The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[shadowslice e]

Megaminx alternative LL (reducing algs to learn)

Beginners
1) Orient edges
2) form a 1x2x2 on the LL
3) permute edges (2 algs (or 1+inverse (1/3 chance of a skip)))
4) corners (intuitive)

Intermidiate
1,2&3) same as beginners
4) solve corners (42 algs- adapted 3x3x3 CLL?)


Advanced(ish)

1&2) same as beginners
3&4) combined- 126 cases including mirrors I think (<84 without)

Reasoning: 1x2x2 ridiculously easy to form because the 2 pairs can easily be kept together unbroken so fixing of S2L is easy enough.
2) Less algs (pretty much sells it for me ;-))

Ok, so recently I've been doing some reading around and found that this method is pretty much the same as snyder2 so the algs from there could be used.

it still has a lower alg count than OLL/PLL and I believe it could also end up more efficient, especially when used in conjunction with my other Eo mega methods, when considering how efficient Snyder2 is (apparently it has a 40 move average) so I believe this gives credence to the minitripod LL style.

Regarding the MegaEo methods, I have found that the 4 face LS style I the most efficient as well as the second easiest to perform.

 

[zyxantjcae654]

<ThisIsMyThirdPostAfterMemIntro; IDon'tKnowIfThisIsTheRightPlace> After my made-up CFOP, I currently use a specific order, each influencing the next one: EO, Cross, 1stF2L, MidF2Ls, LastF2L+forced OLL skip(different techniques), PLL(usually uninfluenced). Also, it is apparent to notice the use of D turns, with necessary F or B half turn. I also notice usual opposing turns(ex. U' then D' or L' then R2), which I use to influence the transition for the next(ex. while I orient the cross onto the E-slice centers with a D turn, I AUF for the 1stF2L) and for multislotting during F2L. Other than those on the title, is it still considered ZZ, without only the EO, when D, F, B and cube turns are mostly usually necessary?

 

[mikolajw]

This method is not efficient. Simply practise CFOP or ZZ but don't mix them.

 

[AlphaSheep]

The biggest strength of ZZ is that having EO done before F2L makes efficient block building during F2L easier. If you just do a normal CFOP solve, then you're missing out on ZZ's biggest strength, in my opinion.

What you describe (the first half, at least) is a common beginner variant of ZZ.

However, since you can already do EO first, transitioning to a full EO line is not that difficult, and learning to block build when you already know CFOP F2L is simply a matter of getting used to the idea that you have more options than simply placing the cross edge first and then the pair.

 

[zyxantjcae654]

I actually found some advantages: Pairing edge-to-edge, or edge-to-corner is easier. A turn during an opposite turn can be oftenly made so half-turn time can manage not just the half turn, or a quarter turn, but also another opposite turn. You can now not limit to F-B line only; You can also do L-R line first then follow the F and B edges, or freely do the cross. It is easier to find the L-R cross edges than a ZZF2L case. After the cross, you can now search an F2L edge or corner each in just 8 places since the 12 places of the edges are deducted by the cross by 4; then, edges on LL whose top stickers are not the U color simply belong to the E slice. It is easier to do an F2L case with mispairs. Keyholes are a lot easier, too. Switched E-slice edges are manageable. And the most important are the smooth transitions. In my opinion, very efficient.

The biggest strength of ZZ is that having EO done before F2L makes efficient block building during F2L easier. If you just do a normal CFOP solve, then you're missing out on ZZ's biggest strength, in my opinion.

What you describe (the first half, at least) is a common beginner variant of ZZ.

However, since you can already do EO first, transitioning to a full EO line is not that difficult, and learning to block build when you already know CFOP F2L is simply a matter of getting used to the idea that you have more options than simply placing the cross edge first and then the pair.

In my opinion, initially, this is a ZZ because of the EO and, if you consider the cross, it is just like the EO line plus the two other edges; also in ZZ, there will appear a last F2L edge-corner pair at the end. Just think of it that the two pieces are replaced by the other edges of the cross. But then also Fridrich because of the cross and edge-corner pairs. I can't classify this definitely so I just consider the EO for it to be a ZZ Variant.

 

[TDM]

Yeah, this has been invented many, many times before. It's slower than CFOP and slower than ZZ. If you like LUR and no rotations, use ZZ. If you want a solved cross, use CFOP. Don't try using both.

The exception to this is if you're doing ZZ and you can force a cross with only a couple of extra moves. Then it could be worth it. However, don't try it every time.

 

[zyxantjcae654]

Yeah, this has been invented many, many times before. It's slower than CFOP and slower than ZZ. If you like LUR and no rotations, use ZZ. If you want a solved cross, use CFOP. Don't try using both.

The exception to this is if you're doing ZZ and you can force a cross with only a couple of extra moves. Then it could be worth it. However, don't try it every time.

To clarify, it is initially ZZ but rather than finding a ZZF2L case first, you would find the remaining cross edges; it will not affect the time much. I find the traditional ZZ too limiting. It limits EO line only for F and B cross edges. It limits, not necessarily though, turns for LUR only.

 

[TheBrutux168]

To clarify, it is initially ZZ but rather than finding a ZZF2L case first, you would find the remaining cross edges; it will not affect the time much. I find the traditional ZZ too limiting. It limits EO line only for F and B cross edges. It limits, not necessarily though, turns for LUR only.

Blockbuilding is more limiting than finishing cross and doing F2L? Again, just use CFOP or just use ZZ. This is badly inefficient.

 

[zyxantjcae654]

Blockbuilding is more limiting than finishing cross and doing F2L? Again, just use CFOP or just use ZZ. This is badly inefficient.

As I can see from this ZZ variant, and again, I can not classify this definitely. It is in between. Why to pick only one if you can do both at the same time(okay, not all the time). Advantages of both methods plus additional emanating ones appear with disadvantages only inthe ZZ part: EO.

 

[ZZTrooper]

Well you guys gave him your opinions about his question, but he continues to defend himself and is answering his own question.

As for my opinion, even though I may not be the most qualified as I'm not that fast, I don't really care which method you use. However, it's a fairly well known fact that EOcross is less efficient than normal ZZ. If you think that sheer turning speed is more important than efficient than efficiency, then by all means use this method. However, ZZ was pretty much made to avoid "awkward" turns like D, F, and B. EO line has two edge pieces in it in the D layer that afterwards cannot be touched by R,U, and L moves. This maximizes the amount of blockbuilding you can do with R,U, and L. Also, even though F and B moves are not strictly prohibited in the form of F2 an B2 moves, ZZ users tend to stay away from them as they don't give good lookahead. One of the main reasons why I, and probably many others, like ZZ (and Roux) is due to the lack of rotations, and so rotations kind of take away the point of the method. Overall, I think you should classify this more as more a a CFOP variant rather than a ZZ variant, but that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree or correct me about anything (like grammar and spelling errors, since school's been out for a while.)

 

[Hypocrism]

Well you guys gave him your opinions about his question, but he continues to defend himself and is answering his own question.

As for my opinion, even though I may not be the most qualified as I'm not that fast, I don't really care which method you use. However, it's a fairly well known fact that EOcross is less efficient than normal ZZ. If you think that sheer turning speed is more important than efficient than efficiency, then by all means use this method. However, ZZ was pretty much made to avoid "awkward" turns like D, F, and B. EO line has two edge pieces in it in the D layer that afterwards cannot be touched by R,U, and L moves. This maximizes the amount of blockbuilding you can do with R,U, and L. Also, even though F and B moves are not strictly prohibited in the form of F2 an B2 moves, ZZ users tend to stay away from them as they don't give good lookahead. One of the main reasons why I, and probably many others, like ZZ (and Roux) is due to the lack of rotations, and so rotations kind of take away the point of the method. Overall, I think you should classify this more as more a a CFOP variant rather than a ZZ variant, but that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree or correct me about anything (like grammar and spelling errors, since school's been out for a while.)

If you have EO, you don't need to rotate during an EOF2L.

But this is still an inefficient speed method. By all means use it as a stepping stone to switch from CFOP to ZZ, but I don't think this is a good idea. It only loses good aspects from each method, and gains no new good aspects.

 

[DizzypheasantZZ]

To clarify, it is initially ZZ but rather than finding a ZZF2L case first, you would find the remaining cross edges; it will not affect the time much. I find the traditional ZZ too limiting. It limits EO line only for F and B cross edges. It limits, not necessarily though, turns for LUR only.

Traditional ZZ is limiting, but it won't give you bad times. The limiting gives you more efficient F2L, which will eventually become faster. Actually, I think that this variant is more limiting, after you finish the cross, you can only use quarter turns on faces. There are lots of ZZ tricks that make it faster than this variant, you just need to find them.

As I can see from this ZZ variant, and again, I can not classify this definitely. It is in between. Why to pick only one if you can do both at the same time(okay, not all the time). Advantages of both methods plus additional emanating ones appear with disadvantages only inthe ZZ part: EO.

Using advantages of both methods doesn't necessarily make a variant better.

 

[zyxantjcae654]

The help I really want is actually on the title. Existence has been confirmed yet not pushed. Suggestions include debunking this idea. But I need more than that. I am hoping for someone who is interested to answer more. The question "what is this?" is a side question. Because declaring it to be ZZ is unfair if it is really Fridrich. I just put "ZZ Variant" so that if it was wrong I would read a post that it is Fridrich. It is so in between that I can not classify. Also, you can use D very often than we thought. For example: solve your cube, use a D turn, sexy move, reverse your D turn. Now, if in ZZ this case shows up, what would you use? Further, I only received, I think, 3 unsure answers from your opinions. The others are about "just use ZZ or Fridrich". I use both. If your opinions are already given by someone, do not repeat. If that question is what I mainly want, I would have asked it in the 1 question. Please, respect.

 

[ZZTrooper]

OP said "Other than those on the title, is it still considered ZZ, without only the EO, when D, F, B and cube turns are mostly usually necessary?", which I interpreted as "is it still considered ZZ when D,F,B, and cube rotations are necessary?"

I use ZZ and I don't use rotations, and I don't really get why he would when he already has EO, but I was simply answering his question the way I thought it meant. Of course, I could have taken it the wrong way, but I'm not too sure. Hope this cleared up the confusion.

 

[zyxantjcae654]

Traditional ZZ is limiting, but it won't give you bad times. The limiting gives you more efficient F2L, which will eventually become faster. Actually, I think that this variant is more limiting, after you finish the cross, you can only use quarter turns on faces. There are lots of ZZ tricks that make it faster than this variant, you just need to find them.



Using advantages of both methods doesn't necessarily make a variant better.

If you are using Fridrich but the scramble shows oriented edges, is it easier? Of course it is.

OP said "Other than those on the title, is it still considered ZZ, without only the EO, when D, F, B and cube turns are mostly usually necessary?", which I interpreted as "is it still considered ZZ when D,F,B, and cube rotations are necessary?"

I use ZZ and I don't use rotations, and I don't really get why he would when he already has EO, but I was simply answering his question the way I thought it meant. Of course, I could have taken it the wrong way, but I'm not too sure. Hope this cleared up the confusion.

I actually use CLS . I also use cube rotations when the D sticker of the corner of CLS is on L or R. I prefer cube rotations than memorizing 7 more algos because from Fridrich, we use them, right? And there's PLL, too.

 

[mDiPalma]

In my opinion, a lot of proficient ZZ users try to move cross edges to their correct sides (L or R) during the EOLine phase (this can help avoid awkward cases). So yes, this is a viable method.

But one thing you should know is that ZZ derives a lot of its efficiency from "open-slotting" (leaving the F2L slots OPEN, to just slide F2L pairs in) as well as blockbuilding. Forcing an exact cross every time hurts that efficiency.

And if you already know Full OLL (which you likely don't, using a LS substep each solve), you can actually forgo orientation of the LL edges during the EO-Cross step. This is also a popular "variant" for people to come up with.

TL;DR: This is a good method with a lot of strengths, but a few key weaknesses.

 

[ZZTrooper]

Ah, I see what you're saying. So you use both methods depending on the situation right? That's not really recommended, and neither is mixing two methods to make a kind of "in between". Because of the fact that most people don't go that route it hasn't really been explored. After all, why spend time on something inferior when there's an already existing method that's been proven to be superior?
Of course new methods can be better, like how ZZ is probably better than the old corners first methods. Just because the old WR was set with a corners first method doesn't mean it was the best one around. However, using two good methods probably isn't the best choice when you can spend the time getting better at one. I think most people think like me and choose not to use two methods. I don't want this to turn into an argument about "x uses y so y must be the best method," but I think nobody uses 2 methods that's actually really fast. Even though the other answers were kind of blunt, I would generally have to agree and say that you are better off sticking to one method. They're more developed and proven to be able to get very fast times.

 

[zyxantjcae654]

Sorry if the idea is stupid. But as I know, no one has ever stopped someone to use ZZ if the proven fastest method is Fridrich. So anyone will suggest how to upgrade ZZ although pointless. I actually want suggestions of upgrades. But it turns out as if "stop using ZZ and do Fridrich." For users of this idea, I would love to hear your modifications. If you want to hear mine, I can share but some were already given below. Actually, it is 1.5. Not 1 or 2. I just want to know if the 1.5 is near to 1 or near to 2. Because it can be 1.499 just rounded off. If you did not get it, okay, I am stupid.

 

[DizzypheasantZZ]

One thing that I have heard of doing (and have used a little) is making a 3/4 cross by inserting one of the cross edges, solving that side, and then using block building for the other side. I think that it is a good approach. I am also not against using D, F, and B moves as I think they provide some amazing shortcuts.

 

[shadowslice e]

New? 3x3x3

1) build a 1x2x3 on the cube anywhere you like but it will be rotated to the D-face so it sits on the LD
2) build a 2x2x2 on the ULF or ULB using Uw and R moves
2a) place one e-slice edge either in LF or LB
. 2b) build the "cap" on top of the 1x2x2 formed in the last substep to finish the 2x2x2
3) keeping orientation, place the 2nd e-slice edge on the left
4) rotate the F2L-1 to the base.
5) orient the remaining edges as in heise/ tripod
6) WV
7) PLL

Pros:
1) easy block building
2) ergonomic move sets
3) efficient
4) few rotations
5) good for use in combination with Meyer/yau/shadowslice-Meyer/OBTM due to the block formed during the reduction stage

Cons:
1) ... Block building? (if you don't like that)
2) built in rotations could be disorientating but shouldn't be too bad.

I mainly created this method for use in conjunction with the reduction methods although it is quite efficient and easy for the block building.

So, thoughts?