| Friday, November 12, 2004 - 10:30 pm |
Obviously, there are extremes on both sides.
I think the way to think of it is this way. Contracts don't always get issued on a one-to-one basis. If a supplier can only give a fraction of what a consumer needs, the consumer seeks other contracts.
The upshot is that the total # of contracts is some percentage over 100 of the number of consumers. I.e. every consumer who gets a contract gets at least one -- more than one if it needs to go to several suppliers to be satisfied.
Depending on how the numbers work out will determine that percent - indeed, I can easily come up with an example where the "current" way actually produces *more* contracts than the proposed proportional way.
But, regardless, figure that, on average, there are 1.2 contracts for every consumer -- i.e. around 20% of the time a consumer has to take out contracts from more than one supplier.
This average would, presumably, stay the same if you have *more* consumers, which would be the effect of 'capping' the sign-up-for-a-max-percent level. E.g. 12 companies get mostly supplied rather than 10 getting entirely supplied.
On average, then, the number of contracts will simply be a corresponding increase; not a huge number, but just 1/6 or so, i.e. however many new suppliers are introduced.
And, in fact, it's arguably less than that.
See, at the moment, I set up contracts first at 50% production, then 70% percent, then 90%. This helps "spread out" the contracts and lets all the corps have a shot at things.
Doing so, I probably create *more* contracts, since those supply caps will generate more "fractional" contracts/values.
If, by contrast, I just did 90% and let the algorhythm handle fairly distributing the contracts at the correct proportional value among suppliers and consumers, that would consolidate the contracts into larger chunks.
I.e. the increase in contracts from proportionally distributing contracts is probably largely offset by the per-corporation *greater* increase from trying to do it manually.
(Of course, it would then affect *everyone*, rather than just those conscientious enough to attempt to do the more equitable distributions.)