LukasCubes
Member
ok thx, let me know 7 days before the tournament starts so i can try to find a team. I want to enter the next one.Yes, but not very soon. Maybe in a few months. I want to keep it interesting.
ok thx, let me know 7 days before the tournament starts so i can try to find a team. I want to enter the next one.Yes, but not very soon. Maybe in a few months. I want to keep it interesting.
100 algs isnt muchAwesome! Congratulations to the winners
One idea for future method competitions is to include restrictions to make each individual comp unique—maybe something like the most advanced version of the method must have less than 100 algorithms, or the number of steps must be less than 5.
I suggest that you have two voting systems.
A community one like you did, and have a panel of judges of well respected and informed members of the community.
This could give a more interesting perspective on how the community as a whole vs more experience/influential members view new ideas
Exactly! It isn't much, so it would be interesting to see an influx of methods that stay at or under this count.100 algs isnt much
Exactly! It isn't much, so it would be interesting to see an influx of methods that stay at or under this count.
(However, it isn't that small. Both Roux and base CFOP stay well under 100)
I mean, TECHNICALLY, using advanced f2l counts as algs, but should we ignore stuff like that?
I assume you would take the minimum number of algs required so you wouldn't count stuff like F2L algs or ZBLL.Both Roux and base CFOP stay well under 100)
You could get around the limit this way, but it would impact how good the method is.I assume you would take the minimum number of algs required so you wouldn't count stuff like F2L algs or ZBLL.
But this does raise the question (Assuming an alg limit): Couldn't you get around a limit by using one alg multiple times? An example would be using sune for all cross oriented OLLs. The alternative would be to count the number of cases, but that could be hard to judge/regulate.
I was thinking separately so that way we could see what the community as a whole would say the winner is and what the judge panel would choose, then we could discuss why each group ended up with their result. It would be an interesting way to see how the community as a whole views and critiques new ideasSo like the weighted voting system that I posted in post #58? Using that, after the end of the competition I would show how the community voted and how the judges voted. Or do you mean have the community and the judges be completely separate? If separate, how do you suggest that a winner is determined?
I was thinking separately so that way we could see what the community as a whole would say the winner is and what the judge panel would choose, then we could discuss why each group ended up with their result. It would be an interesting way to see how the community as a whole views and critiques new ideas
I’d say two winners and then we can analyze how each group came to their decision on the winnerSo potentially have two winners? Or do you have an idea for how to decide a winner between the community vote and the judges' vote?
I’d say two winners and then we can analyze how each group came to their decision on the winner
What are the steps in your method?I have a really great method that I can solve with almost as fast as cfop even though I learned it in one day however I don't have time to make an entire doc about it. will the future competitions have 3x3 again?