No More PLL

No More PLL method
NMP.jpg
Information about the method
Proposer(s): CriticalCubing
Proposed: 2017
Alt Names: NMP
Variants: none
No. Steps: 4
No. Algs: 42
Avg Moves: 46-47 (Sub 50 on average)
Purpose(s):

The No More PLL Method is a 3x3 speedsolving method proposed by CriticalCubing in 2017. This method provides an alternate approach to CFOP while not being an handicap to traditional CFOP. You can use your CFOP techniques freely, but NMP provides alternate approach to Last Layer, finishing with 4c, instead of PLL. Solving this way, completely eliminates PLL and Diagonal Swap PLL's like N/V/Y/F which are considered bad and generally needs an extra alg to be learned which avoids these cases. Solving with 4c instead of PLL also grants more efficient solutions with average solutions being comparable to Roux solutions.No More PLL also provides for flawless and pauseless transition from COLL to 4c, since 4c prediction only requires the position of edges to be known, and this can be easily predicted while you're solving COLL (like how Roux users predict LSE while solving CMLL). Average 4c movecount is comparable to MU U-Perms, and MU U Perms can be solved on average in 0.6 seconds, and 4c can also be done in the same time. NMP is versatile and you can use your current CFOP techniques like X-Cross and Color Neutrality to aid you in the solving process. Plus, the lookahead style is the same as traditional CFOP and Mixed Cross uses the same CFOP cross techniques, so the only new thing is 4c with the NMP method. Overall, NMP isn't an handicap to traditional CFOP, and it provides efficient, fast and ergonomic solutions while allowing for pauseless and fluid solve.

The Steps

1. Mixed Cross: Make a horizontal line on D layer with the DL/DR edges and insert the UL/UR edges in the DF/DB position (in any order). This step is highly optimizable.

2. First 2 Layers + Edge Orientation: Solve F2L while influencing edges so that once your F2L is solved, you have all the edges oriented. Alternatively, you can solve F2L any way you want (without EO), but solve the last F2L pair while orienting all the edges (using some subset like VHLS/ZBLS), or you can also solve in intuitively.

3. COLL: Since your EO is done, orient and permute the corners using COLL. This can also be done in 2 looks for beginners.

4. 4c: You solve the UL/UR edges by doing M2. Now, only your M slice needs to be solved and there are 2 type of cases that you can get. (a) 3 move case: In this case, your 4c solution will be 3 moves (like M' U2 M'). (b) 5 move case: In this case, your 4c solution will be 5 moves (like M' U2 M' U2 M2). 4c can be completely solved using M and U moves and can be done sub 1 with ease. Plus, with prediction of edges, you can pauselessly transition to COLL, while eliminating the pause between the transition.

Pros

  • Efficient. Average move count is comparable to Roux method.
  • Mixed Cross is highly optimizable, allowing you to use your inspection time wisely.
  • Relatively low algorithm count. The only algs that you require are COLL algs. Rest of the solve can be done intuitively. You can also completely skip learning PLL's (21 algs)
  • Completely avoid bad PLL cases like F/V/Y/N perms.
  • Fluid solves. Only pause in this method is the COLL pause (which can be done pauselessly after some practice, since you only need to predict the corners). Otherwise, Mixed Cross to F2L transition is done pauselessly. COLL to 4c transition is also done pauselessly.
  • Relatively easy prediction. 4c prediction is easier than PLL prediction and you can accurately predict your 4c case, while solving COLL.
  • 4c step is very easy to master, as it has easy lookahead and allows for fast 2-gen MU TPS spam.

Cons

  • 4c and Mixed Cross is a new concept, which needs to be learned and get used to.
  • 50/50 chance of rotating with y/y’ after solving F2L (which isn’t too bad as you can do these rotations as d/d’).

Why is this method good?

This method provides an alternate finish to CFOP which has a lower move count, yet still allows for fast TPS and lookahead/prediction ability. Solving with PLL gives rise to bad cases like F/V/Y/N perms which you’ll never get with this approach. Plus, the worst 4c cases are 8 moves which just requires 8.08 TPS to sub 1. Since, these cases are all alg based (like U perm), you can achieve much faster TPS and can sub 1 with ease. Let’s take a detail look.

3 Last-Step Methods

CMLL + LSE This is standard for Roux. Avg movecount: 10 CMLL (computed from avg of all the algs in my cmll sheet + 0.25 AUF) + 13 LSE (assuming 8 EOLR/EOFB and 5 4c, essentially the most advanced LSE there is) = 23 STM total

OLL + PLL This is standard for CFOP. Avg movecount: 10.3 OLL (algdb OLL sheet + AUF) + 13.7 PLL(using all of the fingertricky good algs(15 move G perms, RU U perms, J perm setup N perm, T perm setup F perm etc)) +2.25 AUF = 26 Moves

COLL + 4c Standard for this method. Avg movecount: 11.2 COLL (taken from algdb + AUF) + 6-7 4c (0.25 move for AUF before M2, 1 move for initial M2, 1 move for AUF, 4 move avg for 4c) = 17-18 STM total

Not only is the proposed COLL+4c approach more efficient than CMLL+LSE and OLL+PLL, but COLL+4c can reach high TPS too, as COLL is recognize case, and spam TPS to solve. Predict 4c and you can pauselessly transition to 4c and spam MU moves once more. Since, 4c is algorithmic (it can have 3 move solution, or a 5 move solution), you can spam TPS here like you do for U perms. MU U perms average 7 STM and 4c also averages 7 STM. U Perm can be done around 0.6 on average, and 4c can also be done around that that.

Improvement

Random M Centers (Misoriented Centers): Mixed Cross doesn't need to be permuted correctly. You only need to make sure that your horizontal D line with the DL/DR edge is permuted correctly. You can insert the UL/UR edges in any order with any center. This can be solved during 4c stage since 4c solves the M slice, and you can correct your wrong permutation at the end of the solve.

UF/UB instead of UL/UR: In some scrambles, solving UF/UB will be more efficient than solving UL/UR. In those cases, instead of forcing yourself to solve UL/UR (which will be inefficient), you can opt for solving UF/UB. You can use UF/UB in conjunction with Random M Centers (Misoriented Centers), since the M slice will be solved correctly during 4c.

OLLCP: This is not much of an improvement, rather than an alternative. You can solve F2L normally without caring much about EO (Edge Orientation). You can fix the edges and solve + orient and permute the corners using OLLCP. However, OLLCP has high alg count.

Color Neutrality and X-Crosses. Feel free to make X-Crosses and opt for color neutral solves, granting for more efficient solutions.

VHLS/ZBLS: The second step of this method solves F2L and EO. The general approach that I use for achieving this, is to influence the edges as I solve F2L. However, there are alternative approach for achieving the same. You can either use OLLCP, and solve EO+COLL at once, or you can use Last Slot subsets like VHLS/ZBLS which will do EO for you on the Last Slot. You can achieve the same result by intuitively doing Edge Orientation on the Last Slot as well.

Forum links

External links