Jump to content

Massive multi or many "normal" caches?


Recommended Posts

I like to hide challenging caches that aren't your typical LPC or tupperware under a pile of sticks by a double-trunked tree.

 

For the past six months I have been piecing together a massive multicache that is 10 stages plus the final. Each stage is essentially a cache in it's own right. Some of the stages are unknowns. Some stages require hiking several miles or negotiating 4+ star terrain. I'm trying to secure permission to make one stage a nightcache. One stage is actually a 3 stage multi and another is a 4 stage multi, which I suppose technically makes this an 18 stage cache all together. Each stage holds coordinates for the next stage and a part of the coordinates for the final. The final container is locked and some of the stages have a number to the lock combination as well. The overall rating is probably going to be 5/4.

 

My question to everyone here, since you will be the cachers hunting this thing, is this: Should I keep this as a massive, epic, 10 stage 5/4 multi, or should I make it 10 separate hides varying from 2/1 to 4.5/4 with the final being an unknown cache that requires you to find the other 10? Do you prefer to find one massive, difficult, epic cache or ten "normal" caches?

Link to comment

I've found (around here) that folks just don't hunt multi caches. I have one that is almost a park and grab (quick 2 stage) that is near a main highway, with no hiking involved and it almost never gets hunted. Comparing with other caches in the area, the only conclusion is that it doesn't get hunted because it is a multi,and people don't take the time to read the cache page to see how easy it will be.

For your plans, I think it would be better to make it a series, or group of series with a smiley for each stage. While what you talking about might be awesome, many people won't want to do all the work involved for one credit, while lots will like the challenge of completing the series while getting some reward along the way.

Also, from a hunter's perspective, I would always be wondering as, I went along, if the massive multi is even completable. It just takes one stage to go missing to stop someone in their tracks!

 

However, the plus side is that caches that don't get hunted often take less maintenance fro the hider! :ph34r:

Link to comment

we did an 18 stage multi recently and was quite a lot of fun, some of the challenge is on your part to keep them "alive" because it is very frustrating to embark on a long multi like this and find out part way that one is missing or whatnot

would you place them in spots where you can readily go and fix them if the need arises?

 

personally i would prefer individual caches, gives the "hunter" an option to either collect or not the info for the final and some will even argue that is more rewarding

 

it pretty much depends on the "habits" of the cachers in your area, are there a lot of multies that are visited frequently?

 

we do have a 10 stage multi that has a variety of hides, some just simple redirects and some that require some skill to figure out the next stage, and takes you in a big loop around the city with the final a well stocked ammo can, and it received very good feedback

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

My question to everyone here, since you will be the cachers hunting this thing, is this: Should I keep this as a massive, epic, 10 stage 5/4 multi, or should I make it 10 separate hides varying from 2/1 to 4.5/4 with the final being an unknown cache that requires you to find the other 10? Do you prefer to find one massive, difficult, epic cache or ten "normal" caches?

 

Seems to me in the end the difference is, do you get 1 find (or 1 DNF), or 10 finds (or DNFs)? Either way the final requires you to get all the others; effectively it's a "massive, epic multi" whether the other 9 can be logged as finds or not.

 

Now if I had a choice between logging one 5/4, or logging 10 finds of which at least one was a 4.5/4, I'd prefer the latter.

Link to comment

A multi can be terribly easy but unless it strikes me as amazingly interesting I won't do it. And for me I need more interest than a puzzle. If I'm going to on the adventure I want to see cool stuff.

 

I also really am not a fan of doing them because of the maintenance issues. I'm working on one now that has had questionable maintenance and is a night cache. I've done others where a step is missing or too soggy to read. Just not fun. So to avoid that frustration I avoid multis for the most part.

Link to comment

The time needed to get one smiley would probably deter most. You could do separate caches with the final being a puzzle as you suggested. Another approach would be to set up a challenge, with one cache released each week or so leading up to some kind of celebration. They are popular in this area but do require extra work on the part of the CO. Examples: https://sites.google.com/site/occachechallenge/ and https://sites.google.com/site/sdoschallenge/

Link to comment

One of the problems I have is that in my area PAF's are rampant. I spend a lot of time and energy placing a very difficult hide, and it stumps everyone for a week or so, and then one cacher finds it and the next thing you know there are 15 "Found it" logs all talking about how they called so-and-so and were told where it was hidden.

 

If I made 10 separate hides, there would be people who would team up and each would make one find, then share information and claim the 5/4 final after finding one 2/1 or 3/2 cache. I want the cache to be a fun, challenging adventure for those who want to try it, not just more smileys to collect.

Link to comment

I love a good multi!

 

That said if I got to a stage and had to abort and come back at night, do a stage, abort and come back in daylight, I wouldn't be impressed at all.

 

Been thinking of laying an epic multi myself... But I'm also thinking of placing regulars very close to each stage, then people can collect numbers whilst doing the multi, then everybody wins!

Link to comment

One of the problems I have is that in my area PAF's are rampant. I spend a lot of time and energy placing a very difficult hide, and it stumps everyone for a week or so, and then one cacher finds it and the next thing you know there are 15 "Found it" logs all talking about how they called so-and-so and were told where it was hidden.

 

If I made 10 separate hides, there would be people who would team up and each would make one find, then share information and claim the 5/4 final after finding one 2/1 or 3/2 cache. I want the cache to be a fun, challenging adventure for those who want to try it, not just more smileys to collect.

 

People could still PAF the final stage, of course. Anyway, sounds like you've answered your own question. Hide the kinds of caches you'd like to find is a good rule. No matter what you do someone will whine about it; ignore 'em.

 

Do make it clear in the description what finders are getting into, though, including the bit about doing one stage at night.

 

If it were in my area, I'd look for it.

Link to comment

I would say make it a multi IF you are committed to maintaining and checking on it. If its 18 stages, it will probably only get hunted once a year (or so) and theres nothing worse than being in the middle of a multi, not finding a stage, then seeing later that it wasn't there anymore.

 

But multis are awesome! For me, I don't care about only getting one smilie instead of 10. It's the experience that counts!

Link to comment

People could still PAF the final stage, of course.

I thought about that and I have some safeguards in place, though it wouldn't be 100% foolproof. Many of the stages are a small lock-n-lock with a logbook. I'd put in the description that I will randomly check logbooks and if someone logged the final without logging a stage I will delete the log entry. Also, the lock has a resettable combination so I will periodically change the combo (and the combo numbers found in the various stages as well).

Link to comment

The stages are placed as a "tour" of the area around a reservoir near my home. They are placed near forgotten historical ruins, at great viewpoints for beautiful scenery, along nice hiking trails, etc. Some of the stages include difficult puzzles that use math problems, decrypting coordinates, converting alternate coordinate systems, and the like. None of them were placed just for the sake of adding more stages to the thing. As such, all the stages are several miles apart. I envision people finishing a few stages a weekend and working on this one for a month or so to finish it.

 

Since the stages are placed apart from each other, it seems logical to break it into many smaller caches and make the final an unknown that requires you to find all the others. But then I like the idea of a massive, epic cache.

Link to comment

You could even put the co-ords to the logable caches in the start of the multi. So people have to come to the start to get their 10 finds... And then read how they follow the multi around the trail, so 11 finds to be had... Think that would get the multi the traffic it deserved. Also then if one stage goes missing, people can still get their 10 smilies!

Link to comment

Setting the cache out as a single multi sounds like my kind of fun, as long as it is put out in the way you describe. Unknown containers, varying difficulties, and the night cache aspect of it would all add to the challenge. But, and this is a BIG BUT,,,, most people just don't care for challenging or difficult caches. They pretty much want the smiley and they avoid trying for it if it can't be easily had. Setting the cache up as a single multi would certainly appeal to some but i don't think you'd see as many logs come in on it.

 

On this same note, if you're like me then, you may not care if it gets hit too often. I have a few challenging caches placed that i knew wouldn't be found very often. Having multitudes of tftc or tnln logs come in just wasn't my goal. Providing a bit of a challenge, taking cachers to places they've never been before, and reading the usually nicer logs that came in is what i was going for! :D

Link to comment

Requiring signatures in intermediate stages of a multi is an unenforceable ALR I believe. It also appears that this would require repeated visits over a period of time, I would be beyond annoyed if I spent months working on this and found the combination changed. If the cache is fun and challenging, I would rely on people doing it because it is enjoyable. If it is designed to be frustrating and needlessly complicated so you can have bragging rights for lots of dnfs, I would ignore it.

Link to comment

I like to hide challenging caches that aren't your typical LPC or tupperware under a pile of sticks by a double-trunked tree.

 

For the past six months I have been piecing together a massive multicache that is 10 stages plus the final. Each stage is essentially a cache in it's own right. Some of the stages are unknowns. Some stages require hiking several miles or negotiating 4+ star terrain. I'm trying to secure permission to make one stage a nightcache. One stage is actually a 3 stage multi and another is a 4 stage multi, which I suppose technically makes this an 18 stage cache all together. Each stage holds coordinates for the next stage and a part of the coordinates for the final. The final container is locked and some of the stages have a number to the lock combination as well. The overall rating is probably going to be 5/4.

 

My question to everyone here, since you will be the cachers hunting this thing, is this: Should I keep this as a massive, epic, 10 stage 5/4 multi, or should I make it 10 separate hides varying from 2/1 to 4.5/4 with the final being an unknown cache that requires you to find the other 10? Do you prefer to find one massive, difficult, epic cache or ten "normal" caches?

 

So I took a quick look at your profile so see where you were from as that is relevant in the context of my answer to your question. As it turns out, I was in Baltimore yesterday after spending four days in the DC/College Park area on business. Even though I spent a couple of days in your area I would never be able to find a 10 stage multi simply because it would require way more time to complete than I (or anyone else visiting your fine city) would have available.

 

Basically, if you're going to create a "massive multi" you're effectively creating a geocache exclusively for the local community of geocachers (I realize that not everyone needs to find every cache). If you think there are enough local cachers in the area that might find and log the finale than go for it. However, if you want to get finders of the stages of your cache from people that don't live in the area you might want to consider creating individual hides that can be completed during a 1-2 visit to your area.

Link to comment

People could still PAF the final stage, of course.

I thought about that and I have some safeguards in place, though it wouldn't be 100% foolproof. Many of the stages are a small lock-n-lock with a logbook. I'd put in the description that I will randomly check logbooks and if someone logged the final without logging a stage I will delete the log entry. Also, the lock has a resettable combination so I will periodically change the combo (and the combo numbers found in the various stages as well).

 

signing each logbook at every stage sounds like an ALR to me, if they signed the logbook in the final you can't delete their online log

 

but anyway, what is the big deal with people PAFing or taking any kind of shortcut to a final?...they are missing the point and ultimately its their loss

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

Why not make it into four or so multis? And let folks know how long each one will take. I feel that you'd get more finds that way.

 

I am the maintainer of a set of four multis that have 13 stages between them. Provided it doesn't snow I'll be out tomorrow with the previous maintainer checking all the stages before spring/summer starts. I'd hate for it to be one huge multi (darn stage two on the first one... goes missing every once in a while).

Link to comment

Why not make it into four or so multis? And let folks know how long each one will take. I feel that you'd get more finds that way.

 

This is what I'm leaning toward. I'll make a series of caches, trads and multis, that will each have part of the final coords. The final will be an unknown. That way if people want to do it all they can, if not they can grab individual smilies here and there.

Link to comment

Around here, there is a series of multi-caches. They're rated between 4/3 and 4/4, and each one is an adventure on its own. They have a lot of Favorites votes, and people discuss them at events. Your "separate hides" option sounds like this series, plus a bonus (mystery/puzzle) cache that requires information from the finals for the others. I think that format would work very well.

 

One problem with merging something like this into a single puzzle multi-cache is that completing it becomes too big a challenge. Even the fraction of the geocaching population that considers puzzle caches and multi-caches will be intimidated by the extreme challenge. In a sense, it's Project Management 101: break the task up into more manageable pieces, so that each piece is small enough for people to understand and complete without feeling overwhelmed.

Link to comment

I think I have a plan. I'm going to set this up like a tournament bracket.

 

Caches 1 and 2 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 3.

Caches 4 and 5 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 6

Caches 3 and 6 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 7.

 

This gives 4 caches with "no strings attached" and three additional caches for those who want to continue. 3 and 6 will be more difficult than 1,2,4, and 5 and 7 will be more difficult than 3 or 6.

Link to comment

I think I have a plan. I'm going to set this up like a tournament bracket.

 

Caches 1 and 2 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 3.

Caches 4 and 5 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 6

Caches 3 and 6 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 7.

 

This gives 4 caches with "no strings attached" and three additional caches for those who want to continue. 3 and 6 will be more difficult than 1,2,4, and 5 and 7 will be more difficult than 3 or 6.

 

I like it. 1,2,4&5 would be traditionals. 3,6&7 would be unknown/puzzle caches.

Link to comment

I think I have a plan. I'm going to set this up like a tournament bracket.

 

Caches 1 and 2 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 3.

Caches 4 and 5 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 6

Caches 3 and 6 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 7.

 

This gives 4 caches with "no strings attached" and three additional caches for those who want to continue. 3 and 6 will be more difficult than 1,2,4, and 5 and 7 will be more difficult than 3 or 6.

 

This is a good happy medium I think. For what it's worth, I say that if you can maintain all the stages regularly, and the stages are in cool places with nice hikes or views, I'd prefer to hunt an epic 18 stage multi. It won't get many finds, but if that's the kind of thing you'ld like to do, I say go for it. I'd hunt it. Probably aim for it to be a milestone of some sort, gathering various stages up until I was ready for the final.

 

Your above idea would be cool too.

Link to comment

Also, the lock has a resettable combination so I will periodically change the combo

If this multi has 10 stages, it might take a few tries to find them, so it is possible that when you change the combination, someone will have already found a couple of stages and wrote down the numbers. Then they will find the end and not get it open. Then they have to do the previous stages all over again. That would be a downer.

 

My preference would be that you do not lock it, and do not put log books in every stage. If cheaters want to cheat, I would let them. It's not worth my effort to prevent it, and I do not want to get in fights over what is acceptable. Do you think it's worth it?

 

On the positive side, if you are going out to check on it regularly, then the stages will probably be there when someone goes out to find them, which is awesome. Nothing less fun than finding 4 stages and going home early because the next one was missing.

Link to comment

Also, the lock has a resettable combination so I will periodically change the combo

If this multi has 10 stages, it might take a few tries to find them, so it is possible that when you change the combination, someone will have already found a couple of stages and wrote down the numbers.

The way to prevent that is to encourage people to watch the listing and to post notes when they find the stages. For an epic cache like this I would keep a table in the description listing the names of the cachers attempting the cache and the stages they have found. Then I can notify those who have found the various stages that the combo changed and give them the new number.

Link to comment

The problem I see with this is not all cachers like all kinds of caches. Some don't like puzzles some don't like night caches, and some can't physically do much harder caches.

 

Putting all these out as one cache will take up a lot of spots that could be used for individual caches. As individual caches, one could go find those they wanted or were even physically able to, and skip the ones they don't want.

 

You sound like a very controlling person. Sounds like you are putting caches out for your own pleasure, not for the benefit of the caching population in general.

 

By the way, no matter how you work it, changing the combo on the lock occasionally is a bad idea.

 

edited to correct a word spell check missed. <_<

Edited by uxorious
Link to comment

I think you're getting there... Good luck with it.

 

Nice to see someone asking the community, so I don't see you as "controlling!"

 

Going back to the UK forum for a bit... Hope to come and crack the challenge you're setting one day, and hope cachers make this one that gets a mention at events, and so the traffic that the effort deserves.

 

Happy Caching,

Natty.

Link to comment

The problem I see with this is not all cachers like all kinds of caches. Some don't like puzzles some don't like night caches, and some can't physically do much harder caches.

 

Putting all these out as one cache will take up a lot of spots that could be used for individual caches. As individual caches, one could go find those they wanted or were even physically able to, and skip the ones they don't want.

 

So what? What makes another cache more deserving of that spot than his (her?) multi stage. Not a valid argument.

 

 

You sound like a very controlling person. Sounds like you are putting caches out for your own pleasure, not for the benefit of the caching population in general.

 

By the way, no matter how you work it, changing the combo on the lock occasionally is a bad idea.

 

edited to correct a word spell check missed. <_<

 

I completely disagree. As stated above, he's (she's?) asking the forums for an opinion and addressing the answers in a very receptive way. Somebody who puts this much effort into creating caches is "giving back" to the caching community as a whole.

 

I do think changing the combination to the lock is a bad idea. Too many things can and will go wrong.

Link to comment

Sounds like you are putting caches out for your own pleasure, not for the benefit of the caching population in general.

"The caching population in general" is a large and diverse bunch of people. Some like multis, some don't. Some like difficult finds, some don't.

 

I think the OP is hiding caches for his own pleasure, or at least I hope so. If you're not getting pleasure out of geocaching, you shouldn't be doing it. As for pleasing everyone else, you can't — and even if you could define a lowest common denominator hide that would epitomize what the average cacher wants most, it'd be a pretty boring hobby if all caches were like that.

 

Props to the OP for soliciting opinions, but I hope he doesn't think he should be controlled by what everyone else wants.

Link to comment

The problem I see with this is not all cachers like all kinds of caches. Some don't like puzzles some don't like night caches, and some can't physically do much harder caches.

 

Putting all these out as one cache will take up a lot of spots that could be used for individual caches. As individual caches, one could go find those they wanted or were even physically able to, and skip the ones they don't want.

 

So what? What makes another cache more deserving of that spot than his (her?) multi stage. Not a valid argument.

 

 

You sound like a very controlling person. Sounds like you are putting caches out for your own pleasure, not for the benefit of the caching population in general.

 

By the way, no matter how you work it, changing the combo on the lock occasionally is a bad idea.

 

edited to correct a word spell check missed. <_<

 

I completely disagree. As stated above, he's (she's?) asking the forums for an opinion and addressing the answers in a very receptive way. Somebody who puts this much effort into creating caches is "giving back" to the caching community as a whole.

 

I do think changing the combination to the lock is a bad idea. Too many things can and will go wrong.

 

He asked if we (the ones that will hunt it) want one massive multi or a series of caches. My opinion is one massive multi would limit the number of caches available. I'm not saying another cache is more deserving, I am saying is individual caches may work better, whether they are his caches or someone Else's. I was thinking he was going to put all these out, and they are all deserving. Just seems if each one is a different cache and style, it might be better to make them separate caches.

 

As for controlling, I don't know, but wanting to add a log book to each stage of a multi so you could go check on it, and changing the combination of the lock because someone might cheat, seems a little controlling.

 

I agree it is great that he came here for advice. I'm just giving him my humble opinion. He can of course set his cache anyway he wants.

Link to comment
even if you could define a lowest common denominator hide that would epitomize what the average cacher wants most

 

Oh, you can. They're called power trails.

 

I like the idea of splitting it up into a series of multi's that lead to a mystery final. That way a person can split the entire "cache" into managable parts. Do Cache A & B this weekend, get the coordinates for Cache C, which is for the following weekend, etc.

Link to comment

Requiring signatures in intermediate stages of a multi is an unenforceable ALR I believe. It also appears that this would require repeated visits over a period of time, I would be beyond annoyed if I spent months working on this and found the combination changed. If the cache is fun and challenging, I would rely on people doing it because it is enjoyable. If it is designed to be frustrating and needlessly complicated so you can have bragging rights for lots of dnfs, I would ignore it.

 

I agree. If I had half of the clues and you suddenly changed the combo, I'd just put all of your caches on ignore.

 

If you made it a bonus puzzle cache and someone signed the log without doing all the stages, they found it and Groundspeak would reinstate the log if you deleted it. I personally think that the only thing cheesier than PAF is bragging about it in a log as if it is some sort of accomplishment, but the fact remains, you can't delete finds if the log was signed.

 

Personally, some of what you describes for your caches seem more like work instead of fun. That is true for me and not everyone. If you placed each as a separate cache with a final bonus, I would be able to at least find the type of caches that I enjoy.

Link to comment

I'd make each leg a stand alone cache with a clue to the final. I'd release them one at a time over a period of a few weeks. The final I'd list as a puzzle and publish it first.

 

Without the clue caches placed, the puzzle would be essentially un-findable. I doubt a reviewer would publish it.

 

To the CO, make sure to reserve all of the locations by creating the cache pages but unchecking the box that says the cache is available. You can continue to fine tune them until everything is ready and you wont have to worry about someone placing a cache right in the middle of everything and messing it all up.

Link to comment

I think I have a plan. I'm going to set this up like a tournament bracket.

 

Caches 1 and 2 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 3.

Caches 4 and 5 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 6

Caches 3 and 6 will each hold half of the coordinates to Cache 7.

 

This gives 4 caches with "no strings attached" and three additional caches for those who want to continue. 3 and 6 will be more difficult than 1,2,4, and 5 and 7 will be more difficult than 3 or 6.

 

I would absolutely try for this, (if I wasn't 3000 miles away).

Link to comment

I like to hide challenging caches that aren't your typical LPC or tupperware under a pile of sticks by a double-trunked tree.

 

For the past six months I have been piecing together a massive multicache that is 10 stages plus the final. Each stage is essentially a cache in it's own right. Some of the stages are unknowns. Some stages require hiking several miles or negotiating 4+ star terrain. I'm trying to secure permission to make one stage a nightcache. One stage is actually a 3 stage multi and another is a 4 stage multi, which I suppose technically makes this an 18 stage cache all together. Each stage holds coordinates for the next stage and a part of the coordinates for the final. The final container is locked and some of the stages have a number to the lock combination as well. The overall rating is probably going to be 5/4.

 

My question to everyone here, since you will be the cachers hunting this thing, is this: Should I keep this as a massive, epic, 10 stage 5/4 multi, or should I make it 10 separate hides varying from 2/1 to 4.5/4 with the final being an unknown cache that requires you to find the other 10? Do you prefer to find one massive, difficult, epic cache or ten "normal" caches?

10 seperates, one dnf or one goes missing you're denied the smilie.

Link to comment

 

I like the idea of splitting it up into a series of multi's that lead to a mystery final. That way a person can split the entire "cache" into managable parts. Do Cache A & B this weekend, get the coordinates for Cache C, which is for the following weekend, etc.

 

You can split a single cache in this way as well. Who is saying that one needs to achieve a found it log each weekend?

If split up this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6d831ec0-e0b0-40a0-ba52-3cb2e630de33

into 8 legs distributed over more than three months. All stages (both the box stages and the stages where only a number

is needed) are easy to find and muggle-safe.

I prefer the variant with one multi cache by far to a split up. In this way only the cachers visit the cache who are really interested into the hike and not into getting out as many rewards as possible in terms of found it logs.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

There is a very nice local series of 23 caches. Four sets of four traditionals. Each traditional in a set gives partial coords for the final (unknown) in that series. Each final gives half the coords to another unknown. Each of those two have half the coords to the ultimate final.

Very nice series along a set of hiking trails. But must be a real pain to maintain. In three years there have been 37 finders of the final. as opposed to 70-80 finds on some of the traditionals.

Link to comment

I would prefer many single caches rather than a multi. What I don't like about multis is the unknown time element. Sometimes I have a whole day to cache, sometimes just a few hours.

 

Also, wouldn't the many parts of the multi preclude anyone from hiding a traditional cache anywhere nearby? With 10 stages placed around the area, I can see local cachers who haven't found your multi becoming frustrated when they can't get a cache published because it is too close to your hidden stages. This would make fewer caches for you to find [;)]. That, or you'd really be encouraging the PAF sharing of all the stages so folks could hide new caches.

 

Last year we found a series of 13 caches, each of which had one digit of the coords to the final mystery cache. The series was spread out over 7 or so counties across 2 states. Lots of fun. So, my vote is for 9 traditionals with the final being a mystery.

Link to comment

I'd make each leg a stand alone cache with a clue to the final. I'd release them one at a time over a period of a few weeks. The final I'd list as a puzzle and publish it first.

Without the clue caches placed, the puzzle would be essentially un-findable. I doubt a reviewer would publish it.

It would be tough but I've seen something similar done in the past here. A puzzle was published. The cache description made reference to the aliens and waiting for the arrival of the Mothership. When you solved the puzzle you got a GC number. You attempted to look up that GC number to find -- cache not yet published! The local caching community was buzzing, with everyone waiting for the Mothership to arrive. Finally, a week or two later a new puzzle was published and the race for that FTF was insane. Everyone wanted to get to that cache first so they could get the coordinates for the original puzzle. Lots of fun.

 

I imagine you'd have to have all the caches in place and work with the reviewer to space out the publishing dates, rather than publishing the puzzle first with vague promises of hiding the other caches.

 

Back to topic!

 

I wouldn't care if the cache was published as a multi, or a series of caches. I'm in this hobby for the locations and the adventure; I don't care how many smileys I get from it.

 

The only nice thing would be that a series of caches would mean I'd get a chance to see at least some of the locations if I'm just passing through whereas I almost never search for Multis while traveling.

 

Regardless, let your concerns about the PAF network go and don't worry out rotating the combination or putting logbooks in the intermediate stages (which, as pointed out would likely be an ALR anyway). Once you place your cache let people find it the way that brings them enjoyment. If they can feel happy knowing they get credit for a 4/5 Multi by just walking up to the final container after being given the coordinates it shouldn't affect you in any way. It's their loss, not yours.

Link to comment

I'd make each leg a stand alone cache with a clue to the final. I'd release them one at a time over a period of a few weeks. The final I'd list as a puzzle and publish it first.

Without the clue caches placed, the puzzle would be essentially un-findable. I doubt a reviewer would publish it.

It would be tough but I've seen something similar done in the past here. A puzzle was published. The cache description made reference to the aliens and waiting for the arrival of the Mothership. When you solved the puzzle you got a GC number. You attempted to look up that GC number to find -- cache not yet published! The local caching community was buzzing, with everyone waiting for the Mothership to arrive. Finally, a week or two later a new puzzle was published and the race for that FTF was insane. Everyone wanted to get to that cache first so they could get the coordinates for the original puzzle. Lots of fun.

 

I imagine you'd have to have all the caches in place and work with the reviewer to space out the publishing dates, rather than publishing the puzzle first with vague promises of hiding the other caches.

 

Back to topic!

 

I wouldn't care if the cache was published as a multi, or a series of caches. I'm in this hobby for the locations and the adventure; I don't care how many smileys I get from it.

 

The only nice thing would be that a series of caches would mean I'd get a chance to see at least some of the locations if I'm just passing through whereas I almost never search for Multis while traveling.

 

Regardless, let your concerns about the PAF network go and don't worry out rotating the combination or putting logbooks in the intermediate stages (which, as pointed out would likely be an ALR anyway). Once you place your cache let people find it the way that brings them enjoyment. If they can feel happy knowing they get credit for a 4/5 Multi by just walking up to the final container after being given the coordinates it shouldn't affect you in any way. It's their loss, not yours.

 

That sounds like a great idea for a puzzle. I might have to borrow that one....

 

Best post yet BTW. Just sayin...

Link to comment

With the seemingly wide variation in this, I would recommend breaking it up into several smaller caches (some of which may be Multis) then having a Bonus Cache that can be found only by finding all the other caches.

 

This would probably be a good suggestion. While I love a good multi (just did a good one today, even though a recent forest fire burned up the final - at least the container was an ammocan, not tupperware, and I could put a signed piece of paper in it to log my find, along with a NM). I have a 3 stage multi and it just doesn't get found often. Those who do find it seem to enjoy it well enough, so it'll stay put. But I do have to do more maintenance work on it than any other cache.

 

If you really want a long multi, though, I'd say go for it. If it's really good (the destinations don't necessarily need to rock my world, but the journey needs to be good), then I'd totally do it and if you keep it in tip top shape, I bet it will slowly become a destination cache for those who enjoy seeking long multis.

Link to comment

As a cache owner, this also comes down to your vision for these caches / this cache. Taoiseach and I have a policy of hiding caches that we would like to do, and we both find that multis and puzzles attract a higher caliber cacher than traditionals do. For us this means better logs from finders, fewer maintenance issues, and the chance to leave an impression on other cache hiders. On the other hand, if your goal is to have lots of visits, traditional is a better way to go.

Link to comment

I've decided to put this out as 15 separate caches. Caches 1 and 2 are traditionals that each give you part of the coordinates to cache 3. 4 and 5 give you parts of 6, and so on.

 

The first round of caches are all traditional hides that are fairly simple - 2's and 3's for D/T. These should satisfy casual hunters, out-of-area cachers, and FTF seekers. The second round of caches is three multis and a puzzle cache that follow some of the main hiking trails in the area, though the stages are hidden well off-trail. These are rated in the 3's and 4's. The third round consists of a two-stage multi and a puzzle cache that involves encrypted coordinates and a projected point. These are 4/4 caches. The final is a grueling 4.5/4.5 multi.

 

I'm recycling some of the traditional hides I have in the area. When the other caches get published I'm going to insert the coordinate halves into my already-published ones so they can become part of the challenge. In this way I'm not taking up additional real estate and I'm making maintenance a little easier for myself.

 

After the first round, every cache is listed as an unknown cache with the closest parking area as the published coordinates.

 

I finished placing half of the caches this past weekend. Next weekend I will place the second half, then decide the order in which I will publish them all. There are three big events coming up in my local area so I'll use these to help spread the word about this series.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...