Jump to content

Alternate size extremes


team tisri

Recommended Posts

On the one hand we seem to have a relentless push towards micros and nanos, where the thing we're hunting gets smaller.

 

Today I saw the announcement that events are getting ever bigger. So an event can now be a regular "event", or a "mega event" or the new "giga event".

 

What if we flipped them around?

 

How about a "micro event" with less than 5 people present, or a "nano event" where you post the coordinates and merely stroll past to claim the smiley?

 

What about a "mega cache" and "giga cache" where you're hunting containers big enough to stand inside?

 

I think these would make the game far more interesting.

Link to comment

In many places, enforcing the "less than 5 people present" limit for a micro-event might be problematic. Around here, even our "unevents" (announced only in the local forums, and not listed on geocaching.com) get more than 5 people. The last one I attended had more than 2 dozen people present.

 

And I think the large cache size ("20L or larger") is sufficient, just because there aren't that many caches that size. But then again, I didn't think there was sufficient demand to warrant the new giga-event size, but clearly I was wrong.

Link to comment

And I think the large cache size ("20L or larger") is sufficient, just because there aren't that many caches that size. But then again, I didn't think there was sufficient demand to warrant the new giga-event size, but clearly I was wrong.

I don't think it was the intention (although I might be wrong), but it strikes me that the OP can be read as sarcastically pointing out why the giga-event size is silly. At least, when I was reading it, I kept thinking about why the suggestions were, at best, uninteresting, and then it dawned on me that all the counter-arguments I was coming up with apply in spades to giga-events.

Link to comment
And I think the large cache size ("20L or larger") is sufficient, just because there aren't that many caches that size. But then again, I didn't think there was sufficient demand to warrant the new giga-event size, but clearly I was wrong.
I don't think it was the intention (although I might be wrong), but it strikes me that the OP can be read as sarcastically pointing out why the giga-event size is silly. At least, when I was reading it, I kept thinking about why the suggestions were, at best, uninteresting, and then it dawned on me that all the counter-arguments I was coming up with apply in spades to giga-events.
Yeah, it can be really difficult to communicate irony and sarcasm in an online forum like this.
Link to comment

And I think the large cache size ("20L or larger") is sufficient, just because there aren't that many caches that size. But then again, I didn't think there was sufficient demand to warrant the new giga-event size, but clearly I was wrong.

I don't think it was the intention (although I might be wrong), but it strikes me that the OP can be read as sarcastically pointing out why the giga-event size is silly. At least, when I was reading it, I kept thinking about why the suggestions were, at best, uninteresting, and then it dawned on me that all the counter-arguments I was coming up with apply in spades to giga-events.

 

Ding! We have a winner!

 

I see the focus on events getting bigger (personally I don't see the point of designating events mega or giga) while the actual physical caches get ever-smaller.

 

We get silly rules saying we can't have a virtual cache or a webcam cache any more because there's no physical container to find while we can have three different cache types that are nothing more than a gathering of people.

 

Now all we need is a power trail of events (associated with giga and mega events) and all people will need to do is take a gentle stroll through town and chalk up a huge smiley count.

 

And I'd still like to know what a "giga cache" might look like. At least it probably wouldn't get muggled, if it was bigger than the muggle trying to steal it. If the CO felt so inclined they could sleep inside it to preserve its integrity. It would certainly solve the problem of bogus logs, if nothing else.

Link to comment

I wonder if the push towards events and the apparent disregard for physical caches, trackables etc is a sign of management wanting to sell out to Faceache. I don't suppose there's much interest in a bunch of wackos who go and hunt tupperware under dead trees, but a bunch of wackos who meet in their thousands to talk about hunting tupperware under dead trees might be of more interest.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...