Trying to solve with a method that is hard to recognize doesn't necessarily mean higher movecount.
I was thinking about a easier way to finish F2L (minus 1 slot) and edge orientation at the same time. It can be done intuitively, but algorithms help to increase reaction time. You can do things intuitively until they basically become algorithms, but this is not always the case if you have a large amount of possible positions.
I talked about doing ZBLS before. You could use it on the 2nd and third slot using 86 of the ZBLS algorithms to orient two top layer edges each time. To reduce the number of cases greatly, you could use ELS on the 2nd to last slot and keyhole in the slots corner. Then you would solve the last slot with whatever other substep you wish.
It would be possible to solve the corner of the 2nd to last slot, then keyhole your ELS alg to make the slot and orient eges, but you may not be able to bring the edge above the corner of the slot into the top layer if it is a bad edge. Solving the corner while preserving edge orientation may take a few more moves for some cases, but I think it is better than trying to deal with the corner being in the way.
I think it would be cool if they had competitions where you won if you had the best average of moves and speed.
This could be calculated something like this: Time/(100 - number of moves) to some power.
You would have to disqualify movecounts over 100 or something. You would need a high power to make using less moves actually worth it, otherwise, it would be like regular speedsolving. Doing FMC could also provide you with ok ratings with a high enough power. You would want to get the power somewhere in a happy medium so that it doesn't turn into either complete speedsolving or FMC, though there may be some people who use both approaches. You could also change the 100 if needed.
