The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Averageof12]

Maybe not proposed on this thread, but I've seen it thrown around and dismissed quite quickly as a speedsolving idea a few times now. I've thought about it before, as have many others.

Now on to more abstract musings. It is very easy to step bash. I'll do it right now: solve the DR corners, and 2x2x2 in ubl. Insert the DL edge using <RFES>, then using that sovle LB. Finish the first layer, then solve the rest in 2 algs.
These steps do solve the cube, but are obvoiusly bad. There are lots of steps that solve a cube, but the vast, vast majority of them are bad. Yes, if you're new, you maybe don't understand these things, but it's not a super nuanced concept once you've been cubing for a year or two. What we want is critical thought about either the steps you have bashed together, or the the meta method you have in mind. This is the way we can have breakthroughs. But, as I explain here, they will probably take a long time to actually become relevant. With one big caveat - they actually have to be good. So RouxFOP isn't actually good, in the same way combining two tasty foods probably won't be good (chicken and porridge/oatmeal for example). However, Roux and CFOP are both really good for many reasons.

As this regards this thread, we have 420+ pages of mostly step bashing, a lot of repetition, but a few gems. This is because there have been some people who have thought properly about what it means to make a method good and haven't just dumped thoughts on the internet (always a dangerous activity). You could argue that I'm doing it right now, and maybe that's true, but I have thought about this and commented about this a couple of other times. Let's aim for quality and curiosity.

You can stretch this out as much as you want, but it just says one EXTREMELY flawed statement (And a bunch of self-promotion , which is even worse). Most of this is just "I'm one of a few people actually competent enough to create a good method." You may not like the ideas on this thread, and you are allowed to, but that doesn't mean you're better than everyone else just because you think you are some sort of complete expert. Now, regarding this 'method': Lookahead is completely inefficient. E moves are not as fingertrickable as you might think. Quite frankly, algs for this set in the last step would not be worth learning. Lastly:

I know what you're thinking. Why would I, of all people, be allowed to say anything? Yes, back when I joined, I spammed new method threads. I also spammed this thread. But as you can see, I don't do that anymore. Sorry for the long rant, but I don't regret saying any of this.

 

[PapaSmurf]

You can stretch this out as much as you want, but it just says one EXTREMELY flawed statement (And a bunch of self-promotion , which is even worse). Most of this is just "I'm one of a few people actually competent enough to create a good method." You may not like the ideas on this thread, and you are allowed to, but that doesn't mean you're better than everyone else just because you think you are some sort of complete expert. Now, regarding this 'method': Lookahead is completely inefficient. E moves are not as fingertrickable as you might think. Quite frankly, algs for this set in the last step would not be worth learning. Lastly:

I know what you're thinking. Why would I, of all people, be allowed to say anything? Yes, back when I joined, I spammed new method threads. I also spammed this thread. But as you can see, I don't do that anymore. Sorry for the long rant, but I don't regret saying any of this.

Firstly, thanks for the reply. Hopefully I can explain where I'm coming from better. It meant to come accross as "think before you post". Yes, I linked to a post that was mine, but that was simply to not have to repeat the message from that post.

The whole point of the "method" was to show the flaws in step bashing. It solves the cube, but that doesn't make it good or worthwhile to tell anyone about. You've listed the main flaws, so hopefully it was a good example. I pointed out Shadowslice's meta method post because it gives a different framework other than step bashing to help create methods.

And you're allowed to say what you want and I'm glad you don't regret it, because if someone goes around regretting everything they said it would be a sad world for them. All I want to see is higher quality ideas and discussions on this website, which we could have. It doesn't mean that we should have a high barrier to entry, but instead we should give people new to method creation the tools that we have developed as a community to help with that, and also to decide between two methods on "goodness". There is nuance (it's not immediately obvious why VLS->PLL is worse than ZBLS->ZBLL for example), but there are guidelines. I guess some of it is on us for not having a good place to find these resources, but they do exist.

And one final point, I don't think I'm one of the few competent people at method creation. In fact, during the method creation competitions of years past there were many better methods made than mine. Instead I just want to see many more people thinking about methods and developing methods productively.

I hope that clarifies. I was a bit tired when I wrote it, so sorry if it came across as grumpy.

 

[Ryangamer2010]

I thought of a method inspired by epidote that I didn't think of a cool name for.
Fist Block: same as roux.
2x2x2: a 2x2x2 block in the back, basically a semi-second block of the roux method plus the db piece.
EODE: orient the Edges and insert the DF and FR Edges.
LCCP: insert the last corner while asking for the fifths of the last layer.
2gll: orient the fifths while permuting the Edges

 

[Athefre]

I thought of a method inspired by epidote that I didn't think of a cool name for.
Fist Block: same as roux.
2x2x2: a 2x2x2 block in the back, basically a semi-second block of the roux method plus the db piece.
EODE: orient the Edges and insert the DF and FR Edges.
LCCP: insert the last corner while asking for the fifths of the last layer.
2gll: orient the fifths while permuting the Edges

This is the EOFE variant of Nautilus.

Nautilus - Other Variants

The first step of the method is always to solve dL + dbr, the shell. After that there are many possible variants. Below are a few that have been selected as natural continuations from the first step. Early EO or early CP can be used with each to reduce the number of algorithm cases or alter the

sites.google.com