The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[PapaSmurf]

Just as with any other ZZ variant, this is worse than A. This is also worse than D, which itself is worse than A.

Hey, I've created a new variant.
EOLine+BL pair.
F2L-DL
COLL
L5EP
This is called ZZ-p. Everyone learn it.

Ok, new variant, new name. It's bad. Let's not use any more letters - A, B, C and D suffice.

 

[PiKeeper]

Please stop promoting obscure/newly invented methods as godly without any evidence. Here's a quick breakdown of why your method is not godly.
1. First a clarification. Your method is not RUL gen for F2L since you'll have to do at least one F2 to solve the FD edge.
2. Starting with an EO 2x2x2 is considered worse than eocross because of this. You also have overturning issues since the cross isn't solved.
3. Once you get to F2L-1 your method has three steps to finish the solve. ZZ-D does the exact same thing in two steps since it solves the pair while doing CP. ZZ-A also solves it in two steps and doesn't have annoying CP recog, so it's better than both.

 

[Xatu]

Just as with any other ZZ variant, this is worse than A. This is also worse than D, which itself is worse than A.

Hey, I've created a new variant.
EOLine+BL pair.
F2L-DL
COLL
L5EP
This is called ZZ-p. Everyone learn it.

Ok, new variant, new name. It's bad. Let's not use any more letters - A, B, C and D suffice.

everyone says that people stop saying it's worse than zz-d.

Please stop promoting obscure/newly invented methods as godly without any evidence. Here's a quick breakdown of why your method is not godly.
1. First a clarification. Your method is not RUL gen for F2L since you'll have to do at least one F2 to solve the FD edge.
2. Starting with an EO 2x2x2 is considered worse than eocross because of this. You also have overturning issues since the cross isn't solved.
3. Once you get to F2L-1 your method has three steps to finish the solve. ZZ-D does the exact same thing in two steps since it solves the pair while doing CP. ZZ-A also solves it in two steps and doesn't have annoying CP recog, so it's better than both.

it's 2 gen which is better

 

[PiKeeper]

everyone says that people stop saying it's worse than zz-d.

If you don't want people to say that, prove why it's not. I already gave an explanation of why zz-d is better, and you simply replied that it's 2 gen, which is also true for zz-d.

 

[CornerTwisted]

yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge

Wording this in the nicest way possible: Your ZZ variants are trash.

 

[Hazel]

From my understanding, recognizing CP mid-solve is pretty slow—might be wrong on this though.

 

[Mastermind2368]

How can you make claims about move count if you haven't even generated algs? I think it's good to experiment with solving the cube in different ways and to always be open about ideas for new methods, but look at it objectively. Having an EO 2x2x2 block creates more problems than it solves with the FB edge not being solved. Plus it seems that the recognition is quite bad, and having only 18 algs makes me believe that too much of the solve is pure intuitive, which is good for beginners, but not not much beyond that

 

[ruffleduck]

yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge

yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-A that theoretically and in practice is the best variant by a significant margin

This 3-look-LSLL CP-tripod hybrid variant was so inspirational I went on study the algorithms for "solve the rest" myself...

Much to my disappointment, I discovered that there are actually 27 cases. Already down in the dumps I attempted to cheer myself up by giving Trang's batch solver a whirl. Surely the algs for such a brilliant variant would be excellent.

After a few minutes of computation, the batch solver spat out as one of the first algs... R2 U R' U R U2 R' U2 R2 U' R' U' R2 U R U R. The best alg for the case, but considerably worse than your average 2GLL. In agony I watched the computer struggle to crank out the other algs. No better. Only the three edge 3-cycle cases were decent.

The idea dawned on me that maybe... just maybe... we reduce down to 2GLL instead. I realized that 2GLL on average is better than these "solve the rest" cases. Furthermore, it only takes 1 algorithmic step rather than 2 intuitive ones.

I am distraught by my findings but now have come to understand the truth. I hope these discoveries would have a similar effect on other ZZ theorycrafting enthusiasts.

 

[Imsoosm]

yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge

You can't say that your method is better than others just because you think so. You have to take in consideration other people's thoughts on your method as well as their criticism. How would your method get better if all you said to people's advice/criticism is "blah blah blah"?

 

[Xatu]

the method is good because:
1) low movecount (about 42)
2) low alg count (18)
3) mostly RUL and LU gen.
4) EO222. it's better than eocross but worse than eoline.

You can't say that your method is better than others just because you think so. You have to take in consideration other people's thoughts on your method as well as their criticism. How would your method get better if all you said to people's advice/criticism is "blah blah blah"?

look at my reply.

Wording this in the nicest way possible: Your ZZ variants are trash.

how dare you

 

[IsThatA4x4]

the method is good because:
1) low movecount (about 42)
2) low alg count (18)
3) mostly RUL and LU gen.
4) EO222. it's better than eocross but worse than eoline.

1) if the movecount is that low, provide some example solves (on average scrambles) that give that movecount.
2) This is fine, but 18 algs, as I said before, could mean a better, more efficient method if you sacrificed having an extremely low alg count for just having say, ~40 algs instead.
3) Same goes for normal ZZ variants.
4) EO222 leaves you with worse lookahead because of the bottom layer, something which EOcross is amazing at preventing. EOline/arrow/cross will be better in the case of a ZZ variant here.
Also, EOcross is better than EOline anyway, so how could it be better than EOcross but worse than EOline?

I know you have good intentions, but please accept criticism of your method. Good methods are really hard to come by and this is probably a good learning experience to help you make better methods in the future. Rather than trying to brute force your way through ZZ-ZPL2, consider trying something new that might end up working out better.
Providing some better arguments would probably also help people see you in a better way here, as someone appearing very stubborn doesn't give a great first impression.

 

[PapaSmurf]

No one is insulting you (and if they are, they shouldn't be). The criticism is simply directed at your method, then your stubborness is making it so that people are getting frustrated. I know it may seeem weird that literally everyone is saying your method is worse than ZZ-D or that the algs are trash or whatever, but there's a good reason for that - it's because they're both true.

EO2x2x2 - objectively a worse start than EOCross for speedsolving most of the time, as you get regrips and gripshifts everywhere. Also DF isn't solved, which doesn't help. (There are ways to make this work, but that's by solving FL and solving the rest RUD, which you're not proposing.)
F2L-1 - why don't you just do this the normal way? There's a reason people (generally) do EOCross->F2L-1 and that is because it's fast.
CP - why do this, other than case reduction? You'd be better off not doing this and just having 6 times more algs tbh.
Corner+1x2x2 - you're better off doing an edge, but you're better off just solving a pair normally and having ZBLL.
Solve - can't say for sure whether the algs are bad, but generally, having just an edge to solve into FR has bad algs (this is why ZZ-CT doesn't solve the corner, rather the edge in TSLE - CT tried both approaches).

I can't exactly say what the movecount is, but assuming all variants are the same up to F2L-1, you have 7+16=23 for ZZ-A and 6+7+solve (at least 13)=26. And that's me being nice. It's just objectively worse than ZZ-A (and ZZ-D). Don't get angry at me or annoyed because people have bad ideas. I have bad ideas. If someone criticises my idea, they're not criticising me because I'm not my idea. Just accept the criticism, see if there's anything you can do to use it, then if there isn't, move on. You'll have more ideas, I'm sure of it!

Happy cubing!

 

[Deleted member 36445]

I'm publishing a 4LLL in the order EO/EP/CO/CP

https://filipeteixeira.com.br/4lll-eo-ep-co-cp/

Pros:
It's fun to solve this way
it standardizes EPLL recognition
Uses sunes to solve EPLL, which can be fast
can be used as a stepping stone to full L4C (84 algs)
can maybe be used to teach beginners
roughly 13 algs (1 - sexy move, 1 - sune, 7 - oclls-epp, 4 - cpll)

Cons:
need to use two sunes to solve epll "parity"
EPLL recognition is counter-intuitive
4 CP cases (3 cp + hperm) at the end instead of 3
solving ocll while preserving edges permutation is a hassle and has bad algs comparing to traditional 4lll
it's pointless
the lists goes on...

 

[CornerTwisted]

Isn’t that just jperm’s tutorial but with CFOP algs?

 

[Deleted member 36445]

Isn’t that just jperm’s tutorial but with CFOP algs?

I checked Jperm's tutorial after you posted, it has different order of solving (you permute corners before orienting) and different way of recognizing epll (basically you hope for the best) I think my solution to the epll recognition is really elegant :3

 

[PapaSmurf]

I'm publishing a 4LLL in the order EO/EP/CO/CP

https://filipeteixeira.com.br/4lll-eo-ep-co-cp/

Pros:
It's fun to solve this way
it standardizes EPLL recognition
Uses sunes to solve EPLL, which can be fast
can be used as a stepping stone to full L4C (84 algs)
can maybe be used to teach beginners
roughly 13 algs (1 - sexy move, 1 - sune, 7 - oclls-epp, 4 - cpll)

Cons:
need to use two sunes to solve epll "parity"
EPLL recognition is counter-intuitive
4 CP cases (3 cp + hperm) at the end instead of 3
solving ocll while preserving edges permutation is a hassle and has bad algs comparing to traditional 4lll
it's pointless
the lists goes on...

This is nice and all, but isn't really new.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

This is nice and all, but isn't really new.

Show me where this epll recognition system were used before?

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

Show me where this epll recognition system were used before?

I'm pretty sure it's just the no-brainer way of doing it. I have friends who can barely solve a 3x3 with the beginners method and they use this system. I didn't learn how to do the beginners method until after a year of cubing and I automatically used this system as it made the most logical sense.

 

[Thom S.]

Show me where this epll recognition system were used before?

Didn't MMAP use this system in their earliest videos?

 

[Deleted member 36445]

I'm pretty sure it's just the no-brainer way of doing it. I have friends who can barely solve a 3x3 with the beginners method and they use this system. I didn't learn how to do the beginners method until after a year of cubing and I automatically used this system as it made the most logical sense.

except it's not a "no-brainer"
you solve the UL and recognize case

but wathever I don't expect no one to care anymore anyway

I wanted to develop a megaminx version of it but don't feel like it anymore