• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

WCA 2016 Regulation Change Ideas

Status
Not open for further replies.

MTGjumper

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,212
Location
Bath/Notts
WCA
2008CRAW01
YouTube
Visit Channel
+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.

Playing Devil's advocate for a second: it's really not that difficult to add in a clause saying that M/M'/M2 are each considered to be one move for the purpose of noon-FMC events, while emphasising that these are all considered two moves for the purpose of FMC.
 

penguinz7

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
893
Location
AB, Canada
WCA
2015RAME01
+2 is for one-move-away-from-solved. If M off is a +2, then M is one move, which changes FMC.

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
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".
 

Goosly

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
804
Location
Belgium
WCA
2010VERE01
A +2 definitely does not specifically mean one move away from solzed.

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).
 

Sajwo

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
Poland
WCA
2012SZEW01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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?
 

penguinz7

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
893
Location
AB, Canada
WCA
2015RAME01
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?
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.

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.

Maybe we should make a poll on this, there seems to be a pretty even number of people who disagree/agree.
 

Sajwo

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
Poland
WCA
2012SZEW01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.

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


edit; I agree with the pool thing. We should collect all the ideas and put them all in a new thread with a pool
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
2,987
Location
Webster Groves, MO
WCA
2013BARK01
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?

I'm at a competition right now. They made 2x2 have a 6 second soft cutoff (which imo was way too harsh, even if we were behind schedule). My first solve was bad, I got an 8. On my second solve, I got a 4. Except, it was a +2, and I didn't make a 6 second cutoff because of a +2. This is stupid. I personally think that cutoffs should just be to make the competition run smoother, and not to make competitors not be able to compete just because. If someone gets a +2, maybe it should be considered as the normal time for cutoff purposes? Probably bad idea.
 

penguinz7

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
893
Location
AB, Canada
WCA
2015RAME01
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!
 

Sajwo

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
Poland
WCA
2012SZEW01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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 :)
 

penguinz7

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
893
Location
AB, Canada
WCA
2015RAME01
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 :)

I was thinking it would make things a little more fair for Roux users, but thinking about it a litte more, I doubt more then a handful care at all.Other then that you are completely right. Wait what's a handful of roux users?
 

Jaysammey777

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
1,217
Location
University of Georgia
WCA
2010AMBR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Feet ao5, 4bld and 5bld mo3, add an event (like cuboid or mts or mirror blocks or anything), don't make changes that limit competitors.

For those wishing to remove events that they aren't even good at: some people are good at these events, let them speak, if they thinks it's a dumb event and should be removed, then it probably should. (Good example: Magic/master magic)

My view on +2: remove it, but that's not even physically possible with the attitude of Cubers. It's a good rule as is, nuff said. Also: if M was +2, what about for big cubes? Would Uw U' be +2? What about Uw U' Dw' D? Or 3U U'?
 
Last edited:

AlexMaass

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
1,546
Location
America, New York, Long Island
WCA
2011MAAS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
3x3 slice moves should count as +2, they don't even give penalties for it in 2x2, totally unfair /s

But seriously, I guess making slice moves +2 would be okay, not sure if M2 should have +2 too (maybe +4) .

Would this affect not just NxNxN puzzles, but also Square-1 and Pyraminx.

Having this for feet could be a bad idea, since its hard to do a slice move sub-2, so people would just +2.
 

Matt11111

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
1,370
Location
Probably my room
WCA
2014PINN02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Make solves off by slice moves a +2, remove Clock and feet, if a cube pops, you should get an extra attempt (accidents happen, my dad's idea, not mine), add an event for some sort of small, non-trivial cuboid, add a shape mod as an event, forget about cutoff times (again, my dad's idea, he thinks that you should be able to finish your average no matter how badly you do, but THE SCHEDULE. OH MY, THE SCHEDULE WILL BE SO OFF).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top