Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
CachingKI

How Do I Create a Mystery Cache That Involves Travelling to Other Caches and Places?

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I was wanting to create a mystery cache, which involves travelling to three other caches of mine to get numbers, then searching signs for the other numbers to unlock the final cache. Basically, there will be a number written on each cache, and you need to get this number as well as a number off a nearby sign, subtract the smaller from the larger, and do this multiple times to get the three digits to unlock the cache. Firstly, is this breaking any rules, and secondly, how would I attempt to create it (waypoints, etc). I'm quite new to mystery caches, but I have seen enough to get a good idea of them and create my own. I just suck at finding them. Thankyou for the help,

CachingKI

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen & solved Mystery caches where portions of the solution were in different caches, so that is totally acceptable.

 

What you describe sounds more like a Multi-cache with a field puzzle to me. It appears that your final will be at a location posted in the cache description, just with a combination lock to open it. The field puzzle to solve has needed information in other caches which then has to be manipulated somehow to get the combination to unlock that cache.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

You've already gotten your answers but both methods would work, as described above but here's some more food for thought.

 

If you do it as K13 suggests, you'll have one cache with multiple containers, some virtual waypoints, and a final.  It will receive less visits as multis aren't typically found at a high rate, especially ones with more than 3 stages to visit.  Maintenance will be "easier" in the sense that it won't get found frequently which means less people are handling it and it's less likely to be moved to a more obvious spot.  It could also lead to more DNFs if a single stage goes walking off.  You'd need to archive your current caches (not until you're ready to submit your new multi) and add those waypoints (physical) as one of the stages in a new multi cache you'd need to create.  You can send them to visit stages in any order, you can hide the coordinates for each stage or make each one visible or make some invisible or visible.  

 

If done as a bonus cache (? cache), your current caches don't need to be reworked,.  It  would just involve placing numbers or whatever it is you're going to put inside the existing containers.  Seekers would need to visit each existing cache, resulting in more finds on those caches but perhaps more maintenance because they're being found more frequently and are more apt to move a bit.  The bonus cache description would need to contain the other virtual waypoints they'd need to visit, the GC#s of the existing caches, and the "formula" to plug into to solve the final coordinates.  Bonus caches done in this manner will usually receive more visitors than a multi would, but still less than traditional caches.  Don't be surprised if people find your traditional caches but then forego visiting the virtual waypoints and skipping the bonus cache.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You'd need to archive your current caches (not until you're ready to submit your new multi) and add those waypoints (physical) as one of the stages in a new multi cache you'd need to create.

 

You wouldn't need to archive existing caches if you make them waypoints in the new listing.  Unless the reviewer interprets the information found in those caches as physical waypoints and thus breaking proximity guidelines. But bonus caches seem to be an exception to that since yes, you can indeed have a physical cache with information placed in it required for the 'bonus' cache.  It would depend on how the new listing is presented to the reviewer, I'd think. If done as its own independent multi, it may not fly. But if it's treated as the bonus to the series (they should pretty much be obviously related to each other), then I'd think it would work, and likely without archiving since those other caches would just get republished anyway.

 

Ask your reviewer if you want to be sure - generally a good idea to ask beforehand anyway for caches with a lot of work involved in creating, just to make sure you don't do all that work for nothing if they deny it.

 

10 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Don't be surprised if people find your traditional caches but then forego visiting the virtual waypoints and skipping the bonus cache.

 

Or vice versa :P (though I don't know anyone who wouldn't log series caches and only log the final bonus cache, unless they were working on a challenge for which those series caches would hurt the progress, like dt averages or cache type ratios; there's a reason those challenge ideas are no longer allowed, heh)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

You wouldn't need to archive existing caches if you make them waypoints in the new listing.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a multi use existing traditional caches as waypoints within a new cache.  Would that be allowed?  That means you could get one find for the multi plus the traditional finds as well.  I guess you could technically list them as virtual waypoints but you couldn't require them to find the physical containers of the traditional caches in that regard, else they'd need to be listed as physical waypoints.  Can an existing traditional cache also be used as a physical waypoint for a multi?  It's something I've never considered because I don't think it would be allowed, even as a bonus multi.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I don't think I've ever seen a multi use existing traditional caches as waypoints within a new cache.  Would that be allowed?

 

Oh for a multi, no. I would guess the reviewer would instruct to list it as a Mystery.  Yeah a multi wouldn't be able to do that, I'd agree.  AFAIK a 'bonus cache' cannot be listed as a Multi.

 

Yeah this probably wasn't clear:

14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If done as its own independent multi, it may not fly. But if it's treated as the bonus to the series (they should pretty much be obviously related to each other), then I'd think it would work, and likely without archiving since those other caches would just get republished anyway.

As soon as it's a 'bonus to the series', it'd be a Mystery, not a Multi.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

It would be an interesting twist to a multi if you could use existing caches though.  Talk about potential confusion!

 

I agree with the thoughts regarding the listing as a ? cache, based on what the OP has offered up as their potential plan.

Share this post


Link to post

Thankyou for the support, I think I'll go with making a bonus cache so I don't have to archive or figure out if I have to archive them.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×