Help choosing a method (advanced)

[EngiNerdBrian]

@Waffles what do you average now with your method of choice?

 

[efattah]

Having spent 5 years on new method development, I will say that Roux really checks every box and is a tough method to beat. I don't personally use it, but in my mind of the well established methods it is the top. Mehta is too new to make a judgment on. At the same time, it is hard to argue against the (numerous) CFOP solvers now consistently posting 3 second solves on youtube.

 

[the dnf master]

Just pick any reasonable method and start practicing on that. It's better to pick one than not to pick one. If you are fastest with CFOP, then use that, or if you want to pick a different method, choose a random(reasonable) one, and that will not fail you. There's no need to stress much about a method, since then you will be able to learn more techniques and advanced stuff sooner.
This only applies if you are focusing on 3x3. If you want to get good at for example, 7x7, then don't pick roux because it's bad for big cubes.

 

[Swagrid]

ZZ will be good if CFOP lookahead fails you. Knowing edge orientation is solved means you have less information to track for lookahead. + if you fingertrick it well, you can get a regrip less F2L every so often.


I'm not here to give an unbiased position on every method I'm here to promote ZZ

 

[Waffles]

Yes.

Yeah, I like ZZ as a method. I average probably around 22 by this point. With Roux I can get probably 40 seconds at my best, I don’t really intend to learn roux because I’m bad at slice moves. Mehta I actually think has huge potential, like I learnt the beginner version in pretty much a day and get usually around sub 40. I want to say at this point that I wasn’t using lookahead at all and for most of them (except ZZ) I’m just TPS spamming.

With CFOP I average around 15, and can actually do decently advanced things like COLL, WV, some ZBLL and ZBLS (only the really easy cases I bothered to learn, about 10-15), I can plan first pair in inspection and sometimes plan oll from 4th pair. I do enjoy big cubes and Megaminx (except the biggest I own is 5x5 lol) and even if I did choose some other method I’d still retain knowledge of CFOP techniques for stuff like that.

 

[LBr]

(except the biggest I own is 5x5 lol)

lol same. I used to suck at 4x4, but now i have my average down to just under 1 minute. With 5x5, i find it hard to spam on it, and am not sub 2 yet.

ZZ will be good if CFOP lookahead fails you. Knowing edge orientation is solved means you have less information to track for lookahead. + if you fingertrick it well, you can get a regrip less F2L every so often.


I'm not here to give an unbiased position on every method I'm here to promote ZZ

With ZZ, lookahead after eoline is ok, but you have to worry about 2 additional edges like you don't in cfop. With zz, its very hard to go straight into f2l after eoline because you haven't planned any of it and are missing 2 edges. This is why NO ONE has a sub 8 average with zz and why most people just use CFOP instead.

P.S I'm not here to give an unbiased opinion, I'm here to promote cfop

 

[Swagrid]

With ZZ, lookahead after eoline is ok, but you have to worry about 2 additional edges like you don't in cfop. With zz, its very hard to go straight into f2l after eoline because you haven't planned any of it and are missing 2 edges. This is why NO ONE has a sub 8 average with zz and why most people just use CFOP instead.

P.S I'm not here to give an unbiased opinion, I'm here to promote cfop

Except we use EOCross and have been for years, which means we have the same amount of pieces but less properties to track. + RadMac is sub-7 with ZZ.

 

[Cubing Forever]

This is why NO ONE has a sub 8 average with zz

:angy @RadicalMacaroni and Hyeon Kyo Kyoung voices:
Also iirc Papa has a 7.45 ao5

With ZZ, lookahead after eoline is ok, but you have to worry about 2 additional edges like you don't in cfop. With zz, its very hard to go straight into f2l after eoline

Except we use EOCross and have been for years, which means we have the same amount of pieces but less properties to track. + RadMac is sub-7 with ZZ.

^

ZZ is better than CFOP imo(I would have switched if I didn't come across Mehta lol)
The CruZZade marches forward

 

[porkyp10]

With ZZ, lookahead after eoline is ok, but you have to worry about 2 additional edges like you don't in cfop. With zz, its very hard to go straight into f2l after eoline because you haven't planned any of it and are missing 2 edges.

cough cough EOCross cough cough

This is why NO ONE has a sub 8 average with zz

cough cough RadMac cough cough

 

[Cubing Forever]

With ZZ, lookahead after eoline is ok,

Lookahead after EOCross is insanely easy lol.

cough cough EOCross cough cough


cough cough RadMac cough cough

also cough cough Hyeon cough cough

sorry for double post

 

[the dnf master]

with zz u have to plan eo and cross in inspection, to get a smooth solve, which actually rlly hard to do in 15 seconds.

 

[Sosimomonon]

with zz u have to plan eo and cross in inspection, to get a smooth solve, which actually rlly hard to do in 15 seconds.

It isn't hard if you're good. And there's no reason to debate how good a method is for someone who's bad at cubing, since they're largely irrelevant to the discussion until they get good.

 

[ruffleduck]

with zz u have to plan eo and cross in inspection, to get a smooth solve, which actually rlly hard to do in 15 seconds.

EOcross is no harder than CFOP cross+1.

 

[Swagrid]

with zz u have to plan eo and cross in inspection, to get a smooth solve, which actually rlly hard to do in 15 seconds.

Rlly hard at first. With time and practice even a pepega like me can go it the majority of the time. There's also tricks you can do that are less efficient but easier to plan

 

[Waffles]

You can also just plan some of it and if you’re running out of time, take note of the bad edges and just use tracking. I can get about 25 seconds doing that