Following a recent discussion on the Site Support board, I am suggesting the idea of increasing the amount of missed bells that are added to the jackpot from 5% to 10%.
On the other thread, a few people were unhappy that the same people keep getting the jackpots and that other people don't get a chance. While it wouldn't be fair to lower the chances of a person finding the jackpot if they've previously found it multiple times (which was suggested), I think the amount of missed bells added to the jackpot could be increased.
Activity on ACC has declined in recent times and a jackpot is usually found once a week at best now. Contrastingly, a few years ago, two or three jackpots were being found a week. This was because more people were active on the site then, hence more bells were being missed. If we were to increase the missed bells percentage added to the jackpot, not only would it mean more jackpots being found to accommodate the drop in site activity, but it would also give those who haven't found it before a better chance of finding one.
I'm interested to here what other people think about this.
I completely agree with this suggestion; it would be a great and frankly easy to execute change. It would help increase the chances of people getting jackpots and definitely spice things up a bit. For example, I haven't seen a single jackpot in the almost two years that I've been on ACC, and I'm pretty active.
Since this idea originally received positive feedback and didn't receive any responses stating that it wasn't possible to implement, I'm bringing this thread back to life. Despite only being a small-scale suggestion, I feel this would be a worthwhile change.
Unless altering the percentage of bells missed per jackpot would be tricky (which hasn't been specified up to now), I personally don't see any reason not to change it. Each jackpot is taking nearly two weeks to be found now, which is ridiculous.
Asho, this response is from me personally, and it's not an official Staff answer or anything like that. Just don't want you to think that nobody hears you on this matter.
Changing the percentage of missed Bells added to the Jackpot from 5% to 10% is a good idea. It has been discussed by Staff, but the discussion dwindled. I could maybe have pushed it towards agreement, but I didn't, because I personally won't touch this with a ten-foot pole.
Changing the percentage of missed Bells added to the Jackpot from 5% to 10% isn't simple and straightforward. On the surface, it would just involve dividing by 10 instead of 20, right? True, but it would also involve changing a Stored Procedure* that Devs have no access to. I've burned my fingers on this once before, and I've promised myself to avoid situations like this in future. As I mentioned, this is a personal response, and not a Staff response, so maybe one of the other Devs will still do something with this idea.
* A Stored Procedure (SP) is a subroutine available to applications that access a relational database management system (Wikipedia). Or in normal language, it's the way we interact with ACC's database.
Thanks for the response Annette, much appreciated!
Now that I know the problem with my suggestion, it allows me to understand why this isn't a simple implementation. To me (and probably to others), it seemed like a simple change and something that wouldn't be too much of a burden, but now that you've explained it, that definitely isn't the case.
If it is a complex change and one that could cause problematic situations like you said, then it definitely isn't worth pursuing, especially since this is a suggestion that is quite trivial.
"Changing the percentage of missed Bells added to the Jackpot from 5% to 10% isn't simple and straightforward. On the surface, it would just involve dividing by 10 instead of 20, right? True, but it would also involve changing a Stored Procedure* that Devs have no access to."
Gosh, I just did a quick search on the code and found at least four places where a total of bells is divided by 20. One doesn't seem to be accessed from anywhere else, and some of them (but only some, and it's not clear which) count missed Wisp ads in the total.
I feel like this shouldn't be complicated, but somehow it is.
There's no place like 192.168.0.0/16.