The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[VenomCubing]

One quick question: why was my thread moved to here? I'm new to this site. It might be hard for me to find which responses are to my GS method, and which are not.

 

[GenTheSnail]

One quick question: why was my thread moved to here? I'm new to this site. It might be hard for me to find which responses are to my GS method, and which are not.

Usually, when methods are posted in their own threads, they are fully developed methods, with most/all of the kinks worked out. It seems that the moderators didn't think that your method could be described as above.

 

[mDiPalma]

One quick question: why was my thread moved to here? I'm new to this site. It might be hard for me to find which responses are to my GS method, and which are not.

Unfortunately, moderators don't read threads before choosing where to move them.

You could also get your third step by building a Petrus 3x2x2 block and adding a pair, which would probably be more efficient than your current approach. Nonetheless, this is an interesting method.

 

[Ranzha]

Unfortunately, moderators don't read threads before choosing where to move them.

Again, you are so quick to assume. While I didn't merge the thread, this is a thread for new methods. It's in the title.

 

[GenTheSnail]

Again, you are so quick to assume. While I didn't merge the thread, this is a thread for new methods. It's in the title.

May I ask what standards are required for a method to warrant their own thread?
If so, what standards are required for a method to warrant their own thread?

SSC, Briggs(2), M-CELL, and QM-LL methods were all posted after this thread had been in frequent use. Those were new methods that were not merged. What's the difference?

 

[mDiPalma]

Again, you are so quick to assume. While I didn't merge the thread, this is a thread for new methods. It's in the title.

Don't judge a thread by its title.

I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed.

Either merge ZZ-CT, SSC, and even the damn Petrus Home Thread with this one, or quit merging developed methods with this thread. It's offensive and disrespectful to the method creators that you are dragging their hard work into the Concept Development Thread. This is a venue for users to elect to receive feedback on methods in their infancy; it's not a binder for forum organization.

 

[VenomCubing]

Don't judge a thread by its title.



Either merge ZZ-CT, SSC, and even the damn Petrus Home Thread with this one, or quit merging developed methods with this thread. It's offensive and disrespectful to the method creators that you are dragging their hard work into the Concept Development Thread. This is a venue for users to elect to receive feedback on methods in their infancy; it's not a binder for forum organization.

I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.

 

[Loiloiloi]

On the other end of the spectrum, my thread https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/existing-method.63458/ should have absolutely been moved here, but never was, despite receiving 10 responses, which either means the mods are very inactive or they are not even following their own rules for merging threads. Either way, I ended up just posting here anyway, so now the content of that thread exists in this thread and that one.

 

[MethodNeutral]

On the other end of the spectrum, my thread https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/existing-method.63458/ should have absolutely been moved here, but never was, despite receiving 10 responses, which either means the mods are very inactive or they are not even following their own rules for merging threads. Either way, I ended up just posting here anyway, so now the content of that thread exists in this thread and that one.

My thread also should have been moved here, it's called "ZZ-XD Experimental Method". I didn't want to repost it in here because I'm pretty sure that's against the forum rules to post the same thing in different places. But yeah, if anyone could move that it'd be great.

 

[crafto22]

I have been working on this method for a few months now, and I believe it has some potential. I call it the GS method, or Grand Setup method. It is a variant of CFOP and Roux, with it's own unique step. I would love to hear anybody's feedback, positive or negative. I would also appreciate it if anyone could help me by making more example solves. I am also looking for a better name for this method. If you think you found a better name than GS, please tell me. Without further ado, here is the GS method.

Steps:

Step 1: Build a 2x2x2 block on the bottom in the back right.

Step 2: Build an adjacent 2x3x1 block on the L face.

Step 3: Pair up last F2L pair, but don't insert it

Step 4: Insert last F2L pair with Winter Variation, which orients the last layer corners.

Step 5: Simultaneously orient the last layer edges while inserting the DF edge using only M and U moves. This step is intuitive. I call it SFE, or Setup of Five Edges.

Step 6: Permute the last layer with PLL.

*Example Solve:

Scramble: U2 L2 F2 U L2 F2 U2 R2 B2 D' L B' D' U' L D2 R2 B D2 L'

2x2x2 Block: D R' F' R' B'

2x3x1 Block: U F U L

Last F2L Pair: Skip

Winter Variation: U2 L' U R U' R' L

SFE: U M' U M U2 M' U' M

PLL: R' U L' U2 R U' L R' U L' U2 R U' L U'

Possible Advantages:
Only 48 Algorithms are needed, (not including reflections,) so most of the solve is intuitive.

After the blocks are finished, the cube can be solved quickly without any cube rotations.

Possible Disadvantages:
GS requires proficiency in Blockbuilding and Roux-Like edge solving, which may be hard for beginners to do efficiently.

The 2x2x2 Block in the back may be awkward to do without cube rotations, so it may take some time getting used to.

* Sorry the example solve wasn't very good. I don't have much experience with making them.

Haven't been replying to this thread in ages cuz there haven't been any remotely interesting methods for 3x3 (the only thing I care about) in a while. However this interests me quite a bit. I just got an 11.84 single with this method using the COLL/L5E variant and I quite like the idea! I think I might just work a bit with this method and see what I can bring to it, if I may.

 

[Teoidus]

Haven't been replying to this thread in ages cuz there haven't been any remotely interesting methods for 3x3 (the only thing I care about) in a while. However this interests me quite a bit. I just got an 11.84 single with this method using the COLL/L5E variant and I quite like the idea! I think I might just work a bit with this method and see what I can bring to it, if I may.

If so you might want to take a look at M-CELL. It's a similar idea and might give you inspiration for different variants.

 

[pjk]

I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.

The moderating team is discussing this issue now. Note that this "New Method Thread" exists because lots of new ideas were being put forward and having them all in one spot was a logical thing to do. However, we understand there has been some inconsistency in merging threads, and we also understand that if a method is merged, it gets less attention and is harder to find in the future. We will update you once we've come up with a solution. Our goal here isn't to stop people from posting new methods or discussing them, but to organize the forum in way that makes sense for most people to discuss and browse topics. Any feedback you have is useful, thanks.

Edit: Because of the ambiguity of creating a new method and the number of potential threads that can exist, we are going to keep most "new method" ideas in this thread as we have for years. In the event a method idea posted here gets too popular and needs its own thread, we can move it to its own. We will leave this to the discretion of the moderators - though if you think something should have its own thread, please report it so we can discuss it. Thanks.

 

[Teoidus]

One issue I can think of is that people often propose methods that have already been developed/proposed before. Even though they may have put substantial amounts of work into it and developed a lot of algs, I wonder if the best policy is to merge these posts with previous thread that first proposed the method.

As funny as it'd be I'm not sure I'd like a forum with a bunch of threads of people posting their fully developed roux-cfop hybrid methods.

 

[TDM]

I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.

May I ask how it took "months of hard work" to fully develop a method with no new algorithm sets?
(Edit: I also would always post a new method in here, or if it's a ZZ/Roux variant I would post in the respective method's thread. I agree that poeple don't want the forum full of new method posts, especially when most of what's suggested is so similar (though yours isn't similar to anything I've seen before)).

Comments about the method: have you considered EO first? EO->blockbuilding hasn't really been explored much but would help with steps 2, 3 and 5 while only making step 4 slower (not sure if EO would help step 1 or not, could do, I've not experimented much with it).
Edit2: Swapping steps 1 and 2 (with or without having done EO) is something else to consider and could improve fluidity since after FB everything would be <Rw, R, U, F>, though if you do this be aware that similar things have been suggested before (though most insert DF before the pair).

 

[Teoidus]

It's likely he generated L5EO, WV and didn't know they had existed yet.

Could also consider FB, 2x2x3 in BDL, pair, corners+insert pair, L5E

 

[TDM]

It's likely he generated L5EO, WV and didn't know they had existed yet.

Could also consider FB, 2x2x3 in BDL, pair, corners+insert pair, L5E

He says it's mostly intuitive and only requires 48 algs (27+21), and he names WV. And even so, you could easily gen those in a day.

 

[Teoidus]

That's weird. There's not much to generate on top of that..

 

[VenomCubing]

To answer all of you, the hard work came not from WV or the edges, but finding the best way (Movecount wize) to do f2l without one pair and one cross edge, while still beingconsistent like f2l or ZZ blockbuilding.

 

[Teoidus]

What way is that?

 

[Sion]

I'm working on method with one of my friends in Australia named Martin, and I decided to post it here to see what others think. We call it Sicillian.

1:Solve the D layer via blockbuilding.
2: Orient the cross on the U layer in one look.
3: COLL
4: ÆPLL (augment Parity Last Layer) or (Edge permutation last layer). The difference is that APLL disturbs the E slice in order to solve the U layer, while EPLL does not
5:E-Belt one look fix.

If someone wanted to, there are algorithms that solve APLL and E-belt simultaneously, called EPEU, although you could expect 60 or more algorithms, since I might’ve not found every possible EPEU case, although there could still be some that could be useful.