SimonG

quote:Disallowing revisits may be only work in well cached areas You need to be careful with this - if you can't visit the same cache twice, there is the potential to 'paint yourself into a corner' as it were. In practice it would probably be unlikely, but we shouldn't knowingly introduce a bug into the system (pun intended). quote:In either case working out if the move is legal is easy via the geocaching site, although unless you have a laptop with you, it's not so easy to do in the field. True, but it's easy enough to work out where you're going to deposit the bug before you leave the house. quote:I was interested to hear people's ideas for team selection, as I had not thought about it in detail, but I had assumed geography would dictate team membership. I see a problem with this. Suppose the teams are Southerners and Northerners, and Southerners have to get the bug some place down south, and Northerners have to get it some place up north. As soon as the bug starts to travel north (say), the Northerners have a big advantage (less far to travel), so it will get even further north, so their advantage will increase... so either team only needs a slight lead and victory is assured. Conversely, if the Northerners have to get the bug down south and vice versa, it will just hover round the Midlands for the same reason. That's why I suggested a non-geographical method of team selection. quote:One other rule might be to allow only passing to existing caches as creating impossible to find caches to pass the bug too would not be fair, and disputes would be inevitable. Agreed. Only caches that existed before kickoff should be allowed. quote:I'm not sure how well a specific cache as a goal would work, as it would be pretty easy to block the final move towards the goal, especially if the number of caches which allowed access to the goal was very limited. Block how? You may be referring to my suggestion that other bugs can act as defenders. In that case, you're quite right, I never thought of that. So either A) The goal is something less specific than a single cache, We abandon the defender idea, or C) Someone comes up with a clever solution. quote:It depends if you want a game with lots of goals and a fixed time limit or a game played until the first goal. Personally I prefer the latter, but for no good reason. quote:PS. Any ideas for a catchy name for this? Bug ball is rather poor first try. 'Bugger'... no, maybe not. SimonG

Ah, my evil scheme begins to take hold... SimonG

Another thought - how about you're not allowed to move the bug to a cache with another travel bug in it? That way, either side could move them round strategically to block the other team. I love the idea that every travel bug in the country could then participate! SimonG

quote:Originally posted by majicman: quote:Originally posted by Criminal:Hey Magic, if you get tired of yours, I'll swap monkeys with you for awhile......... Just make sure it's a toothless helper monkey and not a helpless toother monkey. How about a monkless tooth helper? --majicman In my experience, you can't go wrong with a hunky rootless empath and a honkless mothy leper. SimonG

Since they don't have a waypoint, how about Pointless Caches? SimonG

Since they don't have a waypoint, how about Pointless Caches? SimonG

Dylan, you're a genius! This is probably the best idea ever! The way I imagine it, you would have two specific caches as goals (maybe in Land's End and John O'Groats, as jstead suggests), and start the bug in a cache halfway between the two. The goals could be existing caches, but the starting point should probably be a new one, the position of which could be posted at kick-off. quote:Originally posted by dylanhayes:Each time it moves it has to be logged and is only allowed to move to the next cache in the indended direction of travel, ie a team can't just deliver it straigh to the oppositions goal. But they could, under this system, deliver it straight to the opposition's goal by simply stopping briefly at other caches along the route. Maybe there should be a rule that any player can only move the bug once, or at least not twice in a row. quote:Originally posted by jeremyp:I think the rule you should consider would be that any cache you move it to has to be on the first page of the "nearby" caches list. There's 25 per page. It might be simpler to say any cache within x miles - this would also add an element of strategy, because if you didn't plan ahead in sparse areas it would become necessary to backtrack. The other thing we have to work out is teams. It would be best if anyone could play, without having to join up beforehand - maybe we could use some automatic means of determining which team everyone's in, something like 'odd-number-of-characters-user-names v even-number-of-characters-user-names'. One last thought: if either team violates the rules (i.e. by moving the bug too far), that team can't touch it for x hours. Working out a good value for x would be tricky - we'd have to take a guess at how fast the game will move. Now you can all tell me why these ideas are rubbish. SimonG

Dylan, you're a genius! This is probably the best idea ever! The way I imagine it, you would have two specific caches as goals (maybe in Land's End and John O'Groats, as jstead suggests), and start the bug in a cache halfway between the two. The goals could be existing caches, but the starting point should probably be a new one, the position of which could be posted at kick-off. quote:Originally posted by dylanhayes:Each time it moves it has to be logged and is only allowed to move to the next cache in the indended direction of travel, ie a team can't just deliver it straigh to the oppositions goal. But they could, under this system, deliver it straight to the opposition's goal by simply stopping briefly at other caches along the route. Maybe there should be a rule that any player can only move the bug once, or at least not twice in a row. quote:Originally posted by jeremyp:I think the rule you should consider would be that any cache you move it to has to be on the first page of the "nearby" caches list. There's 25 per page. It might be simpler to say any cache within x miles - this would also add an element of strategy, because if you didn't plan ahead in sparse areas it would become necessary to backtrack. The other thing we have to work out is teams. It would be best if anyone could play, without having to join up beforehand - maybe we could use some automatic means of determining which team everyone's in, something like 'odd-number-of-characters-user-names v even-number-of-characters-user-names'. One last thought: if either team violates the rules (i.e. by moving the bug too far), that team can't touch it for x hours. Working out a good value for x would be tricky - we'd have to take a guess at how fast the game will move. Now you can all tell me why these ideas are rubbish. SimonG

quote:Originally posted by Sea Wolf:My nick came from my other hobby.... medieval/renaissance re-creation. In the societies that I play in, I depict a 16th Cen. Scottish privateer named Gavvin Quinn. Are you in the SCA? Just curious. SimonG

quote:Originally posted by C-Troop:I will pick several names and then post it as a poll, everyone has done a outstanding job at thinking up different and/or ingeious names. Shouldn't the gnome get a say? SimonG

Don't say you people go geocaching without a rocket pack? SimonG

Don't say you people go geocaching without a rocket pack? SimonG

My guess is that even if no one traded, the coins would get older over time. Things tend to do that... SimonG

My guess is that even if no one traded, the coins would get older over time. Things tend to do that... SimonG

Go for it! I was looking at the events board yesterday - there are loads in the US, but none in the UK. Why should they have all the fun? SimonG

I'm new to Geocaching, but from the caches I've seeked (er, sought) to date, there doesn't seem to be much consistency to the ratings. I did one rated 1.5 and one rated 2, both dead easy; one rated 1, much harder; and one rated 3, which was VERY hard (we almost gave up). I guess the problem is that different people have their own ideas how hard a cache is. Here's my suggestion: instead of the difficulty ratings being decided by the person who places the cache, how about finders rate caches, and the average scores are displayed (kind of like at imdb)? Maybe then they would be more indicative.