IsThatA4x4
Member
I don't mean to be rude (I don't like doing that), but you really need to accept other peoples' criticism of your method.yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge
If you think it's a good method, you should provide arguments as to why it is a good method, and you should take into account why other people think it is good/bad.
I'll admit, the actual amount of valid criticism other than "this is bad/worse version of x" here is very minimal, so I'll try to explain what I think about the method here, and maybe some others will do the same.
Your first steps are fine, reaching EOF2L-1 is normally a good starting point for a ZZ variant, however EO222 is much more reminiscent of petrus than ZZ, which would solve an EOline/arrow/cross of some sort as its first step. Just doing EO with a block at the start is not really enough to call it a ZZ variant, but it doesn't matter much about how good the method actually is.
For step 3, there are a couple issues. Firstly, CP recognition is not the best (although it's not that bad at LSLL), but the main issue is doing CP followed immediately by solving the corners. It would be better to do something at the same time as CP to make the method more move efficient and require less potential pausing, for example, using a technique like conjugated CLL to solve all the corners in one go, or doing CP and the block at the same time, and then solving the corners next.
Finally, for the last step, I don't quite know where you're going, as solving F2L-1, a 2x2x1 block on top, the corners, and EO leaves you with 3 edges to solve, which is only 2 algorithms.
This is a pretty good sign that you could sacrifice something from one of your previous steps, as ending with one of 2 algs shows that you have reduced the cube's state a little too far for less benefit. If, for example, you only solve 1x1x2 block on top, you would have 4 edges left, although that's still not many cases.
If you just did the corners and then finished, you'd have ZZ-zipper L5E (around 20 algs I think), which is better.
However, I think you might possibly mean something else with your steps, I'm not quite sure, but judging from what else you've said about missing one line edge, you could mean missing out an edge in the bottom layer too, in which case having that + an E layer edge unsolved + top edges will yield algs that are mediocre at best.
Right, there's my criticism, it was lengthier than I expected, but I really wanted to try and explain what's holding you back here.
Please take others' opinions into account, otherwise people will not think much of what you're saying if it's not backed up.
Hope I've helped in some way