Pyramid Scheme

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

Ani and I where brain storming for new cache ideas last week and came up with a concept that seems interesting, in theory.

 

I don't know if this has been done or not, feel free to markwell, but I thought I'd put it out there for the forum crowd to ponder and comment on. Here goes.

 

'Parent' pyramid cache. It can be anything, doesn't matter. The description clearly indicates that the first finder place a 'child' cache sometime soon. THAT cache has to be different from the first cache in some fundamental way and carry the same rules. The second finder on the second cache will place a third cache, who's third finder earns the right / responsibility to place the forth cache. Every cache having to be unique in the series. 5th, 6th, 7th so on and so forth. (maybe each cache could role over on FTF?)

 

In the event a finder accidentally hits the number or just doesn't wish to play, the 'child' cache would pass to the next finder.

 

We've all seen the ammo box under a pile of sticks and the micro magnet caches. The idea here is to get cachers thinking creatively and to give them another opportunity to interact a bit.

 

Ultimately there could be some kind of bonus cache for cachers who have found all 10 in a series. So forth and so on. Sort of a multicacher, multicache.

 

Would you play along?

Edited June 27, 2004 by Johnnie Stalkers

[+Mopar]

Pro: It sounds like a cool idea.

 

Con: I don't care for the idea of people HAVING to hide a cache. There are plenty of lame caches out there already, I think trying to make people hide a cache they really have no desire to hide would just add more of them.

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

Pro: It sounds like a cool idea.

 

Con: I don't care for the idea of people HAVING to hide a cache. There are plenty of lame caches out there already, I think trying to make people hide a cache they really have no desire to hide would just add more of them.

Exactly

 

In the event a finder accidentally hits the number or just doesn't wish to play, the 'child' cache would pass to the next finder.

[+Mopar]

Whoops, sorry I missed that!

[+CompuCash]

sounds kinda cool - it is certainly new and different -

 

some questions -

- where do you draw the limit? it can get huge in a hurry -

- are they numbered? what happens if you find #7?

- is this just to enhance the number or caches? that COULD be a good thing?

- if I go out and find #1 and place catch - then does it follow same for #x and y?

- you might hit cache saturation quickly - any thoughts on that?

 

variation -

- you place #1

- I find #1 then place reference to #2

- x finds 1 - goes to 2 then places 3

- makes it a multi-person mulit-cache

[+Ed & Julie]

It can get big in a hurry and encourage lots of lame cache hides.

 

I can see the area saturated with film cannisters thrown into bushes to satisfy the requirement of the hide.

 

Ed

[+Renegade Knight]

Do you want to be in the business of approving proposed cache hides? "I'm sorry but that sounds like a lame cache idea, we want creatve and different from the pyramid cache, yes I know a light pole base is different, but that's not what were were thinking, no it can't be adult themed, no no knives it has to be approvable, wher? GC.com, can you place it at Navicache, I suppose but we want people to actually find this one so they....

[+Criminal]

Try this: place a two-part multi; cache log is in the second one. First finder takes a container from that cache and hides it somewhere nearby (.10 miles or more). He also takes the logbook and moves it to the cache he’s just placed and leaves a description in the previous cache on how to find the new “last” leg.

 

The next person (if they elect to add to the cache) does the same thing, adds a new “last leg” to the multi. Since only the first container has coordinates listed on the site, there should be no pesky approver problems to deal with. This way if someone hides a lame-o, it’s only one leg in a multi, not a cache of its own.

[+Seamus]

Only problem I see with this one is the prospect of having one of the middle legs muggled (or even just bad coords). Break the chain, and everything downstream becomes unretrievable. You'd need to have a master list somewhere of all the locations of all the legs.

 

Interesting idea - a growing multi, that gets more difficult and convoluted with time. A couple of kinks yet to be hammered out, but it would make for an interesting cache, I think.

[+norbu]

We have a similar concept here in North San Diego county, with "breeder" caches that breed larval offspring, that then mature. See The Viridian Queen and her offspring, which include among others, the following caches;

San Marcos Subimago

Instar 17b

 

The original one here that I know of was Breeder. The cache description there describes the idea.

[+Robespierre]

We have a similar concept here in North San Diego county, with "breeder" caches that breed larval offspring, that then mature. See The Viridian Queen and her offspring, which include among others, the following caches;

San Marcos Subimago

Instar 17b

 

The original one here that I know of was Breeder. The cache description there describes the idea.

That sounds like "Western" thinking, where you have wide open spaces - but now I'm being negative like some of the others above...so, I'm trying to concentrate on how this COULD work, rather than all the potential problems...anyone can see the problems.

[+Renegade Knight]

In spite of my earlier comment I would play along.

[+KEELSX6]

I think this would be a great idea if the placer of the "child" cache went back and put the coordinates for the child into the "parent" cache and each parent only had only a limited number of children. I think a straight line type thing with only one child per parent instead of a pyramid would be cool. And maybe after 5-10 the last person could make the last child cache special and start a new line. something like that.

[+GeoCyclist]

I like your idea because it trys to get more original caches out there.

 

One problem is people who travel, like me couldn't create a cache because they couldn't maintain it.

 

A few other ideas that may help:

Create a travel bug that whose mission is to see the most creative caches found by other cachers. Have pictures taken at the cache site & container.

 

Place a theme cache and have cachers leave photos or examples of creative caches( or their favorite cache). I would like to find a cache like this so I could see what others have done. This would need to be done in a way so it didn't spoil caches for others.

[+norbu]

The breeder caches are stocked with larva, each larva has a starter container with log book and small pencil and a card on it with an area that is ripe for a cache. The small request is that the larva be placed in that area. With this, one person has done some legwork to gather some nice containers and logs, and areas that could use a cache, because there just aren't any. then many people get to actually hide the cache, in their own style. I don't believe that there is a restriction about using the orginal cache container, I don't remember, and I am not going to read it right now.

anyhow, it seems to have worked, as the breeders in this area have spawned nice caches in fun places with a variety of hiders. I prefer that to one or two hiders monopolizing an area.

But, I am a loon, soooo, take it with a grain of salt.

[+shunra]

Try this: place a two-part multi; cache log is in the second one. First finder takes a container from that cache and hides it somewhere nearby (.10 miles or more). He also takes the logbook and moves it to the cache he’s just placed and leaves a description in the previous cache on how to find the new “last” leg.

 

The next person (if they elect to add to the cache) does the same thing, adds a new “last leg” to the multi. Since only the first container has coordinates listed on the site, there should be no pesky approver problems to deal with. This way if someone hides a lame-o, it’s only one leg in a multi, not a cache of its own.

I don't like the original idea, for reason of unnecessary increase of lameness. let people hide when they want to, not when they have to.

 

I like Criminal's variation much better. If I were to do it, (and I might), I would adapt it a bit further:

 

Place a cache, with a cache log and a number of micro containers inside. A finder is allowed (but not required)) to take the entire container and hide it somewhere nearby (distance at least .10 miles, never within 0.1 mile from another cache, and at most 3 miles from the place he found it). He then reads the coords, writes them (and perhaps some hints or descriptions) on a piece of paper, puts that in one of the micro containers, which he takes back to the place he took the original container from, and hides it there. Since the material is all provided in the original cache, this ought not to take much time. The cache must be rehidden at a new place, and the micro at an old place, within 6 hours. This way, new last legs are being added.

 

The cache can only be logged by whoever signs the log in the final cache. However, since the cache gets increasingly difficult, a finder is allowed to log a Find per leg, plus one per leg added. This is a bonus, which will encourage people not to get frustrated as the chain is getting longer. Moreover, someone who found the cache can find it again after it has been moved, adding more Finds for the additional number of legs he found or added. The owner can find his own cache, or add legs, as well.

 

Since the owner is responsible, he retains the right to reduce the total length of the cache chain by removing interim waypoints which, in his own opinion or according to the logs, constitute a problem.

 

How does that sound?