The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Axiom]

Yeah, I counted them like this. You have 2dfr positions, in Dfr or above it. So you will have 4 eo cases if it is in place and 8 if it's not, because you are cancelling simmetries.
Then you have 6 CP of the 4 resting corners, this makes you have 4•6+8•6 EOCP cases.
For JBLL you have 12 EP cases, and 14 co cases, you can check the ribbon method algcount. It has 116 tols cases instead of 57 because of having one corner more to orient. This means that there are 14 ocll cases. So it's just 14•12 that makes 168 algs.

Please tell me if you didn't understand

Oh, okay, I understand. EOCP also inserts DFR into it’s slot…
Yeah that makes sense, that also proves your 168 figure and it might explain EOCP? Haven’t checked. The reason I was mistaken is because I believed the DFR corner can be in the U layer too (I thought it was cool), so that made the alg count way higher.
Nice thinking, love the creativity!

 

[J-B]

Yeah, EOCP inserts it in the sense it goes at his place, because of Corner Permutation. Then the parity law reduces a lot the co situations.

 

[J-B]

So, yesterday I was making some solves on the 2x2, and this thought passed across my mind : making an entire layer kinda sucks.
So I theorised this method.
1) make a layer missing the Dfr corner (it doesn't need to be permuted correctly)
This takes at max 3 moves if you're color neutral.
2)orient all the corners. 14 algs
3) xpbl, which means permute everything, but two corners between d and u layer could be swapped, and there are 25 algorithms for that I think

The second idea was to
1) make the L shape
2) orient all the corners while separating u layer's from d layer's
3) permute everything (just pbl)

I am not sure about the xpbl's algcount though
Any suggestions?

 

[PapaSmurf]

I'll save you the work, check here.

I'm aware that there are some pretty new people on the forums who haven't been around for as long as some others have. I would recommend looking at Cubing History, a great resource.

A common strategy, with which you can create so many "methods", is by bashing steps together. Can you instead create a method by looking at shapes etc.? If you want some in depth things, there's this by Shadowslice and also this, this by me and this by Kirjava (which I found by trying to find a different thing, by Kenneth, but it's great and serves my purpose just as well). As you can see, people have thought about this a lot, which partly makes things more tricky for young, aspiring method developers, but it also means you can optimise further, come up with different ideas that people may not have seen. Go well and happy developing!

 

[J-B]

I'll save you the work, check here.

I'm aware that there are some pretty new people on the forums who haven't been around for as long as some others have. I would recommend looking at Cubing History, a great resource.

A common strategy, with which you can create so many "methods", is by bashing steps together. Can you instead create a method by looking at shapes etc.? If you want some in depth things, there's this by Shadowslice and also this, this by me and this by Kirjava (which I found by trying to find a different thing, by Kenneth, but it's great and serves my purpose just as well). As you can see, people have thought about this a lot, which partly makes things more tricky for young, aspiring method developers, but it also means you can optimise further, come up with different ideas that people may not have seen. Go well and happy developing!

But in this method do I have to make the V completely or the colours can be unmatched?

 

[J-B]

I'll save you the work, check here.

I'm aware that there are some pretty new people on the forums who haven't been around for as long as some others have. I would recommend looking at Cubing History, a great resource.

A common strategy, with which you can create so many "methods", is by bashing steps together. Can you instead create a method by looking at shapes etc.? If you want some in depth things, there's this by Shadowslice and also this, this by me and this by Kirjava (which I found by trying to find a different thing, by Kenneth, but it's great and serves my purpose just as well). As you can see, people have thought about this a lot, which partly makes things more tricky for young, aspiring method developers, but it also means you can optimise further, come up with different ideas that people may not have seen. Go well and happy developing!

Because I was saying to make just three pieces with the same colour facing down. They don't need to be permuted correctly

 

[J-B]

I'll save you the work, check here.

I'm aware that there are some pretty new people on the forums who haven't been around for as long as some others have. I would recommend looking at Cubing History, a great resource.

A common strategy, with which you can create so many "methods", is by bashing steps together. Can you instead create a method by looking at shapes etc.? If you want some in depth things, there's this by Shadowslice and also this, this by me and this by Kirjava (which I found by trying to find a different thing, by Kenneth, but it's great and serves my purpose just as well). As you can see, people have thought about this a lot, which partly makes things more tricky for young, aspiring method developers, but it also means you can optimise further, come up with different ideas that people may not have seen. Go well and happy developing!

What do you mean with shapes?

 

[PapaSmurf]

What do you mean with shapes?

Shape is broad. BCE is a way of generating shapes. The shape is what leads to the key step in what Shadowslice talks about. Ribbon could be counted as a shape, as is cross, or F2B in Roux. How can you get the cube into a state where the solution is nice from then on?

But in this method do I have to make the V completely or the colours can be unmatched?

Because I was saying to make just three pieces with the same colour facing down. They don't need to be permuted correctly

I got the wrong method. To be fair, it has been called EG-VOP.

 

[J-B]

Shape is broad. BCE is a way of generating shapes. The shape is what leads to the key step in what Shadowslice talks about. Ribbon could be counted as a shape, as is cross, or F2B in Roux. How can you get the cube into a state where the solution is nice from then on?



I got the wrong method. To be fair, it has been called EG-VOP.

Like, I don't know if already exists, to solve a 1x2x3 block in the left d layer and completing the whole belt, so then you insert Dbr while doing eo, then solving the rest of the dr block while influencing LL?

 

[PapaSmurf]

Like, I don't know if already exists, to solve a 1x2x3 block in the left d layer and completing the whole belt, so then you insert Dbr while doing eo, then solving the rest of the dr block while influencing LL?

I would recommend generally reading the methods section on cubinghistory.com. You will find that this is essentially Mehta.