merendo

Alright everyone, thanks for your feedback and honest opinions. I'm going to get rid of the concept of difficulties. At least, as distinct levels. What I'm going to do instead is let people try one level of difficulty first (I'm not going to call it that though), say, give them a number sequence of a certain length. If they fail to complete that stage with that length of the number sequence twice, say, the software will quietly reduce the length of the sequence, making the stage easier. That way, everybody gets a fair chance and if someone completes the stage at the initial "difficulty", they will never know. Same idea with the "hot circuit board track", I'm gonna let people try to beat one time limit first, then, if they can't do that, give them more time (again, quietly, without expressly telling them "New difficulty level for you because you keep being too slow..."). That way, there really won't be any reason to say that the cache has several levels of difficulty. Each stage will simply adapt itself to whoever is doing it and try to give them a fair chance. I'm also going to put a label of some kind somewhere out of plain sight on each stage with the coordinates of the next stage. That way, just in case the electronics do fail for any reason, people can still get the coordinates of the next stage. Hopefully, it will also stop morons from trying to brute-force the stage, trying to get at the coordinates of the next stage by force. Once they look at how they can get into the box, they'll discover the label and hopefully just be on their way.

OK folks, I need your honest opinion. Do you think I should drop the idea of the various levels of difficulty altogether and simply give each stage one level of difficulty, plain and simple? As I wrote above, I've already dropped the idea of a difficulty code, which would have meant people can't change the difficulty. What I would still like to do is give people a choice of a few difficulty levels at each stage (which they can also change as they please) - it wouldn't affect the outcome in any way, the difficulty would be purely for the vanity of people and so they can give themselves more or less of a challenge. The end result would always be the same. I think in some cases, various levels of difficulty would make perfect sense - particularly with the "heiße Bahn" stage, where it would be tricky to find a time limit which would be suitable for everybody. Some people with very fine motor skills would find a certain timelimit boring and without challenge while others (say, those with diminished motor functions such as some elderly people) would find it near impossible to make that time at all. Giving people a choice of difficulty would solve that problem. What do you think?

Indeed, the interdependency is a point I hadn't considered yet. I could certainly make each cache independent, but place them such that they make a nice round trip. Good idea.

Haha, thanks for the vote of confidence. If ever you do come to the Allgäu, you can have a go at the caches (and of course, there are many other good reasons to spend some time in the Allgäu ) I do intend to make the entire design openly available to anyone who wants in, in the spirit of open software and hardware. And yes, I would certainly clear the cache locations with the proper authorities to avoid any hazzle that way.

Okay, so here's what I'm gonna do. I'm going to ditch the idea of a difficulty code altogether. Instead, I'll let people choose a difficulty at each stage (which they can also change if they want to) and then, when they've completed that stage, show a message on the display, like 'Congratulations on completing this stage on: Hard'. People can then snap a picture of that message with their phones and attach that to the final log, if they want to, but that's entirely optional. That way, it's not a requirement, there is good enough proof of the difficulty level and if someone wishes to spend the time and energy to Photoshop the word 'Hard' into a picture which originally read 'Easy', then so be it. I think that's safest. What I'm also gonna do is, ask for three successive sequence of numbers, instead of just one (one seems meager). On easy, the sequences could be four, then five and then six digits long. On medium, six digits, then seven and then eight. On hard, eight digits, nine and then ten (which is really tough). What do you think?

Okay, that's great. Thanks.

Well, if the name is in the log, that only means they completed the cache. It doesn't tell me which difficulty they selected.

Wow, thanks for all the feedback I should have come here a long time ago. Ok, so, I can see that the difficulty level via a code is going to be, well, difficult. How about if I make it optional, so it's not a requirement for logging, but something people can provide if they chose to? Of course, I wouldn't ask people for any personal information or require them to set up an account or anything like that. I'd just set up a minimal website (text only, so it works on poor Internet connectivity out in the wild) to generate a code which holds the difficulty level and a randomly generated ID. The ID would be retained through each cache stage, and at the end, people who do want to brag about having done the cache on difficult, would have to post both the code which the website spat out Initially, as well as the code generated by the final stage. That way, I could check if they completed all the stages and check if both codes belong to the same individual. I don't think I'd even have to ask them for their geocaching name. Of course, that does beg the question of what to do if the IDs in the codes don't match but people do insist they completed the cache honestly on difficult... I might drop the entire idea after all. Of course I would design the electronics in such a way that they can survive outdoors for a long time (including temperatures of -30°C which we do sometimes see here in winter). And yes, I agree that vandalism is a problem. I wouldn't put the final stage (with the actual log) in a locked container, just a regular cache container so people have no reason to use force. The other stages would be electronics only, which, when vandalised, don't do anything so people would shoot themselves in the foot by trying to get to the coordinates of the next stage by force. Whether or not that kind of people can see that, is of course a different question... I was also thinking about making an electronic log with an ESP8266, via WiFi, as some people have done - not sure about that yet. If I did that, I would put the ESP8266 somewhere completely inaccessible and power it with solar panels...

Hello everyone, I want to do a multicache with lots of electronics (because.). I have developed a concept for the individual stations and I'd like to hear/read your thoughts about them. One of the stations is going to show you a random sequence of numbers (0 to 9), which you must then repeat, in order. If you get it right, the cache will show you the coordinates for the next destination. If not: try again. I've already developed the electronics for this (mostly) and put it in a short video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SYv3bPrmidU The next cache is a bit like the popular game "Hot wire" (we call it "heißer Draht" in Germany, not entirely sure what it's called in English). It's a flat circuit board with a track on it with lots of curves and bends - you have to touch a metal probe tip on the track and move it all the way from beginning to end without veering off the track, in a certain amount of time. If you do lose contact with the track, you'll lose seconds (Kind of like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mpYdLgVgU5M&t=50 - it's in German but it'll give you a general idea). If you beat a certain time, you get the coordinates of he next destination, otherwise, try again. The next one, I'm not entirely sure about, it would be rather expensive to do and require a lot of time and effort. You'd be shown a 'playing field' of electronic logic gates (AND, OR, XOR and NOT), which you would have to connect in a certain way to get a certain output state (from a set of fixed input states). The playing field could be static (easier) or randomly generated each time (expensive and laborious). Again, success means coordinates to the next cache (or final cache) and failure means, try again. I was thinking that each of the caches could have three levels of difficulty. The difficulty could either be chosen at each cache (and changed at will), or I could set up a small website where the user has to select a difficulty in advance, and then be given a code which contains the difficulty (encrypted) - the user would then have to enter the code on the first cache and be given a new code each time, which each subsequent cache will accept and understand. That way, the user would have to stick with one level of difficulty all the way through (or start from scratch) - and, by means of the final code, which they'd have to post in the log online, I could verify if they actually completed the whole thing at the difficulty they say the did. So, what do you think? I know I could do the electronics and the software no problem, but do you think this would be a Multicache people would appreciate and enjoy? Cheers!