muchacho
Member
M not being considered only 1 move comes from when doing it in 1 move was not "possible" because of the hardware?
Why? Not all 3x3 regulations apply to FMC.
+2 is for one-move-away-from-solved. If M off is a +2, then M is one move, which changes FMC.
Unless we make the +2 rule even more complicated.
Why? Not all 3x3 regulations apply to FMC.
+2 is for one-move-away-from-solved. If M off is a +2, then M is one move, which changes FMC.
I'm not saying we should count M as one move, and saying we should let the definition of a +2 accommodate M moves. A +2 definitely does not specifically mean one move away from solzed. It is just a penalty given for doing something in a solve that is "incorrect".well that would be changing the WCA metric from OBTM to STM which would affect all events of the specific puzzle, in this case 3x3
A +2 definitely does not specifically mean one move away from solzed.
Who said we are fine with +2's for 2x2? I completely agree with you here in thinking that it should be a +2. That issue just hadn't been brought up yet.People just want more friendly regulations and to have easier on official attemts. It's totally fine as it is. It is also fair, even if you think it's not. You want a +2 when a cube is 2 moves away from solved, but you all are totally fine with the fact that +2 on 2x2 ruins everything. Shouldn't it be +1?
There are indeed a lot of +2 rules, but this is the +2 rule for unsolved states, which actually does mention "one move":
10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds).
Yeah, I understand that, but again I'm not saying we should count an M as one move, but instead change this reg to include M moves.
This issue is getting a fair bit of controversy. but I think if we stay open-minded and try to consider what would be best for everyone we may be able to come up with a solution. Any new regulation or event added/removed can be argued about and not everyone will always agree, but I think if we stay open-minded and try to consider what would be best for everyone we can come up with a better solution.
People just want more friendly regulations and to have easier on official attemts. It's totally fine as it is. It is also fair, even if you think it's not. You want a +2 when a cube is 2 moves away from solved, but you all are totally fine with the fact that +2 on 2x2 ruins everything. Shouldn't it be +1?
Regulations is not about being best for everyone (you mean for Roux users), they are about being logic and fair. If you want regulations to be good of all the people, let's just remove the +2 rule and replace it with a +0.25
Yes, they are very much about being logical and fair. But isn't that what we're trying to fix? In a Roux solve, an M move is pretty much equivalent to a U move. They're both AxF's. So to make it fair shouldn't we make them an equal penalty? To be honest I don't know why so many of you are against this idea, the only way it could effect us non-rouxers is people who use roux would get a tiny tiny bit faster. But if most people are against this idea, then that's fine, I don't think very many people care very much.
Smaller penaltys for pyra/skewb too!
Because the only reason for making such an exception in the +2 rule is that... it would be nice. There are no other, logical reasons
if a cube pops, you should get an extra attempt