Virtual stage for puzzle cache pros/cons

[+Doc_musketeers]

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)?

[RuideAlmeida]

In fact, I doubt that anybody hate a Mystery cache... while many don't like the work to solve it. 

Considering that the final coordinates is the vital part of any cache, there is no great interest in having hugely challenging stages, because after the FTF, many geocachers can (would) go there straight. Sad but true.

While a great idea can produce an amazing Mystery Cache, I would stick to KISS.

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

.. that alone may limit the number of “takers”

I will never understand, why someone is publishing a geocache and then will limit the number of visitors.

 

[+Doc_musketeers]

15 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

I will never understand, why someone is publishing a geocache and then will limit the number of visitors.

 

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.

[+arisoft]

53 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

In fact, I doubt that anybody hate a Mystery cache... while many don't like the work to solve it. 

I have seen geocachers who openly hates mystery caches but mystery caches are not made for them so it does not matter at all.

53 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

after the FTF, many geocachers can (would) go there straight.

It depends on who have solved the mystery. Spoiling mysteries is integral part of the game and well-established by the guidelines. Anyway, geocachers who are really interested in solving mysteries will not go straight to the caches because it does not give the experience they are looking for.

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

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)?

You have to balance all these important factors you mentioned. One important factor is the number of players you plan to visit the cache and the effort you are going to put in the cache yourself. Requesting to visit at some virtual waypoint may work well if the final solution can be calculated on the field. But if the solution needs this information forehand and is not possible to solve right away, it is just an extra obstacle whict will easily cause to abandon the task.

My own practice is to separate field puzzles and armchair puzzles and not to mix them together.

Edited February 18, 2018 by arisoft

[+arisoft]

35 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

I will never understand, why someone is publishing a geocache and then will limit the number of visitors.

You will know this when you have 100+ geocaches or one so called gadget cache which is always broken

[+Doc_musketeers]

12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Requesting to visit at some virtual waypoint may work well if the final solution can be calculated on the field. But if the solution needs this information forehand and is not possible to solve right away, it is just an extra obstacle whict will easily cause to abandon the task.

My own practice is to separate field puzzles and armchair puzzles and not to mix them together.

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

[+arisoft]

13 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

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

No problem. Many multi caches have this same feature if waypoints are far away. It just limits the number of visitors and this is what you have to account into your consideration.

Think about the whole thing whether this kind of part would naturally fit into it.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

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)?

 

I prefer a suitable place to work on a puzzle. One recent field puzzle was in a park, so I set up my laptop on a picnic table, spread out my notes, entered data between the GPS and PC, and looked at maps and projections. This plan would have not gone well if I was in a remote forest, crouching in mud, getting attacked by bugs. I'd put it on the back burner until a friend solved it and invited me along.

I try to find out in advance if there are a lot of codes and math equations to do in the forest, so that I know what the deal is. That tidbit is often in the previous logs, if not in the cache description.  There's probably a fine line between fun crouching-in-the-mud puzzle work, and not fun.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by kunarion

[+Doc_musketeers]

44 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Think about the whole thing whether this kind of part would naturally fit into it.

Nice point. Always good to look at the big picture.

 

38 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

I prefer a suitable place to work on a puzzle. One recent field puzzle was in a park, so I set up my laptop on a picnic table, spread out my notes, entered data between the GPS and PC, and looked at maps and projections. This plan would have not gone well if I was in a remote forest, crouching in mud, getting attacked by bugs. I'd put it on the back burner until a friend solved it and invited me along.

I try to find out in advance if there are a lot of codes and math equations to do in the forest, so that I know what the deal is. That tidbit is often in the previous logs, if not in the cache description.  There's probably a fine line between fun crouching-in-the-mud puzzle work, and not fun.

 

 

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.

[+Doc_musketeers]

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.

[+arisoft]

27 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

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.

This kind of setup works pretty well on areas where are many caches nearby. I remember a series of puzzle caches which needed information from the posted coordinates to solve the final. I think that I managed to solve the puzzle only once on-site but I visited the area many times so it was not a problem at all. One part of the puzzle was to figure out where the needed information is hiding.

[+dprovan]

I don't think I understand exactly what you're thinking here, but I'll make two general comments that I think apply.

First, be clear about the requirements. Personally, I don't mind walking up to a multi and discovering it's immensely complicated -- 11 numbers combined mathematically is pretty complicated even when the numbers are all in one place -- but I still appreciate knowing what I'm getting into before I walk up. It's true, I might not have read the description, but if the description's clear, I'll know it's my fault even if I'm taken by surprise. But the real point is other people would be angry if the field puzzle was way more complicated than the description led them to believe.

Second, doing math in the field -- even simple arithmetic -- can be quite a pain and is always error prone, so I really appreciate a checksum so I know there's a reasonable chance I got the right answer. Don't bother with a geochecker: I don't have net access in the field, so it will just be annoying to read how I can check my answer on certitude.

One other point: I'm a little confused, but I think you're saying that the information could be gathered in advance for those inclined to go that route. If that's the case, be clear that you're OK with that in the description. A lot of people (in my area, at least) will resist collecting the information in advance because it's seen as cheating around here (although somewhat lightheartedly). If you think it's OK or even want to encourage it, let people know. Knowing I have the right answer -- certitude's appreciated in this case -- before I go into the field is very comforting.

One last thing: I've been talking as if this is a multi since that's what it sounds like to me, but I don't mean to imply it couldn't be a mystery cache. I wouldn't mind either way, and other people would have different opinions, but I'd call it a multi if one could go into the field to get the info even if the actual point of the puzzle was for people to figure out the info from the comfort of their homes.

[+niraD]

Does the virtual stage make sense as part of the overall puzzle cache design? Or is it just a source of digits for the puzzle?

3 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

having an easy first step might make cachers feel more invested/inspired to continue slogging through the actual puzzle.

I think puzzlers will already be invested/inspired to continue, and those who discover that the easy first step is followed by a puzzle that they are incapable of "slogging through" will be annoyed, or worse.

[+Doc_musketeers]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Does the virtual stage make sense as part of the overall puzzle cache design? Or is it just a source of digits for the puzzle?

I think puzzlers will already be invested/inspired to continue, and those who discover that the easy first step is followed by a puzzle that they are incapable of "slogging through" will be annoyed, or worse.

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).

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

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.”

Any number of digits may be used for geocache by using this simple field-puzzle method: https://coord.info/GC2WK42

 

[+Doc_musketeers]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

But the real point is other people would be angry if the field puzzle was way more complicated than the description led them to believe ...

One last thing: I've been talking as if this is a multi since that's what it sounds like to me, but I don't mean to imply it couldn't be a mystery cache. I wouldn't mind either way, and other people would have different opinions, but I'd call it a multi if one could go into the field to get the info even if the actual point of the puzzle was for people to figure out the info from the comfort of their homes.

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.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

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).

I agree with the suggestion for taking a KISS approach. Instead of obtaining 11 digits, consider acquiring six, and provide the first part of the coordinates:  For example, the final is as N42 28.ABC  W76 30.DEF and one simply has to substitute right digits found.  Alternatively one could solve a simple math equation for XXX and YYY which are used for the least significant digits for the lat/long coordinates.   Use basic arithmetic for the math rather than some complex equation.   When I go geocaching while traveling I often have a limited time for geocaching and usually don't have the opportunity to go back to the cache if I've done something incorrect in calculating a set of coordinates.  Make sure that the cache description is clear on what needs to be done and provide an estimate for how long it is expected to take to complete the cache.  

[+hzoi]

24 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I agree with the suggestion for taking a KISS approach. Instead of obtaining 11 digits, consider acquiring six, and provide the first part of the coordinates

I've started doing this more often for our puzzles.  Due to the 2-mile rule, the degrees and often minutes can be almost presumed based on the location of the fake coordinates, so they can be rather a throwaway.

On the other hand, you can use this as a feature, not a bug, so that people know they are on the right track with their solution if the degrees come out right.

[+Doc_musketeers]

4 hours ago, hzoi said:

On the other hand, you can use this as a feature, not a bug, so that people know they are on the right track with their solution if the degrees come out right.

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.

4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Use basic arithmetic for the math rather than some complex equation.

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.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

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.

I'd appreciate the D rating, and an explanation of what may be possible.  It tells me to skip it for another day, probably with another in tow, or simply add it to my ignore list.  You did say earlier that the puzzle is complicated enough that solving in the field wouldn’t be practical.  Rare for me and many we know to be interested enough to return to a cache that appears (to me) designed just to frustrate.  If multiple stages, and most can't be solved in the field after solving the last at home as well,  we just wouldn't be back.   

If links or webpages were needed to be accessed in the field for "help", that'd be about the same (to me) as "email me for a hint" as the hint.  Add in that everyone doesn't use a phone to cache, and that D rating's real important.

Edited February 19, 2018 by cerberus1

[+Doc_musketeers]

21 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I'd appreciate the D rating, and an explanation of what may be possible.  It tells me to skip it for another day, probably with another in tow, or simply add it to my ignore list.  You did say earlier that the puzzle is complicated enough that solving in the field wouldn’t be practical.  Rare for me and many we know to be interested enough to return to a cache that appears (to me) designed just to frustrate.  If multiple stages, and most can't be solved in the field after solving the last at home as well,  we just wouldn't be back.   

If links or webpages were needed to be accessed in the field for "help", that'd be about the same (to me) as "email me for a hint" as the hint.  Add in that everyone doesn't use a phone to cache, and that D rating's real important.

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.

[+Doc_musketeers]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Rare for me and many we know to be interested enough to return to a cache that appears (to me) designed just to frustrate. 

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.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[+thebruce0]

11 hours ago, hzoi said:

I've started doing this more often for our puzzles.  Due to the 2-mile rule, the degrees and often minutes can be almost presumed based on the location of the fake coordinates, so they can be rather a throwaway.

Also if you can reduce possible digits on the most significant numbers then it could also help reverse engineer the puzzle if a person finds it hard.  Puzzles, for example, that have you solve for all 10 digits, you can pretty much guess at the first 3 or 4 of the lat and long, and reduce possible answers to the ones that result in reasonable locations.  So to reduce that reverse solution, math to calculate the least 3 significant digits of lat and long is typically the best way.

 

I don't find any puzzle frustrating (if I can solve it or not) unless it involves mind-reading. That is, trial and error over any idea that might produce some kind of match. I like pattern recognition; rewarding steps through the solving process.  Those can certainly be high difficulty too. Difficulty through work, not through vague disconnected references you have to know in order to even have an idea of how to solve.

Edited February 19, 2018 by thebruce0

[+Doc_musketeers]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

So to reduce that reverse solution, math to calculate the least 3 significant digits of lat and long is typically the best way.

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Difficulty through work, not through vague disconnected references you have to know in order to even have an idea of how to solve.

I agree. If it’s a pattern/code then including obvious digits let’s the solver “check their work.” However if each unlisted digit in the coordinates requires a different technique or bit of info to solve, any cacher smart enough to solve it will just skip the obvious numbers.

In regard to the last statement about “Difficulty through work,” I agree about vague disconnected references not being very useful.

Just to clarify about our cache, the concept would be as cohesive as a high school math exit exam (untimed in this case!) Skills most would-be solvers would have been exposed to but might need a quick refresher to set up and solve. 

But anyone who took math/science classes probably remembers being given or allowed to have a “cheat sheet” with the equations for volume of a particular shape or the Pythagorean theorem, etc. 

Our intent was to either supply that sort of info directly (perhaps even by diagram) or aid cachers in finding the many online step-by-step directions solving almost identical problems to what we are creating. For instance, search “two trains meeting word problem” and the top couple of responses would walk you through our first problem.

[+Mausebiber]

On 2/18/2018 at 4:37 PM, Doc_musketeers said:

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.

Yes, agree, but I place a 10 Mile hiking cache or a T5 tree climbing cache NOT to limit anyone but to provide fun for those who have interest in those kind of challenges.  It's the way of looking at things.

Quote

You will know this when you have 100+ geocaches or one so called gadget cache which is always broken

This is your choice to maintain such a cache and there is a very easy solution to solve this problem.

[+Doc_musketeers]

19 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Yes, agree, but I place a 10 Mile hiking cache or a T5 tree climbing cache NOT to limit anyone but to provide fun for those who have interest in those kind of challenges.  It's the way of looking at things.

Exactly... which was why we started this thread. In your initial response it sounded like you thought we WANTED to limit Finds, which we most certainly do not. We had simply acknowledged that mathematical puzzles don’t appeal to everyone to begin with. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

19 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

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.

I'll tell you "when you will ever use this stuff".  When you've got a 14 year old in high school taking Algebra (though he doesn't need much help).

Wait. You're going to make word math problems? 

You've got to do one about 2  geocachers seeing a new cache listing published and starting down each end of a trail and determining which will get FTF.

 

 

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Quote

You will know this when you have 100+ geocaches or one so called gadget cache which is always broken

This is your choice to maintain such a cache and there is a very easy solution to solve this problem.

Changing your hobbies is overvalued, though fashionable. However, I would suggest a more constructive solution if you encounter this problem.

[+Doc_musketeers]

52 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

You've got to do one about 2  geocachers seeing a new cache listing published and starting down each end of a trail and determining which will get FTF.

 

 

Precisely, lol. Another one is a custom built container. Is it Small or Regular (bigger than 1liter)? A third will involve a simple navigational puzzle. All with some humor and using our team or friends as the Geocachers In the problem.