Geosportz

[tronador]

So what about still having a maximum target, but in the event of a tie, the team with the highest average per cache find would get the nod. In this sense, the strategy would be trying to maximise your points per cache, but obviously not go over the set target. It would mean trying to plot out all the available points for caches and work out which ones to target for the highest possible average.

Keep in mind, I assume these caches would also have to fit the description for each nominated event like last time. May prove tricky.

I agree with determining the winner by the highest average who have "finished". If you look at the results for last time at the 15 cachers who finished, the winner would come from this group based on averages. Therefore based on this 3 had an average of 46.74, 3 way tie then look at who completed it in the least number of finds. In this case all 3 completed it in 19, still a tie so maybe then look at these 3 only at who completed the game first. Because remember the game may finish at the end of the month but the challenges could be done well before them and you could finish early.

Take a look at this game played in New Brunswick, Canada. Very similar to ours. caught@work...... may give you some ideas for tasks that are a bit different from last time.
http://www.cacheupnb.com/contests/come- ... 2011-2012/

[quiet1_au]

I'm in! I looked at the dozens of rules, types, etc and it made my eyes cross at first, but then I started seeing patterns (it was a lonnngggg work day OK? ) and I think I understand it all

[rogerw3]

I'm in! I looked at the dozens of rules, types, etc and it made my eyes cross at first, but then I started seeing patterns (it was a lonnngggg work day OK? ) and I think I understand it all

Yes I know what you mean! Sound way too complicated for the likes of this elderly cacher!

[caughtatwork]

Take a look at this game played in New Brunswick, Canada. Very similar to ours. caught@work...... may give you some ideas for tasks that are a bit different from last time.
http://www.cacheupnb.com/contests/come- ... 2011-2012/

Similar? Blatant rip off if you ask me. Down to some of the identical verbiage. I am still thinking about the events you need to find.

I'm also looking at the rules for the game to try and make it simpler. This includes determining points per cache and how to break a tie. I might go back to http://www.cachinggames.com/rdmh/requirements.php points + (difficulty * terrain) or maybe points + (cache type + container). i.e. Remove terrain and difficulty from the equation all together and make it based on the type of cache and size of cache found rather than how challenging it is to get to. This kind of levels the field by trying to keep the less physical able as the same advantage as the extremely fit and hardy cachers.

I'm also thinking about scoring. I don't want it to be a race (I think we all agree on this), but I also want people to have a decent chance at winning even as the game progresses. Trouble with averages is that it is still weighted to people who can go 5/5's. Fewer 5/5's means higher averages. I have a while to think, so please continue with the feedback.

[tronador]

[/quote][quote="caughtatwork Trouble with averages is that it is still weighted to people who can go 5/5's.[/quote]

Yeah but that's what I liked about the game last time, it gets you to challenge yourself much like well rounded cacher, there will always be cachers who will be disadvantaged because everyone is different. I think it levels out, because those who enjoy the high terrain caches, like me, may not necessarily be good at high difficulty caches which may involve very difficult puzzles involving programming knowledge, ciphers etc or caomoed caches impossible to find.

Please don't remove difficulty/ terrain from the game. It is a big part of geocaching generally.

[caughtatwork]

OK, then a thought.

Points + (Difficulty & Terrain)
OR
Points + (Type + Container)

Whichever is the higher.

You can go for high D/T caches (if you're adventurous) or you can go for high T/C caches (mysteries and larges) if you're more a brainiac. I think that may work out to benefit both and disadvantage none.

[tronador]

OK, then a thought.

Points + (Difficulty & Terrain)
OR
Points + (Type + Container)

Whichever is the higher.

You can go for high D/T caches (if you're adventurous) or you can go for high T/C caches (mysteries and larges) if you're more a brainiac. I think that may work out to benefit both and disadvantage none.

Sounds fair, i'm happy to be an adventurous, non brainiac.

[Marcus Vitruvius]

OK, then a thought.

Points + (Difficulty & Terrain)
OR
Points + (Type + Container)

Whichever is the higher.

You can go for high D/T caches (if you're adventurous) or you can go for high T/C caches (mysteries and larges) if you're more a brainiac. I think that may work out to benefit both and disadvantage none.

Yep...I like the idea of having multiple ways of attaining the same numbers of points per cache, but I think working for a 5/5 over finding a large mystery might be a little unbalanced, but then again, I'm not sure how to balance it.

Another method may be to not have a set target...

Still have 30 different events that you can only log once...but instead of trying to achieve a set target...the goal would be to achieve the highest possible score...whatever that may be. This minimises the chance of a tie...you would still need to chase the highest possible score for each cache log, but the difficulty would lie in trying to complete as many of the events as possible, remembering that you will need to find only certain caches that fit the description of each event. It would be very strategic.

Using this method, no one is advantaged or disadvantaged...anyone can start the competition at anytime...there's no race to the finish...if you want to go for harder caches, you can...and the most important part of it I think, it makes people have to try and find all 30 events, and not just 19 or 20 or however many it takes.

Thoughts?

[caughtatwork]

All it takes is one person to go for all 30 (you know who you are) and then if I go for less, I can't win. The points limit makes it more strategic so rather than go for all 30, you can do 20 (or 25) and hit the target.

[Marcus Vitruvius]

True, and I like that idea...but at the end of the day, you want to reward people for the effort they put into it. If someone wants to do only 25...then they can still win, but they will need to score very high on the caches they find. It doesn't mean they can't win, just makes it a little more tougher...Besides...how many people found all 30 last time?...1

What is will be dependent on is how the points per cache is scored. If you follow the rules of last time, the maximum score for a cache will be 90...and how many caches are you going to be able to do that on. Not many....and if you do...kudos to you!

You could even award prizes based on the level of score you attain. Maximum score would be 2,700 (30 x 90), so maybe award prizes for people who get 2,500 -2,700...2,000-2,500...1,500-2,000...etc. Much like the Well Rounded Cacher competition, there will be the competitive nature of it, but also the challenge of seeing how far you can get...or in this case...the score you get reach.

I'm not saying this is the only way to do it...just bouncing thoughts until something clicks.

The other thought is have a set target, but award effort by the number of events people find like Richary suggested. As far as strategy goes, this would prove the most difficult to plan out.

[caughtatwork]

http://www.cachinggames.com/gz/ladder.php

The 888 points were gained by 15 of the 69 entrants.
1 person found all 30 events.
16 people found 20 more events.

It is only 30 over 2 months, so only 15 a month, but finding caches that fit the event is the real challenge.

I like the strategy idea more than "brute force" to find all 30 with the highest points which is why the D/T vs. T/C can work for a lot of people. They simply don't have the athletic ability to do so. I also want to keep it relatively simple and easy enough for anyone to enter.

Getting to the (previous) 888 points meant you had to be very, very careful what you claimed. Claim something that was opportunistic means your plan for the rest of the game needed to change.

Settings a points limit means you need to strategise. How many caches do you plan for to get to the points (but not above)?

Maybe the target should indeed be twofold.
1. A point limit to target (without going over).
2. Getting as close to 30 events as you can.
That is going to be tough.

So (say) a target of 1000 points and 30 caches would be a winner. 1000 points and 29 caches would be behind the winner. 990 points and 30 caches would be in 3rd place. How to break a tie is tough. I need to really think on that one.

Adding to this will be some of the events won't necessarily be single cache finds, just like last time, but different.

[blossom*]

I like the idea of (terrain+difficulty) OR (type+container) as it certainly makes it a more level playing field if you're not especially fit or if you're not so good at puzzles etc.

And I defintely like the idea of it not being a race, even for the countback.

Setting the points limit is also great - strategy is the key

But once you set the target to be two-fold, you are re-introducing some bias for some people I think. For example if there's a requirement for swimming or a boat in one of the games, there will be people for whom this is not feasible so they are automatically out of the running (because face it, there WILL be one team who gets all 30)

An idea might be to have a multi-tiered "win". A bit like the running which has different distances. So you could have (say) the 1000 point category, the 800 point category and the 600 point category winners. Then you would have to decide which category to aim for - which one would have the most tryng for it? And if you go for one score and find there's too many looking as if that's their aim, could you change over by going for a different category and totally different tactics!

How to break a tie? Ah - I have a brilliant idea!!!! The team who has the biggest number of words in their cache logs for the caches in the event. That would mean everyone would have to write decent logs all through the event

[Marcus Vitruvius]

Maybe the target should indeed be twofold.
1. A point limit to target (without going over).
2. Getting as close to 30 events as you can.
That is going to be tough.

This is my favourite proposal so far...if you want strategy, you would definitely have it using this method.
Also, it wouldn't introduce bias, as the events are usually not physical in nature. There was no swimming event last time, and if you wanted there to be, you might make it simply a cache with 'water' in it's title, or 'swim'.

So you could have (say) the 1000 point category, the 800 point category and the 600 point category winners. Then you would have to decide which category to aim for - which one would have the most trying for it? And if you go for one score and find there's too many looking as if that's their aim, could you change over by going for a different category and totally different tactics!

I don't mind this idea either...which is much like the Well Rounded Cacher comp was...which did suit all people's abilities based on what they felt they could achieve...which also brings about another idea...combine the two games...have a set target, or no set target, but with three groups restricted to only logging caches for each event within a 3/3, 4/4, or 5/5 grid.

[quiet1_au]

One concern springs to mind re the only logging caches you're not previously found rule. Doesn't that kind of put caching veterans at a disadvantage, against those with fewer finds and therefore more options open to them? I'm not sure that I'm not sure their prior knowledge (if you can remember every find) balances having far fewer caches that might fit the events?

[caughtatwork]

You are correct, they may be at a disadvantage. I'm not going to let people "refind" caches. Waaaaaaaay too easy.