C3CE Method Official Thread

[Luka Jankovic]

Hello, My name is Luka and i'm the official founder of the C3CE method.This is a method developed by me and 5 of my friends which may potentially be faster than CFOP. The method has 4 steps (that ill further explain later in the thread). If you do VHLS intuitively the alg count is lower than CFOP at only 48. I average less on C3CE than CFOP and i used it to get my pb on my last comp.The method is currently unknown as its very young (it has about 20 users) and so i decided to make this thread , and hopefully make the method more well-known!

C3CE has 4 Steps-
CFC- Cross+first corner - While solving the cross , you also insert 1 corner (of your cross color) in the correct spot and orientation. this step can take at most 10 moves (which is just 2 more than normal cross) but it normally averages about 8 moves.
3PEO- 3 Pairs & edge orientation - pretty self explanatory. You solve 3 pairs ( not including the one which you inserted the corner during CFC. ) while inserting the last pair, you do VHLS (a alg set)
COP- Just do COLL on the last layer
EP- Permute the last 5 edges (4 in the top layer , one in front right) by setting up to a EPLL , or , if no edges are solved do one of the 6 5-cycle algs (12 including mirrors)

All of these algs are already found and were now working on creating a new subset (thats gonna allow you to insert the edge during cfc incorrectly oriented) . If you have any questions about the method please join the official discord server : https://discord.gg/ukkKctm
You can also subscribe to my Youtube channel to get notified when i upload a in-depth tutorial on the method https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4U1MPoImubdirBfZVp93vg?view_as=subscriber

 

[WACWCA]

What if when you inser the corner you put an f2l edge in with it, this makes solving the 3 pairs difficult. Would it make more sense to insert the corner after the 3 pairs?

 

[UnknownCuber]

If the algs are fingertricky and reasonably long (I prefer them to be short) and one more corner isn't going to affect my cross much then you'll have my support!

 

[TipsterTrickster]

It sounds like a decent method, and Could be a good alternative to X cross making. But I still Think ROUX, Cfop, And ZZ are better alternatives.

 

[xyzzy]

Off the top of my head:

The good:
(i) It's easier to plan cross+corner than xcross.
(ii) Some of the L5E algs are pretty nice.

The not-so-good:
(i) Standard F2L with xcross is definitely better.
(ii) Stuck edges in the first slot (as pointed out by WACWCA). This includes having a flipped edge.
(iii) VHLS is not that good. ("Intuitive VHLS" for the R U R' insert cases is especially bad.) Also, VHLS is incompatible with F2L algs that don't form pairs; you'd need ZBLS for that, and that's a gigantic alg set.
(iv) Fancy LSLL systems often require either a rotation or different algs for different last slots. To some extent it's possible to control where the last slot will be, but it's unnatural to force it to always be the front-right slot.

 

[shadowslice e]

How did you get that movecount?
By using the pair movecounts you are implying you'd get CFOP averaging 50 moves or less.
Also why not just call the COLL step COLL?

 

[Luka Jankovic]

What if when you inser the corner you put an f2l edge in with it, this makes solving the 3 pairs difficult. Would it make more sense to insert the corner after the 3 pairs?

if thats the case (which is kinda rare) we use edge control which takes about 3 moves (sorta keyhole) which is still more efficient than making a full f2l pair.

If the algs are fingertricky and reasonably long (I prefer them to be short) and one more corner isn't going to affect my cross much then you'll have my support!

the algs are mostly short and fingertrickable (other than 2 5-cycles which are like g perms )

How did you get that movecount?
By using the pair movecounts you are implying you'd get CFOP averaging 50 moves or less.
Also why not just call the COLL step COLL?

i used a solver to solve the cross + 1 corner from about 80000 scrambles and it was never more than 10 moves.

 

[shadowslice e]

i used a solver to solve the cross + 1 corner from about 80000 scrambles and it was never more than 10 moves.

I was talking about the overall movecount of 48

 

[Luka Jankovic]

It sounds like a decent method, and Could be a good alternative to X cross making. But I still Think ROUX, Cfop, And ZZ are better alternatives.

thanks for the support. Roux and zz are maybe better than C3CE , but there arent as many tutorials on the net for them, and as C3CE is similar to cfop, there are lots of tutors to help you improve

I was talking about the overall movecount of 48

48 isnt the movecount, it is the algorithm count xD

but this method does actually have a lower movecount than cfop

 

[shadowslice e]

but this method does actually have a lower movecount than cfop

Are you sure? I went through a few calculations and it comes up as the same.

48 isnt the movecount, it is the algorithm count xD

Oh oops I guess I can't read though my point still holds if you think it has a lower movecount that CFOP

 

[Luka Jankovic]

Off the top of my head:

The good:
(i) It's easier to plan cross+corner than xcross.
(ii) Some of the L5E algs are pretty nice.

The not-so-good:
(i) Standard F2L with xcross is definitely better.
(ii) Stuck edges in the first slot (as pointed out by WACWCA). This includes having a flipped edge.
(iii) VHLS is not that good. ("Intuitive VHLS" for the R U R' insert cases is especially bad.) Also, VHLS is incompatible with F2L algs that don't form pairs; you'd need ZBLS for that, and that's a gigantic alg set.
(iv) Fancy LSLL systems often require either a rotation or different algs for different last slots. To some extent it's possible to control where the last slot will be, but it's unnatural to force it to always be the front-right slot.

Ok , i understand all your alrguments , but let me tell you my perspective on the "not so good" things
(i)i completely agree with that, but thats not always possible. When i do end up putting the edge in aswell (X cross) i do continue on with cfop.
(ii) I already answered that (look up)
(iii)thats why we have the corner in the back (the one inserted in cfc) if we recognize a bad vhls case we control that corner out while inserting that pair, and than we perform vhls on that corner
(iv) if we get it to be on the left side , we either do a DW2 or perform a lefty alg

Are you sure? I went through a few calculations and it comes up as the same.
Oh oops I guess I can't read though my point still holds if you think it has a lower movecount that CFOP

cfop averages about 60-70 moves in a speedsolve (full oll and pll , no subsets) and i most of the times get 55s here

 

[shadowslice e]

cfop averages about 60-70 moves in a speedsolve (full oll and pll , no subsets) and i most of the times get 55s here

CFOP is usually 50-60 moves for good solvers with only OLL and PLL while the subsets would generally push it to under 50 moves though.

 

[Luka Jankovic]

CFOP is usually 50-60 moves for good solvers with only OLL and PLL while the subsets would generally push it to under 50 moves though.

yeah , thats with full f2l right(i count that as a subset)? if you use intuitive you get about 60-70 ( or im just bad) . I did 100 solves of each method and the difference was about 5 moves (look at this as cfop-1 pair)

 

[shadowslice e]

yeah , thats with full f2l right(i count that as a subset)? if you use intuitive you get about 60-70 ( or im just bad) . I did 100 solves of each method and the difference was about 5 moves (look at this as cfop-1 pair)

No, that's easily achievable with intuitive F2L (most people wouldn't use algorithmic F2L-or at least learn it algorithmically though they may end up doing the same thing each time). I would be interested to see some reconstructions on the same scramble where you get a 5 movecount difference.

 

[Luka Jankovic]

No, that's easily achievable with intuitive F2L (most people wouldn't use algorithmic F2L-or at least learn it algorithmically though they may end up doing the same thing each time). I would be interested to see some reconstructions on the same scramble where you get a 5 movecount difference.

ok , right now i dont have access to a cube , but ill send it to you asap

also everyone , the subset will be called COP+ and we still accept people to help us make it

 

[obelisk477]

CFOP rearranged will never be better than CFOP

 

[DGCubes]

Interesting method, but I see a couple issues with it:
- Finding a corner in inspection doesn't seem much harder than going for an X-cross
- While solving the other three pairs, I find myself tempted to keyhole in the edge and it often gets solved accidentally
- I feel a lot more restricted during F2L in general because I need to end up with the unsolved edge in FR and because it's common for the unsolved edge to be one of the other F2L edges

I think the EP step has some potential though. I think this reworking of the method might be better:
Cross
2 pairs
Third pair + EO
Solve all corners - Basically solve the last corner while doing CO and CP for the last layer; kind of like VLSCP except you don't need to worry about the edge.
EP - Same as you described.

I think that could be alright if there are decent algs for solving the last 5 corners while preserving EO.

 

[xyzzy]

Solve all corners - Basically solve the last corner while doing CO and CP for the last layer; kind of like VLSCP except you don't need to worry about the edge.
[…]
I think that could be alright if there are decent algs for solving the last 5 corners while preserving EO.

L5C has so many cases (600-ish?) that it doesn't make sense to use this over insert + ZBLL.

 

[_zoux]

Hehe, thats just worse zipper.

 

[Luka Jankovic]

Interesting method, but I see a couple issues with it:
- Finding a corner in inspection doesn't seem much harder than going for an X-cross
- While solving the other three pairs, I find myself tempted to keyhole in the edge and it often gets solved accidentally
- I feel a lot more restricted during F2L in general because I need to end up with the unsolved edge in FR and because it's common for the unsolved edge to be one of the other F2L edges

I think the EP step has some potential though. I think this reworking of the method might be better:
Cross
2 pairs
Third pair + EO
Solve all corners - Basically solve the last corner while doing CO and CP for the last layer; kind of like VLSCP except you don't need to worry about the edge.
EP - Same as you described.

I think that could be alright if there are decent algs for solving the last 5 corners while preserving EO.

Hey , DG! First , thanks for the suggestions, you really are right about the problems in this method , and we will start rearanging the method as you proposed (i really like the idea) . We will just have to work on the idea of l5c as it will likely have 500 algs this way (but i have some ideas to reduce this number to 100ish). Thanks again, im also a huge fan of your channel