Marco Cuber
Regular
How do you drop your average from 3:20 to sub-2? I started doing megaminx a day ago. And also may anyone tell me their splits? I would appreciate it.
[Help Thread] Megaminx Discussion
Fawn
Regular
There are a ton of things that you can do to get sub-2. If you're averaging 3:20, then I think recognition might be the biggest concern. Doing Star and F2L may take a bit to get used to in terms of recognition, but the SuperF2L is easy to improve. Possibly the best piece of advice. I've gotten is to set an order for youself. Meaning, once you're done with F2L, be ready and know the order of colors in which you are going to solve. It's kinda hard to show in text format, but if the idea is easy to understand, mostly. The idea being that you know exactly what pieces to look for., and you spend less time fumbling around. Another thing to keep in mind is that you have a ton of space to work with, so you have more freedom with how you insert edges, make pairs, etc.
Let me compare practicing megaminx to practicing 3x3: In 3x3, doing anbunch of solves can only get you so far before you start having to learn new things. With megaminx, doind a bunch of solves alone helped improve my recognition. The only thing there is new to learn is methods of doing the Last Layer, which i'm sure you know.
So the answer in short is: Practice.
It's good to do a lot of slow solves, of course.
I would make a video, but I'm not at the sort of level that constitutes for me to be a total teacher.
Marco Cuber
Regular
Wow. Didn't except that really detailed reply. Thank you for those tips they really helped me out and I dropped around 30 seconds now, and thus I am sub-3. What would the splits be for a sub-2 solver?
TP
Regular
My splits are about:
F2L: 45
S2L: 45
LL: 25
The only thing I´ve done to average ~1:55 is deciding a fixed colour for the star and a fixed order to do S2L. Otherwise just do solves and over time I picked up small tricks on how to pair up and insert pairs and evolve my recognition. Avoid pauses by try and not look at the pair you´re inserting is important. It´s possible to translate a lot from F2L on 3x3 to the Megaminx.
F2L: 45
S2L: 45
LL: 25
The only thing I´ve done to average ~1:55 is deciding a fixed colour for the star and a fixed order to do S2L. Otherwise just do solves and over time I picked up small tricks on how to pair up and insert pairs and evolve my recognition. Avoid pauses by try and not look at the pair you´re inserting is important. It´s possible to translate a lot from F2L on 3x3 to the Megaminx.
Marco Cuber
Regular
how long did it take you to be sub-2 at mega? I have been doing this event for 3 days now and I average around 2:30 now. And I find that I can easily sub-45 my F2L but I am having trouble sub-45'ing S2L. Do you just improve S2L by practice because sometimes I can't find the pieces right away or cant recognize them well.
Last edited:
Fawn
Regular
Yeah, you basically get faster at recognition with a lot of solves. It's jug a natural development.
It took me about 2 months to get down to sub-2 but that's cause I rarely practiced it. I only started getting more serious about megaminx last month and my times in the past 30 days have gone from around 1:50 down to about 1:22-1:25. It's a gradual improvement, but a steady one. Lemme get my splits
Star: 5
F2L: 30
S2L: 38
LL: 12
Last edited:
Carrot
Veteran
you can easily shave off another 15 seconds on the F2L part
TP
Regular
Can´t give a good answer to that. Roughly 14 months since I first learned, but since I never solved it for long periods of time, or just avg 5 for forum competitions it´s hard to compare.
But since I hit ~2:15 avg I have dropped my avg by 3-4.5 for every 100 solves I have done. So going from 2:15 > 1:55 took me 500-600 solves. Would be nice to have numbers like this from other people, no idea if it´s good or not.
Marco Cuber
Regular
I see. I am sub-2:30 now and I feel as though sub-2 will be no problem because yesterday I was just struggling to get a sub-3:00 average of 5.
And thanks for the replies guys! It helped me out a lot.
Fawn
Regular
I see. I am sub-2:30 now and I feel as though sub-2 will be no problem because yesterday I was just struggling to get a sub-3:00 average of 5.
And thanks for the replies guys! It helped me out a lot.
For real, it's surprising how many people get stuck around 2:30-3:00 when getting decently fast is smokth and easy. With your improvement, I'd say you'll probably get down to 1:45 within the next few weeks.
Marco Cuber
Regular
Is being sub-2 at mega equivalent to sub-20 on 3x3? And sorry if it seems like im spamming this thread I am just really enthusiastic about mega 
And I average around sub-15 on 3x3.
And I average around sub-15 on 3x3.
jeff081692
Veteran
Is being sub-2 at mega equivalent to sub-20 on 3x3? And sorry if it seems like im spamming this thread I am just really enthusiastic about mega
And I average around sub-15 on 3x3.
I'm not that experienced in megaminx but the way I compare different events is what percentile you would be in for each specific time. In the US for example sub 20 3x3 is 83rd percentile and sub2 mega is 61st percentile. There are fewer people who do mega so it's not a perfect measure but it's a cool thing to look at sometimes. I think looking at percentiles worldwide is better but I don't feel like looking at how many people solve 3x3 worldwide because of my crappy computer.
uberCuber
Legend
worldwide:
3x3: 20.00 is 6540/26816 = 85th percentile
Megaminx: 2:00 is 699/1932 = 63rd percentile
I should point out that another problem with looking at this kind of comparison is that megaminx almost always has cutoffs, whereas 3x3 doesn't, which means a lot of slower people can't get averages in megaminx.
cubingawsumness
Veteran
Is being sub-2 at mega equivalent to sub-20 on 3x3? And sorry if it seems like im spamming this thread I am just really enthusiastic about mega
And I average around sub-15 on 3x3.
If by "equivalent" you mean "faster than the same percent of people", then what people have said is accurate. However, I think of "equivalent" as being "equally hard to achieve", in which case (imo) being sub-20 on 3x3 is a lot harder than becoming sub-2 on mega. Stats from official results don't really apply to this definition, however, simply because not a lot of people have the opportunity to compete in mega and complete a full average.
After saying all that, I don't really have an answer... Sub-20 is a significant barrier for a lot of people, so maybe sub-1:30?
Fawn
Regular
Statistically, sub-2 on mega is comparable to sub-20 on 3x3. But when it comes to the difficulty of a barrier, as well as satisfaction of breaking one, sub-1:30 is definitely comparable, as stated by the guy above me. However, this doesn't mean that reaching sub-2 and being happy makes you a total chump, but it's not much if a barrier. More of just a line in the ground waiting to be crossed. To be honest, for me the barrier is breaking sub-1:20. I get so close but so far.
Marco Cuber
Regular
I see, I had no problem at ALL breaking sub-20 on 3x3 (i hope that doesn't sound conceited) but I cant even break the sub-2 barrier on mega T_T
What LL method/s do you guys use? And do you have any tricks on improving on S2L and F2L?
What LL method/s do you guys use? And do you have any tricks on improving on S2L and F2L?
EMI
Veteran
I'm not very fast either but I think you can easily sub 2 with some practise. It just takes time to get used to the color scheme and stuff. For LL I do 2-look OLL, EP and for CP I use the R' D' R thing. Just with a cuberotation so the LL is on the left.
Marco Cuber
Regular
I finally got a sub-2 single! I got a 1:59.54 then after that I got a 1:54.04 xD
I haven't even been doing this for a week yet. What LL methods do you reccomend for a sub 2:10 solver? I currently use the method which was taught in Antoine's LL tutorial. If youre too lazy to watch it I basically use 2-look OLL and for CP and EP I do the R' D' R thing as well and do T-Perm and Y-perm for EP.
Edit: I got sub-2 mo3 nub
I haven't even been doing this for a week yet. What LL methods do you reccomend for a sub 2:10 solver? I currently use the method which was taught in Antoine's LL tutorial. If youre too lazy to watch it I basically use 2-look OLL and for CP and EP I do the R' D' R thing as well and do T-Perm and Y-perm for EP.
Edit: I got sub-2 mo3 nub
Last edited:
Divineskulls
Veteran
That LL method will get you very far. I'm sub-1 and I still use it, albeit knowing a few PLL cases.
Fawn
Regular
I also do the 2-look OLL thing (although a large amount of 3x3 OLLs translate well) and then do Edge permutation then corner permutation. I also know a few PLLs because I felt like it.
Similar threads
