WE NEED NEW METHODS

[Gls7789]

For all the method developers, I want to see if you can make a method that’s better than Cfop, and is easier to learn
if you can or want to or maybe discuss algorithms to make another method and give my neutrino sized brain ideas.
not trying to sound demanding people keep saying that and I’m sorry

 

[Americancuber232]

First of all if you want a new method try to find one yourself. ( im not meaning that in a rude way) but I think cfop is easy to learn any way other than the eception that there are 70 oll algs but I`ve heard its not that herd and just learning them a few at a time is pretty easy.

 

[Gls7789]

First of all if you want a new method try to find one yourself. ( im not meaning that in a rude way) but I think cfop is easy to learn any way other than the eception that there are 70 oll algs but I`ve heard its not that herd and just learning them a few at a time is pretty easy.

I probably should try to make one my self and I’m on a quest to do that
i still can’t learn Cfop tho and I need methods to try but ok

 

[Americancuber232]

I have not tried to make a method but the algs are going to be the harder part thought you could proboly find an app.

 

[Americancuber232]

Also why cant you learn cfop because I use intuitive f2l 2 look oll with some algs I already know and full pll.

 

[Gls7789]

Wait can’t you just branch off beginners method? Like Cfop (I know a bit about Cfop)

 

[Gls7789]

And ok

 

[ruffleduck]

For all the method developers, I want to see if you can make a method that’s better than Cfop, and is easier to learn

A bold demand. Perhaps looking into what's already been developed would satisfy you.

 

[Gls7789]

A bold demand. Perhaps looking into what's already been developed would satisfy you.

Are you saying that in a normal way? Or telling me I did something wrong and saying that I’m greedy.
i don’t know and I’m not trying to be rude if you think i am.
sorry if I sound rude or am annoying you like I annoy a lot of other people.

 

[quanloh]

Not judging you, but I think in a forum, we typically encourage discussion instead of making some demand.
Maybe you can share your opinion on what kind of method you are suggesting?
Is it a variation from an existing method?
what are the general steps? Corners First? Bottom Layer first?
I think there is a lot of methods have been developed and discussed,
maybe you can look them up from the forum wiki?

Or if you need help learning CFOP you can ask in some other thread, with more specific question.
However, with the popularity of CFOP, I think youtube is sometimes more helpful than forum, as you can watch the cube turning in the video.
I personally did not learn Layer-By-Layer aka beginner's method and jump straight into CFOP with Jperm's video.
It'll take sometimes but almost all F2L cases is explained and demo in his video,
as well as 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL cases.

I do think CFOP is the easiest to learn among other methods,
as It can almost be described as: In all steps, if you see this case, do these steps. Not too much intuition involve.

Also check out Roux if CFOP is not your cube of tea

 

[AlgoCuber]

I would like to mention the wiki:

SpeedSolving the Rubik's Cube - Speedsolving.com Wiki

Learn about speedsolving the Rubik's Cube and other twisty puzzles on this wiki. Built to compliment our community of 35,000+ solvers, this wiki has tutorials, methods, records, and articles on puzzle solving.

www.speedsolving.com

Category:3x3x3 speedsolving methods - Speedsolving.com Wiki

You can search up lots of interesting methods and their variants.
Athefre's method development site is also pretty cool (also includes many great recog methods):

athefre

Join My Discord Server

sites.google.com

I especially like APB and Nautilus methods that he developed.

For some novel methods, 42 and NMP seem pretty fun:

No More PLL 3x3 Rubik's Cube Method

No More PLL (*NMP*) 3x3 Rubik’s Cube Method (by CriticalCubing) *NMP* is a speedcubing method which uses 4c instead of PLL. It follows all the steps of the CFOP method, but you skip solving PLL, and instead solve 4c. 4c also has good prediction from COLL and can be done pauseless and quickly. 4c...

docs.google.com

42 - Speedsolving.com Wiki

I believe ZZ w/ EOCross is an upgrade to traditional CFOP because of the better ergonomics, rotationless solving, less algs, luck factor, etc.

 

[Lucas Garron]

But the ones we have are too under-explored.
No one even uses ZZ-TOP.

 

[GodCubing]

APB is a pretty new method that imho can compete with CFOP

 

[Cuber987]

are 70 oll algs

*57

 

[OldSwiss]

The Problem with new methods is that even if someone would develop a revolutionary new method, only few people would use it until someone makes some really good times with it.

Pro Cubers (and also we amateurs) put a lot of effort into optimising the methods they currently use, so not many would change into a new method until there is proof that they cad do better times with it.

The other thing is that cubes exist since almost 50 years and there were lots of people searching for new methods.
I don't think that there are really good new methods that no one ever found out

 

[SpedCube]

I will also point out that Cfop has been used by many of the top cubers, and has been used to set world records, I believe. Considering how long it's been around, and how much it has been improved over the years, you will be hard-pressed to make a better method. I am still learning it (average 25), and I get where you're coming from in terms of difficulty. I struggle with memorizing algorithms. However, it really just takes sitting down, biting the bullet, and burning those algorithms into your head (with the help of jperm videos, of course). I cant make any comment on ZZ or Roux, because I have absolutely no clue about either of those. However, I think the principal remains the same: They're the top 3 most common for a reason.

For all the method developers, I want to see if you can make a method that’s better than Cfop, and is easier to learn

 

[Gls7789]

Not judging you, but I think in a forum, we typically encourage discussion instead of making some demand.
Maybe you can share your opinion on what kind of method you are suggesting?
Is it a variation from an existing method?
what are the general steps? Corners First? Bottom Layer first?
I think there is a lot of methods have been developed and discussed,
maybe you can look them up from the forum wiki?

Or if you need help learning CFOP you can ask in some other thread, with more specific question.
However, with the popularity of CFOP, I think youtube is sometimes more helpful than forum, as you can watch the cube turning in the video.
I personally did not learn Layer-By-Layer aka beginner's method and jump straight into CFOP with Jperm's video.
It'll take sometimes but almost all F2L cases is explained and demo in his video,
as well as 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL cases.

I do think CFOP is the easiest to learn among other methods,
as It can almost be described as: In all steps, if you see this case, do these steps. Not too much intuition involve.

Also check out Roux if CFOP is not your cube of tea

I think It should be another variation of beginners method so like cross and f2l orient corners of last layer then solve the edges

 

[Cuber987]

I think It should be another variation of beginners method so like cross and f2l orient corners of last layer then solve the edges

CLL and ELL for CFCE?

 

[ProStar]

I believe ZZ w/ EOCross is an upgrade to traditional CFOP because of the better ergonomics, rotationless solving, less algs, luck factor, etc.

EOCross, while an improvement to EOLine, is still unfortunately objectively worse than CFOP. RUFLy is basically the same as RUL; ZZ may get a very slight advantage with that. Rotations aren’t as bad as they seem since top level solvers (which is all this matters to anyway because any decent method has limits higher than we’ll reach) only have 2ish rotations on average per solve. Not sure what you mean by luck factor? If you mean more skip, then that’s something that can also be solved with algs. And the algs again don’t matter to top solvers; Tymon and Max both know a ton of ZBLL, and that’ll only continue to go up as time goes on. Large chunks of 1LLL being standard at the world class level may not be as far off as you think. And if that happens then ZZ has lost its biggest advantage of guaranteed 1LLL with less than 500 algs

Edit: I’m dumb and left out the whole point. Based on the above comparison, CFOP and EOCross ZZ are about the same, with maybe the edge barely to ZZ. The issue is that ZZ has to do EO at the start which is significantly worse than cross. It has eh ergonomics, is longer than cross, and makes inspection harder. You have to do a whole extra step and get basically zero benefits.

 

[artless1der]

For all the method developers, I want to see if you can make a method that’s better than Cfop, and is easier to learn

Ha there is one ayyeady, it's called ROUX
only 42 algs instead of 78