The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[TDM]

{video} and {/video}, obviously with square brackets though.

[noparse][VIDEO]video.url[/VIDEO][/noparse]

 

[2180161]

Im uploading my video to youtube now so in a few minutes you will have the video better explaining the method

NOTE: I AM A 14 YEAR OLD WHO HASNT HIT PUBERTY PARDON MY VOICE

 

[kcl]

Seems like ZZ but a far less efficient. You solve a bunch of pieces only to break them up again in f2l.

 

[2180161]

Yes you break them up, but they fix them selves when you finish the F2L also ZZ you solve EO then F2L, then OLL then PLL at least how i do it

 

[GuRoux]

Yes you break them up, but they fix them selves when you finish the F2L also ZZ you solve EO then F2L, then OLL then PLL at least how i do it

it doesn't fix the edge permutation of the u layer when you finish f2l.

 

[ChickenWrap]

it doesn't fix the edge permutation of the u layer when you finish f2l.

When I tried the method, I just did PLL at the end. If the method was how he advertised it, you would only have and E or A perm, I think....

 

[2180161]

I done did screwed up explaining in the video this was after i saw a post about how permuting the LL edges during the Cross on every face is useless. intead, Solve a cross on the bottom, solve the E layer, orient LL edges do triggers to solve F2L, then do OLL and then PLL

 

[Lucas Garron]

I will go step by step.
Step 1.solve a cross on every single face.
Step 2. Solve your f2l, while preserving your edge orientation.
step 3. COLL or solve OLL
step 4. PLL

If you replace the first step with EOLine (the most reasonable choice here), you end up with ZZ-TOP.

 

[qqwref]

This is just a bad edges-first method. If you're going to do all the edges, why would you do algs that mess them up again? What's the point?

 

[2180161]

So I guess im kinda lost here. Is this a new method, or is there already one that is EXACTLY like this one?

 

[obelisk477]

Neither. I guess you could call it a new method, but its not new in that somebody before you has thought of it, realized it was a bad idea because of how inefficient it is, and then never posted it on the forums. Sorry to disappoint. As a general rule of thumb, if you think you've thought of a new method, you probably haven't and if you have its probably bad enough to not be worth mentioning. I had an idea for CFOP which basically ended up being an intermediate step for turning it into Roux, and someone had thought of it before.

In short, if you know you're a noob, go practice until you're at least sub-20 if not sub-15, and then you'll have a much better idea of what methods have been come up with, and whether or not yours is a new idea.

 

[maps600]

I thought CMLL preserved EO but not EP? But I don't know Roux so correct me if I'm wrong.

No, it doesn't preserve EO, it only preserves the first two blocks.

 

[maps600]

When I tried the method, I just did PLL at the end. If the method was how he advertised it, you would only have and E or A perm, I think....

Well an H perm as well because X perm corners

 

[Dane man]

This is interesting. But it has a few set backs as a method.

The way I would put it, this method is a bunch of smaller methods chopped up and put together. I don't think anyone does it that way specifically because it is extremely inefficient, requires a ton of moves, and has redundant solving (especially the U layer). In fact, doing a cross, then the E layer, then the four corners on the bottom, takes a step back after having solved the E-Layer by undoing it and redoing it over and over in the process of solving the corners and this takes many moves to accomplish. Having the U layer edges solved is completely useless as they are removed from their places and need to be resolved afterwards.

So as for your questions:
Is it a new method? Yes.
Is there anything exactly like it? No.

But the bigger question is:
Is it worth it?...

Perhaps for fun, or to play with, but for speedcubing or FMC? No.

But I like that you're looking for new ways to do things. This helps a lot, and you'll never know when you might actually be onto something.

If you ever want to know if a method already exists, check out the methods and substeps that are on the wiki, and also check out this cube method and states map.

 

[2180161]

Hello. I think I have found, yet again a new method. I haven't seen this one on the method map that Dane Man had linked to.
Step one:Solve all of your F2L corner-edge pairs
Step 2: CMLL
Step 3:Solve your cross on the bottom, thus solving your F2L and maybe your OLL
Step 4:OLL, if you had an OLL skip go to step 5. There are only 3 OLL's you need to know. The corners oriented, and no edges oriented
step 5LL edit: you will have an easy cycle of edges, seeing as the OLL's that come up keep the permutation of the corners

 

[guysensei1]

Hello. I think I have found, yet again a new method. I haven't seen this one on the method map that Dane Man had linked to.
Step one:Solve all of your F2L corner-edge pairs
Step 2: CMLL
Step 3:Solve your cross on the bottom, thus solving your F2L and maybe your OLL
Step 4:OLL, if you had an OLL skip go to step 5. There are only 3 OLL's you need to know. The corners oriented, and no edges oriented
step 5LL edit: you will have an easy cycle of edges, seeing as the OLL's that come up keep the permutation of the corners

I think this is just an inefficient way of doing PCMS...

 

[2180161]

I think this is just an inefficient way of doing PCMS...

PCMS?

 

[guysensei1]

PCMS?

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PCMS

 

[2180161]

Its not PCMS its a variant I guess. You solve columns, yes, but then you use M, M' and U and U' moves to solve your cross. this then leaves you with an easy OLL and a 1/4 chance of an OLL skip (I think). PCMS is columns, then coll, then Last 5 Edges. This is similar, but not the same.

 

[TDM]

Its not PCMS its a variant I guess. You solve columns, yes, but then you use M, M' and U and U' moves to solve your cross. this then leaves you with an easy OLL and a 1/4 chance of an OLL skip (I think). PCMS is columns, then coll, then Last 5 Edges. This is similar, but not the same.

You can't just solve the cross with M/U moves, and PCMS does not end with L5E.
He wasn't saying this is PCMS, he was saying that it's just a less efficient version of it.