the OL5C step from SSC, because the way it reaches coeo belt is pretty good.

So something like this:
1: non matching eoedge (7)
2: OL5C (12)
3: CP (10?)
4: EP (inc. belt, 2 sub steps). That gives 20 moves for EP for it to be a sub 50 move method. But again, my biggest concern is with the ergonomics.

Hi guys, I am new to the speedsolving forums, but I have made up a method for 3x3 that works similarly like roux. Step 1: make 2 opposite first layer edge pieces.

This is easy, just put in 2 OPPOSITE white edges which must be permuted and oriented. Step 2: Finish making 2 2x2x3 blocks.

As I said, this is very similar to roux. You can do this a variety of ways, i like to use f2l to insert them, but if you have an edge in the empty white edge slots you can use M moves to bring them up into the top layer. Step 3: Corner orientation.
Once you've finished the blocks, you want to orient the corners. You can do this by just looking at the corners and using the cross OLL's to orient the corners.

Step 4: White edge inserting.
Once you're finished corner orientation, you want to put in the last 2 white edges. To do this i have 3 algorithms for this
1. if the white on the edge is facing UP, you want to do; M U2 M'
2. if the white on the edge is facing TOWARDS YOU, you want to do; U' M U M'
3. If the edge is in the slot but FLIPPED, you want to do; (M U M') U (M U2 M')
Step 5: Finishing OLL.
Once the last 2 whites are inserted, you will have 1 of 3 OLLs.
1.

2.

3.

1.
(r U R' U') M2 (U R U' R') U' M'
2.
(R U R' U') r R' (U R U' r')
3.
(r U R' U') r' R (U R U' R')

No no no no. I'm sorry that you have to be told this, but it's a bad method and plenty of people have proposed this previously.

The whole point of doing roux blocks is for efficiency, and the whole point of leaving the M slice open is because l6e is fast. By inserting the DF/DB edges, you defeat the point of leaving the M slice open. You just end up with F2L solved, which would be faster if you just used cross/F2L. Sure some CxLL algs are better than the COLL algs, but not by much and it's certainly not worth sacrificing everything that would need to be sacrificed to use this method.

If you read through the New method/substep/concept idea thread, you'll probably find this mentioned mentioned in some form several times.
It's not good.

Anyway, it's good that you're trying to help out the community by coming up with new methods! However, most ideas have been thought of before and, in general, methods are better in their pure form. If you have any more ideas, try searching the wiki for it or posting in that thread so that other people can critique it first.

I FEEL LIKE A GENIUS AAAA!!! I have a new idea, and its similar to a method I posted in this thread a couple weeks ago, ZZ-Guimond-Woowy-whatever. Basically I found a method that's infinitely better than that.

I've done a bit of looking around, and this is similar in some way to Human Thistlewaite, SSC, Kociemba, and Orient First.

I’ll call this Isom’s Kociemba. You can pick a name if you want. Here's the steps:
------------------------- -Edge Orientation (Edit: EO DL is better)-
Just like ZZ EOline, except without the line. Very easy to plan during inspection, about 5 moves average.
The reason this step comes first is because if you solve CO -> EO, than the EO becomes much harder, but if you do EO -> CO, then Corner Orientation is barely affected. -Corner Orientation (2-gen if you do EO DL)-
Just like 2x2 Guimond, except EO must be preserved, so instead of moveset [R,L,U,D,F,B,] you will have [R,L,U,D,F2,B2]. Not much difference.
For 2x2, average optimal movecount for CO is 3.779 moves, so I will give a realistic number for this step, 5 moves average.
The reason you would want to do CO before E-slice placing is because CO gets actually terrible when the E-slice is solved.
Look at SSC or the method I propose a couple weeks ago on this thread. CO is bad. In this, CO is good.
Resource: Lucas Garron Sortega -Chuck E-layer peices in E-layer-
R E2 R'. Enough said -Seperate Corners-
Very intuitive and simple step. There's like only 6 distinct cases, so you will get used to them very quickly. This could be combined with the next step to make a more efficient solve, but its a bad idea as there would be 100s of cases and recognition would be poor so it wouldn't be any faster. "God's number" for this step is 5 moves.
I just did a quick ao12 and average time was 0.96 and average movecount was 3.75. -Permute Corners-
Just like 2x2 Ortega PBL, except on 3x3. There are 5 algs minimum, 8 algorithms recommended (to prevent x2 rotations and stuff) Diag Top- F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' Diag Bottom- R D' R2 U2 R' U R U2 R U2 R D R' Adj. Top- l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2* Double Adjacent- R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2* Double Diagonal- R2 F2 R2* Adj. Top / Diag Bottom- R U' R F2 R' U R'* Diag Top / Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R*
*same as 2x2 algs.

This is how move calculations are done, probabilty and preAUF's and all- (0*1/36)+(17*1/36)+(13*1/36)+((9+0.75)*4/36)+((9+0.75)*4/36)+((7+1.5**)*16/36)+(3*1/36)+((7+0.75)*4/36)+((7+0.75)*4/36) = 9.027
**Both U and D have to be AUF'ed for double bars case. Also, solved and diag cases doesn't require preAUF.

The reason I permute in this way is because it is crystal clear that CP then EP is so much better than PLL then PLL. Everyone would agree. -UL/UR + DL/DR-
Basically L/R from Roux LSE, except its double. Pretty easy to see what you're doing, and you don't need to know any difficult concepts whatsoever. Most of the time I would solve DL/DR then UL/UR, but you can think of this step however you want.
If you've ever tried Roux, then this step is pretty straight foward.
By the way, you can use non-matching L/R trick to enhance efficiency. For example, you solve DL/DR red/orange, but UL/UR green/blue.
This might make 4c recog slightly worse, but this is usually worth it.

The reason that L/R -> 4c is better than Seperation -> EPLL is the same reason that vanilla Roux doesn't do Solve D edges -> EPLL.
Its simply less efficient with no ergonomic tradeoff, so L/R -> 4c is better. - 4c + 4c -
The edges have been simplified so much that now M layer is just like Roux 4c and E layer is just like 4c. M and E are independent, besides the fact that you can have "parity", for example, the M layer couldn't be solved with just [M,U2] moveset. You can use R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 to fix this "parity". You tell me the movecount and ergonomics for this step
--------------------------

EXAMPLE SOLVE:
Scramble: U R2 D2 L2 F' D2 B D2 L2 R2 B2 F' D' F' D' L B' F' U' F2
y2 // inspection
R2 L2 B' // EO
R' U2 R U' R U2 R' // CO
U' R E2 R u2 U R E2 R' // E-layer placement. There's probably a more efficient way.
U' R2 U R2 // Corner Seperation
D' R' D R' F2 R D' R // Corner Permutation
M2 u2 M2 D' U2 M U2 M U // L/R
M U2 M R2 E2 R2 u2 // 4c
48 STM

Spoiler: More example solves-

Scramble: D L' F2 U F L D' F2 R2 B U2 D2 L2 F' D2 B D2 F' U2 R'
y z2 // inspection
U L D' F // EO
R D' R' U R' // CO
F2 D U L E2 L' // E-layer
D' R2 // Corner Seperation
y R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 // Corner Permutation
D' M' U2 M' U M U2 M' // L/R
z2 U' F' U2 M2 U2 F U2 // 4c
39 STM

Scramble: B2 R D2 B2 R2 B2 L2 D' U' L2 U' B' L' R' F2 D F2 U' R
B L2 U L B // EO
L' R' U R' U2 // CO
E2 R L2 B2 E' F E2 F // E-layer
U2 L2 // Corner Seperation
D R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2 // Corner Permutation
y M2 U M' U2 M' u2 M2 D M2 U2 M2 // L/R
L2 D2 L2 D2 L2 U M U2 M' U // 4c
51 STM

Scramble: L D R2 B2 L2 F2 D R2 D' B2 D2 R U2 B D L B2 F' D2
y // inspection
R U L' F // EO
R U2 R U' R D2 L // CO
D2 U' R E2 R' // E-layer
U D R2 y' R2 D R2 D' R2 // CS+CP
U' S U2 S' U' M' U2 M' // L/R
U M2 U2 M' U2 M u' R2 D2 R2 D2 R2 D' // 4c
45 STM

Average movecount under 50. Nearly no algorithms to memorize, only 8 CP algs. There also aren’t many dificult concepts. CO and CP are very ergonomic. It's just a lot of intuitive parts that has tons of room for improvement because you will get more efficient and faster once you learn better algs to do certain cases and get used to these intuitive cases, especially CO and E-layer. (soon, I will try to make a resource that basically includes all possible cases for Edge Orientation, Corner Orientation, E-layer placement, and 4c + 4c, to help with ergonomics and efficiency)
This means you won’t be instantly fast with this method, so I guess you would say there is a learning curve to this?
I honestly think this is like the best thing ever. Okay, not best method, I know CFOP and Roux are the best, but this is the best method I have come up with. Everything makes sense and there isn't one step that is horribly inefficent. Everything is just so nice.

What suggestions do you have for this method to improve it?

Nice idea, not new new, but nice. It's (as you said) similar to SSC for a worse belt but better co. Also, for CP it's just squan algs. And ZZ is also the best! (Better than CFOP, but that's another discussion).

The main problem I see with this method is the L/R step. I'd rather solve DL/DR then L6EP (96 algs), but it's a load more algs.
I'm going to write a HARCS file to compare this and SSC. I'll come back with results soon-ish.

EDIT
I'm either bad at HARCS, or HARCS doesn't like me, but from what I can gather, 5+5+8+9.5+5+10=42.5 should be about right, which is quite good. The question then becomes one about ergonomics more than movecount.

I FEEL LIKE A GENIUS TODAY AAAA!!! I have a new idea, and its similar to a method I posted in this thread a couple weeks ago, ZZ-Guimond-Woowy-whatever. Basically I found a method that's infinitely better than that.

I've done a bit of looking around, and this is similar in some way to Human Thistlewaite, SSC, Kociemba, and Orient First.

This is actually amazing. Idk what to call this maybe Isom's Guimond (so original I know right!!!) You can pick a name if you want. Here's the steps:
------------------------- -Edge Orientation-
Just like ZZ EOline, except without the line. Very easy to plan during inspection, about 5 moves average.
The reason this step comes first is because if you solve CO -> EO, than the EO becomes much harder, but if you do EO -> CO, then Corner Orientation is barely affected. -Corner Orientation-
Just like 2x2 Guimond, except EO must be preserved, so instead of moveset [R,L,U,D,F,B,] you will have [R,L,U,D,F2,B2]. Not much difference.
For 2x2, average optimal movecount for CO is 3.779 moves, so I will give a realistic number for this step, 5 moves average.
The reason you would want to do CO before E-slice placing is because CO gets actually terrible when the E-slice is solved.
Look at SSC or the method I propose a couple weeks ago on this thread. CO is bad. In this, CO is good.
Resource: Lucas Garron Sortega -Chuck E-layer peices in E-layer-
R E2 R'. Enough said -Seperate Corners-
Very intuitive and simple step. There's like only 6 distinct cases, so you will get used to them very quickly. This could be combined with the next step to make a more efficient solve, but its a bad idea as there would be 100s of cases and recognition would be poor so it wouldn't be any faster. "God's number" for this step is 5 moves.
I just did a quick ao12 and average time was 0.96 and average movecount was 3.75. -Permute Corners-
Just like 2x2 Ortega PBL, except on 3x3. There are 5 algs minimum, 8 algorithms recommended (to prevent x2 rotations and stuff) Diag Top- F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' Diag Bottom- R D' R2 U2 R' U R U2 R U2 R D R' Adj. Top- l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2* Double Adjacent- R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2* Double Diagonal- R2 F2 R2* Adj. Top / Diag Bottom- R U' R F2 R' U R'* Diag Top / Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R*
*same as 2x2 algs.

This is how move calculations are done, probabilty and preAUF's and all- (0*1/36)+(17*1/36)+(13*1/36)+((9+0.75)*4/36)+((9+0.75)*4/36)+((7+1.5**)*16/36)+(3*1/36)+((7+0.75)*4/36)+((7+0.75)*4/36) = 9.027
**Both U and D have to be AUF'ed for double bars case. Also, solved and diag cases doesn't require preAUF.

The reason I permute in this way is because it is crystal clear that CP then EP is so much better than PLL then PLL. Everyone would agree. If you don't, then learn to think. -UL/UR + DL/DR-
Basically L/R from Roux LSE, except its double. Pretty easy to see what you're doing, and you don't need to know any difficult concepts whatsoever. Most of the time I would solve DL/DR then UL/UR, but you can think of this step however you want.
If you've ever tried Roux, then this step is pretty straight foward.
By the way, you can use non-matching L/R trick to enhance efficiency. For example, you solve DL/DR red/orange, but UL/UR green/blue.
This might make 4c recog slightly worse, but this is usually worth it.

The reason that L/R -> 4c is better than Seperation -> EPLL is the same reason that vanilla Roux doesn't do Solve D edges -> EPLL.
Its simply less efficient with no ergonomic tradeoff, so L/R -> 4c is better. - 4c + 4c -
The edges have been simplified so much that now M layer is just like Roux 4c and E layer is just like 4c. M and E are independent, besides the fact that you can have "parity", for example, the M layer couldn't be solved with just [M,U2] moveset. You can use R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 to fix this "parity". You tell me the movecount and ergonomics for this step
---------------------------

EXAMPLE SOLVE:
Scramble: U R2 D2 L2 F' D2 B D2 L2 R2 B2 F' D' F' D' L B' F' U' F2
y2 // inspection
R2 L2 B' // EO
R' U2 R U' R U2 R' // CO
U' R E2 R u2 U R E2 R' // E-layer placement. There's probably a more efficient way.
U' R2 U R2 // Corner Seperation
D' R' D R' F2 R D' R // Corner Permutation
M2 u2 M2 D' U2 M U2 M U // L/R
M U2 M R2 E2 R2 u2 // 4c
48 STM

Spoiler: More example solves-

Scramble: D L' F2 U F L D' F2 R2 B U2 D2 L2 F' D2 B D2 F' U2 R'
y z2 // inspection
U L D' F // EO
R D' R' U R' // CO
F2 D U L E2 L' // E-layer
D' R2 // Corner Seperation
y R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 // Corner Permutation
D' M' U2 M' U M U2 M' // L/R
z2 U' F' U2 M2 U2 F U2 // 4c
39 STM

Scramble: B2 R D2 B2 R2 B2 L2 D' U' L2 U' B' L' R' F2 D F2 U' R
B L2 U L B // EO
L' R' U R' U2 // CO
E2 R L2 B2 E' F E2 F // E-layer
U2 L2 // Corner Seperation
D R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2 // Corner Permutation
y M2 U M' U2 M' u2 M2 D M2 U2 M2 // L/R
L2 D2 L2 D2 L2 U M U2 M' U // 4c
51 STM

Scramble: L D R2 B2 L2 F2 D R2 D' B2 D2 R U2 B D L B2 F' D2
y // inspection
R U L' F // EO
R U2 R U' R D2 L // CO
D2 U' R E2 R' // E-layer
U D R2 y' R2 D R2 D' R2 // CS+CP
U' S U2 S' U' M' U2 M' // L/R
U M2 U2 M' U2 M u' R2 D2 R2 D2 R2 D' // 4c
45 STM

Average movecount under 50. Nearly no algorithms to memorize, only 8 CP algs. It's just a lot of intuitive parts that has TONS of room for improvement because you will get more efficient and faster once you learn better algs to do certain cases and get used to these intuitive cases, especially CO and E-layer. This means you won’t be instantly fast with this method, so I guess you would say there is a learning curve to this?
I honestly think this is like the best thing ever. Okay, not best method, I know CFOP and Roux are the best, but this is the best method I have come up with. Everything makes sense and there isn't one step that is horribly inefficent. Everything is just so nice.

What suggestions do you have for this method to improve it?

Umm, co how it is done for ssc is pretty great, and as far as I can see you didn't come up with a solution to the steps after belt + co (which is the main disadvantage of ssc).

Umm, co how it is done for ssc is pretty great, and as far as I can see you didn't come up with a solution to the steps after belt + co (which is the main disadvantage of ssc).

Yes, I did.
At no point in the solve is the belt ever solved, except at the very last move. (did you even look at he example solve?) This makes the corner steps significantly easier.
- In this, you could just do R2 to separate corners. In SSC, you would have to do U2 R2 U2 R2 for the same case.
- In this, most of the CP algorithms are identical to 2x2. SSC it’s not. Just tell me which is better- R2 F2 R2 or R2 (U D’) R2 (U’ D) R2.

Yes, I did.
At no point in the solve is the belt ever solved, except at the very last move. (did you even look at he example solve?) This makes the corner steps significantly easier.
- In this, you could just do R2 to separate corners. In SSC, you would have to do U2 R2 U2 R2 for the same case.
- In this, most of the CP algorithms are identical to 2x2. SSC it’s not. Just tell me which is better- R2 F2 R2 or R2 (U D’) R2 (U’ D) R2.

I'm just going to focus on the early steps since the last few are more or less the same as SSC and I have made quite a few posts on the issues I have with them.

Spoiler: Preliminary notes

As a preliminary note in your reply to @sqAree, you mention that this has a better last phase that SSC as the E-slice remains wholly unpermuted until the last step. There is actually a variant of SSC where I and a few others have played around with this idea called SSC-domino which I know I have mentioned in the wiki page though admittedly I can't remember if I described it. If I haven't then my bad; I'll have to add it in.

Although it is a more efficient, I personally discarded it for speedsolving as it can lead to uncomfortable move sequences involving thing like F2s or B2s etc (which I note you don't have in your example solves?) the way around this would be to be what you seem to be doing in those solves which is to separate the e-slice to R/L during CP (but this would add more algs as well as mean you would have to look at 3 layers to recog the case)

You would also have to deal with the parity you describe which can be folded into the last step but again recog is annoying

So overall, I'd conclude that only R2/r2/M2 off is really beneficial

-Edge Orientation-
Just like ZZ EOline, except without the line. Very easy to plan during inspection, about 5 moves average.
The reason this step comes first is because if you solve CO -> EO, than the EO becomes much harder, but if you do EO -> CO, then Corner Orientation is barely affected.

Cool, makes sense. My issue is that it seems to not be using inspection fully unless you can predict the next step (which is probably possible though would likely require a reasonable amount of investment similar to one-looking 2x2). Still not a bad step though.

-Corner Orientation-
Just like 2x2 Guimond, except EO must be preserved, so instead of moveset [R,L,U,D,F,B,] you will have [R,L,U,D,F2,B2]. Not much difference.
For 2x2, average optimal movecount for CO is 3.779 moves, so I will give a realistic number for this step, 5 moves average. The reason you would want to do CO before E-slice placing is because CO gets actually terrible when the E-slice is solved.
Look at SSC or the method I propose a couple weeks ago on this thread. CO is bad. In this, CO is good.
Resource: Lucas Garron Sortega

See my above comment: this is potentially good but recog wouldn't be fun so the only real way to make it viable would be prediction.

Re: italics; wait so are you saying here that SSC does CO after e-slice? That's just wrong; SSC does corners with belt rather than separately and that's arguably one of the best aspects of it.

-Chuck E-layer peices in E-layer-
R E2 R'. Enough said

This step reminds me of salvia. Like that method, I'm going to guess that this step is easy to lookahead but also has some horrible ergonomics and it not terribly efficient which negates the efficiency of the previous steps.

As I said above, the next few steps are the same as in SSC and so have the same issues I've complained about on numerous occasions

What suggestions do you have for this method to improve it?

The last few step need some improvement (just as they do with SSC) as well as putting the e-slice edges into the e-layer. It's a reasonable method overall though.

I'm just going to focus on the early steps since the last few are more or less the same as SSC and I have made quite a few posts on the issues I have with them.

Spoiler: Preliminary notes

As a preliminary note in your reply to @sqAree, you mention that this has a better last phase that SSC as the E-slice remains wholly unpermuted until the last step. There is actually a variant of SSC where I and a few others have played around with this idea called SSC-domino which I know I have mentioned in the wiki page though admittedly I can't remember if I described it. If I haven't then my bad; I'll have to add it in.

Although it is a more efficient, I personally discarded it for speedsolving as it can lead to uncomfortable move sequences involving thing like F2s or B2s etc (which I note you don't have in your example solves?) the way around this would be to be what you seem to be doing in those solves which is to separate the e-slice to R/L during CP (but this would add more algs as well as mean you would have to look at 3 layers to recog the case)

You would also have to deal with the parity you describe which can be folded into the last step but again recog is annoying

So overall, I'd conclude that only R2/r2/M2 off is really beneficial

Spoiler: Long analysis stuff

Cool, makes sense. My issue is that it seems to not be using inspection fully unless you can predict the next step (which is probably possible though would likely require a reasonable amount of investment similar to one-looking 2x2). Still not a bad step though.

See my above comment: this is potentially good but recog wouldn't be fun so the only real way to make it viable would be prediction.

Re: italics; wait so are you saying here that SSC does CO after e-slice? That's just wrong; SSC does corners with belt rather than separately and that's arguably one of the best aspects of it.

This step reminds me of salvia. Like that method, I'm going to guess that this step is easy to lookahead but also has some horrible ergonomics and it not terribly efficient which negates the efficiency of the previous steps.

As I said above, the next few steps are the same as in SSC and so have the same issues I've complained about on numerous occasions

The last few step need some improvement (just as they do with SSC) as well as putting the e-slice edges into the e-layer. It's a reasonable method overall though.

OK.
If I ever said SSC solves belt then CO, I am wrong. It solves 3/4 belt, then CO, which is a big difference.

—You mention that just doing EO is easy in inspection so you could do more, but entirety of CO may be too much. A better way to do it is EO + orient LD corners, then do CO completely 2-gen. This takes advantage of your inspection time, and makes lookahead much easier.
2-gen CO is also very quick to execute, and so much easier to figure out what to do vs. no corners oriented. There are 72 total cases, basically semi-intuitive, and its really easy to memorize all of them.
Lucas Garron’s Sortega page includes all cases.
Movecount would increase by like 1.5 moves but it is faster so who cares xd

EO+LD -> 2-gen CO > EO -> CO

—E-slice placement is a pretty bad step but I don’t think there’s much to do about it.
—You and sqAcree are telling me that the later steps of Isom’s Kociemba (bad name lol) and SSC needs improvement, and I don’t really have a solution to this, but a unique approach.
Build 2x2x2, Expand to F2L-1, then TTLL (zz-ct)
This would eliminate slice moves and inmprove ergonomics (R2 U’ F2 > M2 D M2), but might make movecount and lookahead worse because of blockbuilding. This is just an idea,

Spoiler: Second Phase Method Comparison

Scr: D R2 D R2 D2 R2 U F2 U2 R2 B2

U L2 U L2 // CS
U R2 U’ B2 U2 R2 U’ R2 // CP
M U2 M’ U M’ U2 M // L/R
U’ y M u2 M’ E M2 E // 4c
26 STM, current method

R2 U2 F2 L2 D2 // 2x2x2
F2 U’ F2 U’ R2 // Expand to F2L-1
D2 y z D2 U R U’ R’ D2 R U R’ U’ R r2 // TTLL
23 HTM, blockbuilding method. Pretty lucky (may not be 100% representive)

Spoiler: Example Solve with new ideas / Six-step Kociemba

Scramble: U2 R’ B2 D2 F2 R’ D2 U2 R2 B2 D B2 R’ D2 U B U’ F’ L2 F’
x2 L D F D’ // EO LD
R’ U R2 U2 R’ U2 R // 2-gen CO
U’ R E2 R’ F2 L E2 L’ // E-layer
R2 D F2 L2 U’ L2 U L2 // 2x2x3
y R2 U R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 // F2L-1
u M2 U’ M U2 M’ U’ M2 U2 // TTLL (PLL)
45 STM

I will name a method with these steps Six-Step Kociemba: EO DL, 2-gen CO, E-layer placement, 2x2x2 or 2x2x3 block, expand to F2L-1, and TTLL.
First 3 steps = Kociemba Phase 1, Last 3 Steps = Kociemba Phase 2.

Ending like normal may still be better, which would be Isom’s Kociemba. EO->CO will be called Old Isom’s Kociemba.

Thanks for supporting this and telling me I’ve made a reasonable method

Small correction: SSC does eoedge, then CO+belt, and that is done with OL5C, where you place a triplet at DL and a pair in UL. It means that orientation+belt is done in less than 20 moves on average. And while we're talking about orientation methods, what about eoedge, CO3/4Belt while making sure that the FR edge isn't a D layer edge, D layer minus corner, permute L10P. Can also be done in a ZZ approach, with ZZF2L-1, Orientate everything, pernute everything. So an extension to ZZ-CT.

Hey guys, I think I discovered a pretty good method. I like to call it SH2-WV. This stands for Speed Heise 2- Winter Variation. I'll explain the steps, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

1.Make a first block as you would in roux
2. Make a 2x2x2 block right next to it.
3. Either EO first or fill in the last edge first.
4. Winter Variation!
5. Permute top face edges
6. Use a commutator or alg for the corners.
I think this is a pretty cool method and ive gotten a couple sub 15 solves with it. You should try it out!

I feel like there are better ways to get to EOF2L-1 and better ways to go from EOF2L-1. The blockbuilding step is interesting, but seems kind of awkward, but then for LSLL, if you insist on using WV you should be doing PLL, but even then there are better options (insert+ZBLL).

I feel like there are better ways to get to EOF2L-1 and better ways to go from EOF2L-1. The blockbuilding step is interesting, but seems kind of awkward, but then for LSLL, if you insist on using WV you should be doing PLL, but even then there are better options (insert+ZBLL).

The method just doesn't seem very viable at all. Making a 3/4 belt for the first step leaves step two, the brunt of the solve, with low visibility, not-so-good ergonomics, and unimpressive efficiency. The current algs for step three are not very good at all, although they might be improvable. Basically, it just doesn't seem like an idea that could really go anywhere.

It's much better to solve the bottom block and then the E-layer, and, personally more fun. Hexagonal Francisco is one of my favorite methods to solve with, and I get times extremely similar to my CFOP times.
Doing Middle layer -> bottom layer instead is simply worse, it makes movecount spike and lookahead drop significantly, making this method slow.
(maybe that post was ignored for a reason)