Speedcubing Method Idea

[KuatSyen]

Hi, for quite a while now I have been interested in developing my own method and I've come up with something that I think could be OK. Now there is a very high chance that someone has already thought of this method but I don't know if it is the exact same but if it is then I am not trying to claim it as my own, I was just interested in knowing what you guys think.

So basically it is a roux/CFOP hybrid:

1. Solve the first two blocks as you would do in the roux method. The reason I've put this as just one step is because personally I like being able to solve both blocks simultaneously rather than one after the other. You can just pair the two edge/cross pieces first and then make and solve the four pairs in whatever order you want. I think this is what some more advanced roux solvers do.
2. Next you do EO the same as how you would do it in the roux method but you would simultaneously solve the F/D and B/D edges. So basically you are finishing the cross.
3. Next you can just use any LL algorithm sets such as OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL or if you want ZBLL because the edges are already oriented.

I know its not that unique but personally I prefer roux blockbuilding over F2L however I also think that LSE is slow compared to algorithm sets so tell me what you think and could I use it at a competitive level if I practiced enough?

 

[OreKehStrah]

Hi, for quite a while now I have been interested in developing my own method and I've come up with something that I think could be OK. Now there is a very high chance that someone has already thought of this method but I don't know if it is the exact same but if it is then I am not trying to claim it as my own, I was just interested in knowing what you guys think.

So basically it is a roux/CFOP hybrid:

1. Solve the first two blocks as you would do in the roux method. The reason I've put this as just one step is because personally I like being able to solve both blocks simultaneously rather than one after the other. You can just pair the two edge/cross pieces first and then make and solve the four pairs in whatever order you want. I think this is what some more advanced roux solvers do.
2. Next you do EO the same as how you would do it in the roux method but you would simultaneously solve the F/D and B/D edges. So basically you are finishing the cross.
3. Next you can just use any LL algorithm sets such as OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL or if you want ZBLL because the edges are already oriented.

I know its not that unique but personally I prefer roux blockbuilding over F2L however I also think that LSE is slow compared to algorithm sets so tell me what you think and could I use it at a competitive level if I practiced enough?

This is not good lol. This is also a very common thing people reinvent over and over. Typically called ZBRoux where you end in ZBLL.

The reason it’s bad is that you are throwing away the benefits Roux gives. Assume you learn full ZBLL since it’s the best way to solve LL in one step. That’s 493 algs compared to Roux CMLL only being 42 so you need 10x the algs. Then ZBLL is less efficient movecount wise than LSE and it is not all 2Gen like LSE.

Also don’t just place edges and then do 4 pairs. You’re completely throwing away the efficiency reason for doing blocks.

 

[KuatSyen]

This is not good lol. This is also a very common thing people reinvent over and over. Typically called ZBRoux where you end in ZBLL.

The reason it’s bad is that you are throwing away the benefits Roux gives. Assume you learn full ZBLL since it’s the best way to solve LL in one step. That’s 493 algs compared to Roux CMLL only being 42 so you need 10x the algs. Then ZBLL is less efficient movecount wise than LSE and it is not all 2Gen like LSE.

Would it be good if you used OCLL and PLL?

 

[OreKehStrah]

Would it be good if you used OCLL and PLL?

No. If it’s not good with ZBLL why would it be good with OCLL PLL?

 

[KuatSyen]

No. If it’s not good with ZBLL why would it be good with OCLL PLL?

Because there would be less algorithms than even CMLL and they have been proven to be effective in CFOP.

 

[OreKehStrah]

Because there would be less algorithms than even CMLL and they have been proven to be effective in CFOP.

That doesn’t matter because you’re then doing 2 algs instead of just one so you once again are slower than just doing cmll

 

[Rubik01]

Hi, for quite a while now I have been interested in developing my own method and I've come up with something that I think could be OK. Now there is a very high chance that someone has already thought of this method but I don't know if it is the exact same but if it is then I am not trying to claim it as my own, I was just interested in knowing what you guys think.

So basically it is a roux/CFOP hybrid:

1. Solve the first two blocks as you would do in the roux method. The reason I've put this as just one step is because personally I like being able to solve both blocks simultaneously rather than one after the other. You can just pair the two edge/cross pieces first and then make and solve the four pairs in whatever order you want. I think this is what some more advanced roux solvers do.
2. Next you do EO the same as how you would do it in the roux method but you would simultaneously solve the F/D and B/D edges. So basically you are finishing the cross.
3. Next you can just use any LL algorithm sets such as OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL or if you want ZBLL because the edges are already oriented.

I know its not that unique but personally I prefer roux blockbuilding over F2L however I also think that LSE is slow compared to algorithm sets so tell me what you think and could I use it at a competitive level if I practiced enough?

I did that before seeing this sometimes

 

[ruffleduck]

This has been "invented" countless times. It simply can't compare to standard Roux. After F2B, CMLL/LSE is the best approach, period.

 

[Thom S.]

Would it be good if you used OCLL and PLL?

Even worse with OCLL and PLL.
PLL, objectively, is a bad step. It's just that the human subjectively can handle it very easily and make it faster than a lot of harder, more efficient(like where ZBLL and 1LLL, or, in other terms, Domino reduction and the like falls into) steps that would theoretically be faster.

Look at the New Method thread. You can find this proposed over 50 Times.
Then you look at the video library of any popular cubing youtuber. Go to the comments section deep down and find this proposed another countless times.

 

[Swagrid]

Would it be good if you used OCLL and PLL?

To give a third identical point argued differently.

It would be worse with OCLL PLL. With this method, ZBLL would be a high effort finish for solid rewards. With OCLL PLL, while it's much easier and much lower effort, that reward is now gone.

 

[OreKehStrah]

Ok, thanks everyone for replying I was just curious as to whether something like that would be any good. Obviously I have a long way to go when it comes to method developement... or I could just stick with CFOP for now

Yeah hopefully this isn’t too discouraging. Just keep in mind that anything easy to think of has been done before. It’s very hard to have a new idea these days. L7E is an underexplored area if you want to look into systemizing it.