Doc_musketeers

I see a lot of our local puzzles being solved by cachers that even post notes saying they enjoyed the puzzle and look forward to someday being in the area to find the physical cache. There are such cachers out there. My wife/teammate is one of them, lol. One persons frustration is the next cacher’s fulfilling challenge. Edit: rereading your post I realize you were talking about having to do research in the field. That could be frustrating. Definitely not what we were planning.

Yeah. I don’t think it’s solvable in-field. As for needing to do some research to solve a puzzle, we see quite a few code-based puzzles with vague references in the name to particular cypher methods (e.g. “Let’s all Playfair”) or even typographical techniques. I think a legitimate high D-ratings both warn and reward puzzle solvers.

Yeah, I’ve appreciated that on caches that are using some form of code. It’s basically a meta solution Checker. I think we are ditching the virtual stage anyway, but yeah, we are only planning on 6 problems. In this case each problem is a different type so solving one doesn’t mean you know how to solve the next, so including the whole number part of he minutes as a “give away” wouldn’t help. The concept we are working with is creating some relatively simple “real life” Geocaching related scenarios that require high school level algebra, trig, etc. Sort of a joke on the “when will I ever use this stuff” statement many students make. That’s complex enough on its own, which is why the virtual stage seems superfluous, especially after our discussion here. It’ll probably warrant a D4 rating due to needing “special knowledge.” We are thinking of supplying search terms for each problem that will return “how to solve” webpages since we are using common word problem formats (e.g. Two geocachers simultaneously rushing for FTF instead of two trains leaving their stations ...). That seemed safer than supplying a single link for a number of reasons.

We’ve pretty much decided to ditch the virtual stage, but there’s still general concepts to discus! As far as we understand and have experienced, many Mystery Caches have virtual waypoints to supply needed information. We personally refer to those Mystery Caches which have some sort of code, math, history quiz as “Puzzle caches,” mainly to differentiate from “Challenge Caches” or some other type of cache that defies a pigeonhole. The Cache we are setting up would be far beyond a field puzzle. So, yeah, I might personally run into the field for a multi expecting the need to SEARCH for multiple “containers” that lead me to the final. I would expect the “field puzzle” attribute to be selected if I’d be required to do simple calculations based on information in the initial stages at the location. If the cache description has the puzzle information, without which I can’t find the cache — that’s a Mystery. Like you said, the searcher needs to know if they need information in the description to find the cache. When we first started we hand-entered coordinates into our GPSr. We’d read the description, but beyond noting if we needed any TOTT or checking the hint, we wouldn’t memorize complicated puzzle info.

That’s a really good way of looking at it. And that’s why we were debating this ourselves. (Discussion here has pretty much resolved us to KISS, lol) its funny how ideas (not just for Geocaches) can mutate. The idea for this cache started with realizing there was a manufacturer’s plaque on this bridge that supplied enough numbers to “do something with.” When we kicked around ideas for a puzzle, we came up with a concept that sounded fun to us, but really is complicated enough on its own. But then we’re feeling “yeah, but those useful looking numbers on the plaque! We can’t just ditch them!” Which is pretty much what we need to do (or use them for a multi somewhere else).

The other consideration is that the virtual is between two closely placed traditional caches on the same trail, so cachers aren’t necessarily making a separate trek just for the virtual stage of our mystery cache.

Nice point. Always good to look at the big picture. Yeah, in this case it’s not hard to access either the virtual or final stages and they are in close proximity. The trail is paved and pretty level with benches at one end. We are rating it T2 only due to being over 1/2 mile. But the puzzle is complicated enough that solving in the field wouldn’t be practical.

Those are exactly our considerations. Although, one of the qualifying situations for a D4 is the need for multiple trips.

If that’s the intent, that would be hard to understand. But any challenge (long hike, sneaky hide, difficult puzzle) will naturally limit the number of cachers that are willing and able to find that cache. If a game isn’t challenging how is it rewarding? Mystery caches cover a lot of ground. I’ve seen ones that require deep knowledge about a particular author, or that have some sort of visual puzzle. Those don’t appeal to all cachers. other types of mystery caches require lengthy solving or decoding, not just an instant “a-ha!” I personally enjoy those and know others do. But my whole question was how to keep the challenge entertaining without going one step too far and making it frustrating.

We are designing a puzzle cache that will require the solution of mathematical problems to determine final coordinates (that alone may limit the number of “takers”). we originally envisioned a virtual stage which would require the cacher to find a set of 11 numbers that would then supply the digits in the math problems in the description. Since we know that many fans of this sort of cache enjoy tackling them even if they live a distance away, requiring data from that local virtual stage might be frustrating. Then again, it feels more like Geocaching then sudoku-solving to require field work, and having an easy first step might make cachers feel more invested/inspired to continue slogging through the actual puzzle. any thought from puzzle fans (please don’t post just to say you hate this type of cache, lol)?

Seems I get the best of both worlds where I’m at, lol

This may even be the source of my “misconception.” I’m pretty nerdy so I assume I read through this, but if it’s vague to all of us now, picture reading this before you’ve even found your first cache. I probably filed it under “you won’t be needing that anytime soon.” By the time we experienced issues that MAY have been grounds for an NA, we’d forgotten the vague minutiae. edit to add: look at that first line! “Rare circumstances.” But then again the next line suggeste contacting the CO. As we’ve already discussed, communication seems key.

I actually hope we don’t end up with some sort of owner score. I long-ago repented at my choice of titles for this thread. At that time I was trying to interact personally with a cache owner so I personalized the phrasing. But when looking at the condition of a particular cache, it does seem that patterns of ownership often tell you what to expect. If an owner frequently allows their hides to be archived by reviewer action then when a particular cache has gone unmaintained for months it does little to reassure anyone that the situation will be resolved. Contrast that with an owner who is usually on task but has been a little slow about a particular hide. If I’m the one looking at it I may choose to leave a note or contact that player before posting NA. But of course, that is exactly the local community judgment call that you lament we seem to be losing

I actually get what he means and see it here. Cachers can’t find a cache but don’t want to admit the DNF, but once someone posts that it’s missing they suddenly are like “yep! That’s why we couldn’t find it back in October ...”

This is pretty much why our team didn’t know how NAs were used. We really never saw them except for rare cases (1 I can think of) where a player felt a Cache was violating placement guidelines. Whether or not the game is at a point where more Reviewer oversight is necessary, it does create a cycle that inevitably forces even more if the burden (and “power”) onto Reviewers.

Yeah, Dprovan is right that if players were more proactive (and knew that they need to be) it might solve a lot of these cases, but I think this thread had also shown that no amount of reasoning will convince some owners that a “why should I have to?” attitude goes beyond the flexibility built into the guidelines. Ultimately SOME standard has to be established.

That makes sense. And barefootjeff’s answer to that same question clarified a lot about how Reviewers perform such “sweeps.” And as you’ve mentioned I doubt most reviewers enjoy having to play that role.

I wonder if clearer and more noticeable (explanatory video?) descriptions of how to use log types might be helpful? I know there’s been debates about usage before but frankly I didn’t even know NAs EXISTED until we’d been playing quite awhile. even explaining HOW Reviewers become aware of issues?

Ah! Gotcha. And if the reviewer has to resort to sweeping for NMs there is a higher chance that slightly delayed maintenance which wasn’t necessarily problematic might get swept up along with truly abandoned caches, etc.

Weren’t the recent Virtual Caches “rewards” for responsible cache ownership? Not sure how that worked and of course “positive incentives” can be viewed as a form of COS just as much as criminalizing. im curious. When Nomex “swept” your area, what happened that was a “bad thing?” He states that he regularly sweeps his more urban areas and just doesn’t search ours as frequently. But if his “sweep” consists of searching for NAs and NMs and perhaps DNF patterns, isn’t that exactly what should happen? If it’s the community’s responsibility to post correct log types, it still requires the Reviewer to search for them. The fact that our discussion here inspired him to do one now rather than, say, in a few weeks doesn’t seem to have an impact. if you have a cache with unresolved NMs or NAs and Nomex dinged it, isn’t that exactly what happened in the “old days?”

I wasn’t critiquing Reviewers, I was holding them up as an example of players willingly accepting responsibilities that may require effort on their part, whether or not they “feel like it.” whether you’re singling me out or not, what surprises me is that you’ve corrected my minor misunderstanding of how best to deal with an issue which you acknowledge exists, but don’t seem to address that my comments were all in response to someone who is expressing a very apathetic attitude. You are basically shaking your finger at me for not knowing when to post an NA on a cache while ignoring that someone else is arguing there’s no real need for the owner of that cache to have done anything to address the problem with THEIR cache in the first place. its like blaming the firefighters for a slow response while the arsonist is arguing for his right to start more fires.

Arisoft, the Reviewers are volunteers, right? But once they volunteer, they’ve agreed to accept certain responsibilities. If they can’t or don’t fulfill those responsibilities, like reviewing and publishing new caches, they aren’t helping the game, and can be removed. Its the same for a CO. Anyone can search for a cache whenever they feel like it. No one has any right to expect them to play when they don’t feel like it. But when you volunteer to be a CO you are accepting responsibilities. They are listed. The guidelines are TRYING to be flexible to allow for personal style and so as not to be forceful. But if COs take that flexibility and run for the extremes, arguing that “a few weeks” should cover “a few years” of temporary disabling, the predictable response will be for TPTB to dial back the wording or have Reviewers interpret and enforce the guidelines for you and me.

We’ve discussed this. No one forces you to own a cache. We’ve literally spent over 24 hours explaining and discussing the problem. TPTB expect reasonable maintenance on caches. They ask you to agree to that as a condition of cache ownership. Accepting that responsibility is a “rule” of the game. The details are left vague, but the fact is, in many areas Reviewers feel obligated to spend large amounts of their time dealing with caches and owners that are clearly not following that “rule.” As Dprovan brought out, when the Reviewers started sweeping for problem caches, it took a bit of control out of the hands of individual players. As the game grows, either players take responsibility for their caches or GS tried to find new ways to do it for them. This isn’t something I’m advocating, it’s whats already happening. Would you prefer “stricter” rules? No? Then excercize your rights as a responsible cache owner and be part of the solution.

I’m sorry? In your version of this game Players would contact the CO to book an appointment to search for a cache at the COs convenience? “Hmm, I might be able to squeeze you in next Wednesday at 10 PM ...”

Originally GS and it’s predecessors were just listing services. The rules of the game were simple enough and the community basically built and maintained the game. Over time the game grew and needed a better framework, Reviewers, etc. I’m not sure what order it occurred, but what appears to be happening, at least in my area, is that the number of caches, and particularly problem caches, increased to the point that Reviewers started sweeping their areas searching for log types that indicated problems (And eventually the CHS). Once the Reviewers felt the need to “enforce” the guidelines there were some who felt this was too authoritative or strict. From Dprovan’s comments I gather that over time some cachers became leery of posting NAs, NMs or even DNFs in fear it might bring premature Reviewer action instead of the CO eventually getting around to it. So then you have some neglected caches “flying under the radar” longer and adding to the problem. Newer players like me come along, and rarely see an NA posted since there aren’t even that many NMs. If someone does post an NM and there’s no response, generally a Reviewer catches it and acts before another player can post an NA. New players are naturally going to play the game how we see others playing it. So it continues the cycle. if you look through the comments on this thread you see some posters complaining that individual players need to step up and call out problem caches, others feel that you should shrug, hit ignore, and walk away. Still others want more “enforcement” or a COS to guide Reviewers. I don’t know if any of those options are a solution. But encouraging COs to be less responsible, to argue they shouldn’t feel obligated to care for their caches until they “feel like it” is obviously going to make the situation worse.