Umm, co how it is done for ssc is pretty great, and as far as I can see you didn't come up with a solution to the steps after belt + co (which is the main disadvantage of ssc).I FEEL LIKE A GENIUS TODAY AAAA!!! I have a new idea, and its similar to a method I posted in this thread a couple weeks ago, ZZ-Guimond-Woowy-whatever. Basically I found a method that's infinitely better than that.
I've done a bit of looking around, and this is similar in some way to Human Thistlewaite, SSC, Kociemba, and Orient First.
This is actually amazing. Idk what to call this maybe Isom's Guimond (so original I know right!!!) You can pick a name if you want. Here's the steps:
Just like ZZ EOline, except without the line. Very easy to plan during inspection, about 5 moves average.
The reason this step comes first is because if you solve CO -> EO, than the EO becomes much harder, but if you do EO -> CO, then Corner Orientation is barely affected.
Just like 2x2 Guimond, except EO must be preserved, so instead of moveset [R,L,U,D,F,B,] you will have [R,L,U,D,F2,B2]. Not much difference.
For 2x2, average optimal movecount for CO is 3.779 moves, so I will give a realistic number for this step, 5 moves average.
The reason you would want to do CO before E-slice placing is because CO gets actually terrible when the E-slice is solved.
Look at SSC or the method I propose a couple weeks ago on this thread. CO is bad. In this, CO is good.
Resource: Lucas Garron Sortega
-Chuck E-layer peices in E-layer-
R E2 R'. Enough said
Very intuitive and simple step. There's like only 6 distinct cases, so you will get used to them very quickly. This could be combined with the next step to make a more efficient solve, but its a bad idea as there would be 100s of cases and recognition would be poor so it wouldn't be any faster. "God's number" for this step is 5 moves.
I just did a quick ao12 and average time was 0.96 and average movecount was 3.75.
Just like 2x2 Ortega PBL, except on 3x3. There are 5 algs minimum, 8 algorithms recommended (to prevent x2 rotations and stuff)
Diag Top- F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' Diag Bottom- R D' R2 U2 R' U R U2 R U2 R D R'
Adj. Top- l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2*
Double Adjacent- R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2* Double Diagonal- R2 F2 R2*
Adj. Top / Diag Bottom- R U' R F2 R' U R'* Diag Top / Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R*
*same as 2x2 algs.
This is how move calculations are done, probabilty and preAUF's and all- (0*1/36)+(17*1/36)+(13*1/36)+((9+0.75)*4/36)+((9+0.75)*4/36)+((7+1.5**)*16/36)+(3*1/36)+((7+0.75)*4/36)+((7+0.75)*4/36) = 9.027
**Both U and D have to be AUF'ed for double bars case. Also, solved and diag cases doesn't require preAUF.
The reason I permute in this way is because it is crystal clear that CP then EP is so much better than PLL then PLL. Everyone would agree. If you don't, then learn to think.
-UL/UR + DL/DR-
Basically L/R from Roux LSE, except its double. Pretty easy to see what you're doing, and you don't need to know any difficult concepts whatsoever. Most of the time I would solve DL/DR then UL/UR, but you can think of this step however you want.
If you've ever tried Roux, then this step is pretty straight foward.
By the way, you can use non-matching L/R trick to enhance efficiency. For example, you solve DL/DR red/orange, but UL/UR green/blue.
This might make 4c recog slightly worse, but this is usually worth it.
The reason that L/R -> 4c is better than Seperation -> EPLL is the same reason that vanilla Roux doesn't do Solve D edges -> EPLL.
Its simply less efficient with no ergonomic tradeoff, so L/R -> 4c is better.
- 4c + 4c -
The edges have been simplified so much that now M layer is just like Roux 4c and E layer is just like 4c. M and E are independent, besides the fact that you can have "parity", for example, the M layer couldn't be solved with just [M,U2] moveset. You can use R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 to fix this "parity". You tell me the movecount and ergonomics for this step
Scramble: U R2 D2 L2 F' D2 B D2 L2 R2 B2 F' D' F' D' L B' F' U' F2
y2 // inspection
R2 L2 B' // EO
R' U2 R U' R U2 R' // CO
U' R E2 R u2 U R E2 R' // E-layer placement. There's probably a more efficient way.
U' R2 U R2 // Corner Seperation
D' R' D R' F2 R D' R // Corner Permutation
M2 u2 M2 D' U2 M U2 M U // L/R
M U2 M R2 E2 R2 u2 // 4c
Scramble: D L' F2 U F L D' F2 R2 B U2 D2 L2 F' D2 B D2 F' U2 R'
y z2 // inspection
U L D' F // EO
R D' R' U R' // CO
F2 D U L E2 L' // E-layer
D' R2 // Corner Seperation
y R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 // Corner Permutation
D' M' U2 M' U M U2 M' // L/R
z2 U' F' U2 M2 U2 F U2 // 4c
Scramble: B2 R D2 B2 R2 B2 L2 D' U' L2 U' B' L' R' F2 D F2 U' R
B L2 U L B // EO
L' R' U R' U2 // CO
E2 R L2 B2 E' F E2 F // E-layer
U2 L2 // Corner Seperation
D R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2 // Corner Permutation
y M2 U M' U2 M' u2 M2 D M2 U2 M2 // L/R
L2 D2 L2 D2 L2 U M U2 M' U // 4c
Scramble: L D R2 B2 L2 F2 D R2 D' B2 D2 R U2 B D L B2 F' D2
y // inspection
R U L' F // EO
R U2 R U' R D2 L // CO
D2 U' R E2 R' // E-layer
U D R2 y' R2 D R2 D' R2 // CS+CP
U' S U2 S' U' M' U2 M' // L/R
U M2 U2 M' U2 M u' R2 D2 R2 D2 R2 D' // 4c
Average movecount under 50. Nearly no algorithms to memorize, only 8 CP algs. It's just a lot of intuitive parts that has TONS of room for improvement because you will get more efficient and faster once you learn better algs to do certain cases and get used to these intuitive cases, especially CO and E-layer. This means you won’t be instantly fast with this method, so I guess you would say there is a learning curve to this?
I honestly think this is like the best thing ever. Okay, not best method, I know CFOP and Roux are the best, but this is the best method I have come up with. Everything makes sense and there isn't one step that is horribly inefficent. Everything is just so nice.
What suggestions do you have for this method to improve it?