The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Cubinwitdapizza]

Petrus varient:

F2L-1
EO
LS
LL

No lol. You would have to orient edges two ata a time

 

[Skewbed]

Petrus varient:

F2L-1
EO
LS
LL


Example solve:


Scramble: F2 U2 B2 F2 L2 D B2 F2 L2 D L' U R' F2 L' D' R' B U
x2 // Inspection
R F R' L2 // Cross
U L' U2 L2 F' L' F // 1st Pair
U2 R' U R L U L' // 2nd Pair
U R' U' R U' F' U' F // 3rd Pair
y U F' L' U2 L F // EO
y' U R' U2 R U2 R' U R // LS
U' F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' U' // LL+AUF

I would call this a CFOP variant, and it is similar to VH.

It's probably worse than VH, and harder to transition to ZBLS from.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

Intuitive method (my sexy method variant)

Daisy cross
Solve Cross
Bottom 3 corners
keyhole 3 middle edges that have corners solved
Solve last middle edge while orienting all edges (swap one bad edge with a good edge a time then solve the remaining one middle edge)
solve epll with sunes
L5C with sexy move

 

[PetrusQuber]

EPLL with Sunes isn’t necessary, with trying, you can permute the edges during orientation too, without going to too much trouble.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

EPLL with Sunes isn’t necessary, with trying, you can permute the edges during orientation too, without going to too much trouble.

I find it too confusing. the aim is to be a simple method and having more steps help it

 

[ProStar]

I would call this a CFOP variant, and it is similar to VH.

It's probably worse than VH, and harder to transition to ZBLS from.

It's not supposed to help transition to ZB, it's supposed to be an alternate to Petrus, one where you solve an extra F2L slot right away

 

[Skewbed]

It's not supposed to help transition to ZB, it's supposed to be an alternate to Petrus, one where you solve an extra F2L slot right away

It is just worse ZB, so why not transition to ZB? EO then LS is worse than doing both at the same time.

Also, you missed the fact that you have to solve another cross edge (in addition to another pair) after the Petrus block.

 

[ProStar]

It is just worse ZB, so why not transition to ZB? EO then LS is worse than doing both at the same time.

ZB is just worse then doing LSLL, so why not transition to LSLL? Doing LS+EO then LL is worse than doing both at the same time.

Algs. :rolleyes:

Also, you missed the fact that you have to solve another cross edge (in addition to another pair) after the Petrus block.

"F2L-1"

 

[WoowyBaby]

I agree with ProStar, too many algs to do EO + LS in one look, it has 305 or so cases. I know that not many people know all of ZBLS, and I can understand why. Around 305 cases is a lot.
ZBLL on the other hand is a lot more popular, just because it is more versatile/useful in more situations/methods, but it does have about 490 algorithms which is even more, and I would have to say that knowing full ZBLL isn’t a standard among cubers.

Sticking with alg count of under 50 or so makes it much easier to learn and a realistic standard for everyone learning any such method.

I have personally never learned a full set of algs more than 42, full 2x2 CLL, partially because I am lazy, and very lazy in fact, but also any more than that is way too much for me, and I suspect too much for most people.

This is just a wall of my thoughts, I’m not mad at anyone so don’t take this the wrong way.
Also, kudos to anyone who has actually learned full ZBLS or ZBLL, it is such a time commitment, I applaud you.

 

[ProStar]

I agree with ProStar, too many algs to do EO + LS in one look, it has 305 or so cases. I know that not many people know all of ZBLS, and I can understand why. Around 305 cases is a lot.
ZBLL on the other hand is a lot more popular, just because it is more versatile/useful in more situations/methods, but it does have about 490 algorithms which is even more, and I would have to say that knowing full ZBLL isn’t a standard among cubers.

Sticking with alg count of under 50 or so makes it much easier to learn and a realistic standard for everyone learning any such method.

I have personally never learned a full set of algs more than 42, full 2x2 CLL, partially because I am lazy, and very lazy in fact, but also any more than that is way too much for me, and I suspect too much for most people.

This is just a wall of my thoughts, I’m not mad at anyone so don’t take this the wrong way.
Also, kudos to anyone who has actually learned full ZBLS or ZBLL, it is such a time commitment, I applaud you.

There are a lot of LL varients, just like normal Petrus. It all depends on how many algs you're willing to learn

OLL->PLL
COLL->EPLL
EPLL->ZZLL
ZBLL
etc.

 

[Skewbed]

I agree with ProStar, too many algs to do EO + LS in one look, it has 305 or so cases. I know that not many people know all of ZBLS, and I can understand why. Around 305 cases is a lot.
ZBLL on the other hand is a lot more popular, just because it is more versatile/useful in more situations/methods, but it does have about 490 algorithms which is even more, and I would have to say that knowing full ZBLL isn’t a standard among cubers.

Sticking with alg count of under 50 or so makes it much easier to learn and a realistic standard for everyone learning any such method.

I have personally never learned a full set of algs more than 42, full 2x2 CLL, partially because I am lazy, and very lazy in fact, but also any more than that is way too much for me, and I suspect too much for most people.

This is just a wall of my thoughts, I’m not mad at anyone so don’t take this the wrong way.
Also, kudos to anyone who has actually learned full ZBLS or ZBLL, it is such a time commitment, I applaud you.

In my original response, I suggested that the 32 alg VHLS subset was better than EO before pairing. It also makes it easier to achieve ZB as an end goal.

I’m sorry if I sounded harsh in my thoughts. I’m not insisting that ZB is the best for everyone. It’s just that I think that VH is better than EO before LS.

 

[ProStar]

In my original response, I suggested that the 32 alg VHLS subset was better than EO before pairing. It also makes it easier to achieve ZB as an end goal.

I’m sorry if I sounded harsh in my thoughts. I’m not insisting that ZB is the best for everyone. It’s just that I think that VH is better than EO before LS.

VHLS is bad. Having to pair up a F2L pair, then do a bad alg isn't good. Not to mention that the amount of people that are seriously learning ZB is very few.

It seems like you're arguing against Petrus, not my variant specifically.

 

[Skewbed]

VHLS is bad. Having to pair up a F2L pair, then do a bad alg isn't good. Not to mention that the amount of people that are seriously learning ZB is very few.

It seems like you're arguing against Petrus, not my variant specifically.

Your example solve wasn’t even Petrus, it was CFOP.

Petrus is a 2x2x3 block, then EO, then finish.
CFOP is a cross, then F2L(-1), then.

I’m not saying VHLS is good, I’m saying that it’s better than your subset.

I have never argued against actual Petrus, since I have never been given the chance, but it sucks.

I do want want to be rude in all of this, I want to inform you.

 

[ProStar]

Your example solve wasn’t even Petrus, it was CFOP.

Petrus is a 2x2x3 block, then EO, then finish.
CFOP is a cross, then F2L(-1), then.

I’m not saying VHLS is good, I’m saying that it’s better than your subset.

I have never argued against actual Petrus, since I have never been given the chance, but it sucks.

I do want want to be rude in all of this, I want to inform you.

Dude I wasn't doing a Petrus solve, I was doing a solve with a Petrus variant I made. And how does Petrus suck? It's a whole lot better than almost all the methods ever invented, save a few(max)

I didn't invent a subset, I came up with the idea to do an extra cross piece+f2l pair before doing eo.

(Side note, I'd be willing to bet that you're the type of cuber that says "Roux and ZZ and Petrus and all the other methods suck so much, CFOP is way better than all of them")

 

[Skewbed]

Dude I wasn't doing a Petrus solve, I was doing a solve with a Petrus variant I made. And how does Petrus suck? It's a whole lot better than almost all the methods ever invented, save a few(max)

I didn't invent a subset, I came up with the idea to do an extra cross piece+f2l pair before doing eo.

(Side note, I'd be willing to bet that you're the type of cuber that says "Roux and ZZ and Petrus and all the other methods suck so much, CFOP is way better than all of them")

I'll start this out by saying please don't take offense.

That example solve was objectively not a petrus variant, it was a CFOP variant.

Petrus has bad lookahead, and no one is globally sub 10 with it, even with ZBLL.

Please do not assume that I strictly believe in CFOP. I spend a lot of time on this thread because I believe that CFOP is not the best.

I have put lots of work into generating algs for a Roux variant. I literally wrote all of the code to do it myself, and you can see the code yourself in my signature.

I just want to have a friendly discussion where we can propose and critique each other's methods without being targeted like this.

 

[Deleted member 51471]

I'll start this out by saying please don't take offense.

That example solve was objectively not a petrus variant, it was a CFOP variant.

Petrus has bad lookahead, and no one is globally sub 10 with it, even with ZBLL.

Please do not assume that I strictly believe in CFOP. I spend a lot of time on this thread because I believe that CFOP is not the best.

I have put lots of work into generating algs for a Roux variant. I literally wrote all of the code to do it myself, and you can see the code yourself in my signature.

I just want to have a friendly discussion where we can propose and critique each other's methods without being targeted like this.

This conversation is getting a little cold. Can we please leave it behind and move on with our lives ?

 

[fuzzballcat]

This conversation is getting a little cold. Can we please leave it behind and move on with our lives ?

Agreed. Maybe we could change the subject a bit... like more suggestions for my method!

 

[Deleted member 51471]

Agreed. Maybe we could change the subject a bit... like more suggestions for my method!

Some suggestions :
1. Don't insert an oriented edge
2. No y rotation. That way, you can use the M-slice without awkward S moves, use arrow cases, and use some ZZeo.
3. Maybe leave an F2L pair empty, so you can use WaterZZ algs.

 

[fuzzballcat]

Okay, I've gotten "Don't insert an oriented edge" a few times now. I clearly must not be familiar with EO (I'm a square-1 cuber and only got into 3x3 recently). Suppose the edge in that slot is oriented incorrectly. What would I do to make it correct? Would I do that before or during the EO step?
True. Unfortunately that means lots of F or B turns, which aren't the greatest.
I'm not familiar with WaterZZ, but I'll get back to you on that when I am.

Thanks so much!

 

[TipsterTrickster]

thoughts?