# EOline extension to CFOP?



## Jorghi (Jul 6, 2011)

I think this would be a better start method than using the standard cross, and it only takes 8 moves on average.

*You limit solving F2L to R, L, U moves -> This lowers the # of F2L cases possible
*All Last Layer Edges will be oriented -> Limits the OLLs to 2 Look OLL cases
*Better F2L Finger Tricks

Or is it too slow to be practical..?


----------



## AustinReed (Jul 6, 2011)

It's practically the same thing as ZZ, right?
Edit: Ninja'd


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jul 6, 2011)

Why do EO Cross when block building is more efficent? You should just do ZZ instead.

Edit: Holy ninja.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 6, 2011)

ZZ = blocks. With CFOP, some cases take a ridiculous amount of moves.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2011)

stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas stop posting your ideas


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jul 6, 2011)

So ZZ minus blockbuilding.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 6, 2011)

So ZZ minus efficiency.


----------



## Diniz (Jul 6, 2011)

What about do EOLine without looking at the yellow edges. It would lower the EOLine avg move count, you could still do easy blockbuilding F2L, and standard OLL is already fast enough.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2011)

what about petrus without orienting the edges?!?!?!?


----------



## a small kitten (Jul 6, 2011)

Let me know when you can fully plan the EO cross.


----------



## Diniz (Jul 6, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> what about petrus without orienting the edges?!?!?!?


Thats how i do petrus, i think its better =P

The only real advantage of have the oriented top edges is ZBLL (or use it for OH)


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2011)

omg no way did someone else have that same idea first!

Edit: I hate you.


----------



## Diniz (Jul 6, 2011)

I never said it was a new idea, just pointing it out something i do when using petrus and zz for speed, because i fell more comfortable this way. For OH i use regular ZZ..

Edit: And anyway my main method is CFOP..


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2011)

Diniz said:


> I never said it was a new idea, just pointing it out something i do when using petrus and zz for speed, because i fell more comfortable this way. For OH i use regular ZZ..
> 
> Edit: And anyway my main method is CFOP..



My original post was not serious and was making fun of you. Not sure if you realised that. 



Diniz said:


> The only real advantage of have the oriented top edges is ZBLL (or use it for OH)



I'm ****ing sick of some of the stuff I see on this forum.


----------



## Diniz (Jul 6, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> My original post was not serious and was making fun of you. Not sure if you realised that.


Yes i noticed, but i actually do that when playing with "petrus".



Kirjava said:


> I'm ****ing sick of some of the stuff I see on this forum.


Iam not as experienced as you but iam not that random too. I know almost full 2GLL (except sune and antisune, that i have no plans on learning), and now iam learning the correct cases ( C/C C/O, C/A, A/C, O/C) of all sets (except sune and antisune again).


I dont see how force oriented top edges can help get better avgs when all OLLs can be done so fast, and I cant see how COLL can help get better avgs if all PLLs can be done fast (3 people at least can do all of them sub1). So the only thing left is ZBLL.

Of course iam talking about speed, for OH i use COLL and i think its extremely important.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jul 6, 2011)

Diniz said:


> I dont see how force oriented top edges can help get better avgs when all OLLs can be done so fast


 
You seriously think recognition for 57 cases is nearly as good if not as good as recognition for 7? And execution?


----------



## Diniz (Jul 6, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> You seriously think recognition for 57 cases is nearly as good if not as good as recognition for 7? And execution?


An average cuber (13-15 avg) can recognize any OLL case blazing fast and its easy to sub1 most of them.

The price for oriented edges both in ZZ and Petrus is too high to pay. (2H point of view)


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jul 6, 2011)

Diniz said:


> An average cuber (13-15 avg) can recognize any OLL case blazing fast and its easy to sub1 most of them.
> 
> The price for oriented edges both in ZZ and Petrus is too high to pay. (2H point of view)


 
Well, if you're comparing full OLL without edge orientation vs OCLL with edge orientation, then yes.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2011)

Diniz said:


> Yes i noticed, but i actually do that when playing with "petrus".



Yeah, it's common with people who are bad at EO.



Diniz said:


> Iam not as experienced as you but iam not that random too. I know almost full 2GLL (except sune and antisune, that i have no plans on learning), and now iam learning the correct cases ( C/C C/O, C/A, A/C, O/C) of all sets (except sune and antisune again).



*clap*



Diniz said:


> I dont see how force oriented top edges can help get better avgs when all OLLs can be done so fast, and I cant see how COLL can help get better avgs if all PLLs can be done fast (3 people at least can do all of them sub1). So the only thing left is ZBLL.


 
Your reasoning is silly and narrow minded. You know 2GLL and don't even consider CPLS? What about techniques like Heise LS+LL? There are more.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2011)

Diniz said:


> The price for oriented edges both in ZZ and Petrus is too high to pay. (2H point of view)


 
Wow. 

...at least no one will take you seriously now.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 6, 2011)

Diniz said:


> What about do EOLine without looking at the yellow edges. It would lower the EOLine avg move count, you could still do easy blockbuilding F2L, and standard OLL is already fast enough.



It seems we have a fan of ZZ-TOP.



Diniz said:


> An average cuber (13-15 avg) can recognize any OLL case blazing fast and its easy to sub1 most of them.
> 
> The price for oriented edges both in ZZ and Petrus is too high to pay. (2H point of view)



I'm not sure if either of those claims are easy to back up.


----------

