Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dree12]

So, I know this has been suggested before, but the other 2 I found were related to other issues. This suggestion is a little different from those.

The point of this suggestion is to remedy several issues with one tiny tweak:

• Food is almost never an issue
• The is a lack of time to prepare for caravans
• Focusing on a task is hard when immigrants, caravans, and sieges require your immediate attention.

Basically, my suggestion is increasing the length of a day. The catch is that some times are measured in frames and others are measured in days.

For example, moving still takes 11 frames for a dwarf. Carpentry, crafting, etc. take the same number of frames to perform. Caravans also stay for the same number of frames (which is no longer 28 days). Hunger, thirst, drowsiness, etc. take the same number of frames to increase. Syndromes, combat and other stuff like that too.

Seasonal activities, though, use days rather than frames still. Caravans, sieges, and immigrants still arrive seasonally, allowing you much more time between elves and goblins and humans. Freezing is still during winter. Farming, aging, and other stuff like that are seasonal as well.

Using this suggestion, 1 is remedied by butchering and farming nerfed from more regular eating/drinking. 2 is remedied from more regular trading. 3 is remedied by allowing the user to focus on their current task without SIEGE, A dwarven caravan from … has come, etc. for longer.

I’m not saying we use adventure mode times, but somewhere along 1.2 – 1.5 times longer of a day would make a huge difference. Pack more ale, or regret it. Farm early and large (1.2 to 1.5 times as large!). Winter is longer, make sure you have booze.

Moods can go by frame or by day, either way works. This suggestion is meant to be low-priority, as it requires some more work for dwarves to do, improved/longer sieges, better caravans, lowered food prices, etc. But it helps with farming (I never really liked the decrease yield suggestion, it doesn’t make sense.) It also deals with a lot of annoying annoyances, so I think it would work nicely. Besides, if this makes it in 2012 or something, we’d have i9s to work with, eliminating one of the worst aspects (days per second) of the suggestion.

[existent]

So, I know this has been suggested before, but the other 2 I found were related to other issues. This suggestion is a little different from those.

I just hope you realize that one line has already proven you to be smarter than 90% of the threads in the suggestion forum :p

Could you expand on this a little? The idea is interesting, but I don't quite understand your argument behind it. I totally agree with a few of the themes- IE, when you first set out, plain SURVIVING should be tough- but once you get going to 30+ dwarves, I think there are better solutions for what you're saying- again, assuming I understand your arguments, which I don't.

On a related note, I feel like that first year should be more difficult.

I think that you shouldn't receive any immigrants until spring, because who would set off for this crazy outpost, whose inhabitants are probably dead, until you get word from the fall caravan that they're doing well? What's more, you're not going to walk half the world in the middle of winter, so it makes sense for no migrants to arrive until Spring, year 1052 (or whenever the hell you stopped worldgen.) I realize this might raise a lot of other issues, especially if you set out with a project in mind, but the first few years could be a lot more interesting.

Farms need to be nerfed, with this I agree. The 10x10 plot you made with your starting seven will keep you up to your waist in helmets for a good decade. I don't know what the best fix for this would be- longer days, make dwarves eat more, whatever you would do would create balance issues elsewhere. I don't have all the answers, which is why it's a suggestion forum and not a suggestion hotline.

Ha. Hahaha. Suggestion hotline. I crack myself up. Hahahahaha.

I think also that temperature should come into play. What I mean by that is you can't just live outdoors all winter. Nothing drastic, because that would get annoying. Simply, say, any Dwarf outside when it's really hot or cold gets a negative thought. Dig underground or build a roof? Consider it fixed. Instant Dwarven AC.

To your third point- I think that's more a consequence of the UI than anything. On the one hand, it's possible to get your fortress pretty close to autonomous, and then just deal with the invading griblies, but on the other hand, if swarms of monsters were banging on your front door, you wouldn't be able to focus on much then either. Even if you were perfectly safe.

Finally, what do you mean by not being able to prepare for caravans? I've never had a trading problem "make rock mugs on repeat" didn't fix.

[NW_Kohaku]

Honestly, as a general rule, I'm not much on "tweak one specific harcoded variable" suggestions (because then there's always people who think that it should be "3", no "5", no five is just stupid, you obviously need "10"!), but I can see the reasoning behind this.

First, some facts.  Dwarves act once every 10 frames, not 11, on average, although having a more continuous agility rating with randomized starting points changes that some.  Also, hours are 50 frames long and hence, days are 1200 frames long (120 dwarven actions).  Judging by the units used in most of the raws, very little that is even very long term is measured in "days".  Plump helmets have a growing time (GROW_DUR) of 300, which is 25 days.  (This appears to work off a counter that is incrimented until it hits the GROW_DUR value, and this counter is only checked every 100 frames. 25 days * 1200 frames per day = 30,000 frames.)

Second, Toady has stated that he doesn't really want dwarves "eating more often".  Of course, if you just double the length of the year, and make them eat 1.5 times as much, they're technically eating less often, but whatever.

Third, Farming is already the subject of a huge running thread that has had at least some of its ideas put into the devpages, so farming may not need more "nerfing" than it will already get.

Fourth, things like immigrants are currently best handled by simply pausing the game (since it's mostly about looking through data charts to figure out what you want to do with them), making game speed irrelevant.  Likewise, I routinely pause in the middle of seiges to handle more pressing issues, like allocating how wood is being used.

Ultimately, it boils down to this, according to my analysis:

Pros - dwarves will now spend more time doing things in workshops, and since it means more time is spent in the workshop relative to running around from stockpile to workshop to stockpile, the most relevant stat for how fast tasks are completed will shift more towards a dwarf's skill than simple stockpile pathing efficiency.

Cons - The game will just plain go slower.  Forts already die of boredom or impatience (or FPS drop, which is essentially the same thing) more than any other cause.

[dree12]

Firstly, thanks for the kind replies. 

Could you expand on this a little? The idea is interesting, but I don't quite understand your argument behind it. I totally agree with a few of the themes- IE, when you first set out, plain SURVIVING should be tough- but once you get going to 30+ dwarves, I think there are better solutions for what you're saying- again, assuming I understand your arguments, which I don't.

My main argument is that it's stupid that dwarves only walk 127 squares a day if they walk non-stop. Even if a square can hold a dragon, I seriously doubt that that is even near correct. In adventure mode, for example, the day is seven times longer. You can hunt sasquatches in the morning, butcher them at noon, then head back to town to get +large bronze breastplate+ in the afternoon. And that's just the daytime. In fortress mode, if a dwarf tries to do so, he would take three days (day + night, though night doesn't exist). If all dwarves were in adventure mode, then all the problems I outlined would be solved.

I think that you shouldn't receive any immigrants until spring, because who would set off for this crazy outpost, whose inhabitants are probably dead, until you get word from the fall caravan that they're doing well? What's more, you're not going to walk half the world in the middle of winter, so it makes sense for no migrants to arrive until Spring, year 1052 (or whenever the hell you stopped worldgen.) I realize this might raise a lot of other issues, especially if you set out with a project in mind, but the first few years could be a lot more interesting.

The first year is already exciting, at least for me. It's really the only time you set up farming, basic housing, basic workshops, and everything that needs to start from scratch. This suggestion should make you able to do more the first year, but also needing to spend more time caring about supplies.

Farms need to be nerfed, with this I agree. The 10x10 plot you made with your starting seven will keep you up to your waist in helmets for a good decade. I don't know what the best fix for this would be- longer days, make dwarves eat more, whatever you would do would create balance issues elsewhere. I don't have all the answers, which is why it's a suggestion forum and not a suggestion hotline.

Heh, balence. The only downside to complexity in DF is balence. I don't think DF will ever be in a state of "balence". But, yeah. I see what you mean. Basically, my point is to keep the dwarves eating at the same pace. Because all actions still take the same number of frames, they can still walk the same amount squares before they get hungry. This ways, it reduces the amount of "unbalence" caused.

To your third point- I think that's more a consequence of the UI than anything. On the one hand, it's possible to get your fortress pretty close to autonomous, and then just deal with the invading griblies, but on the other hand, if swarms of monsters were banging on your front door, you wouldn't be able to focus on much then either. Even if you were perfectly safe.

One of the main annoyences in DF for me is strangely not accessibility, but interuptions. I don't mean damp stone ones (those can be turned off), I mean caravans, immigrants, sieges, etc. When my dwarves are digging the magma channel, I don't want to be dealing with gobbos or moving stuff or changing jobs, I want to focus on the more important task. Yes, I know I can pause the game, but it interupts me. I forget I need to pull a lever I'm supposed to pull to stop the magma immediately, and the dwarf burns. I really think more "quiet time" helps.

Finally, what do you mean by not being able to prepare for caravans? I've never had a trading problem "make rock mugs on repeat" didn't fix.

It's usually not much, but when the humans have a lot of valuable stuff, my mugs are gone for the dwarves. I guess it's because I'm close to my civ but quite far from the others, but it's still annoying when you can't buy anything.

First, some facts.  Dwarves act once every 10 frames, not 11, on average, although having a more continuous agility rating with randomized starting points changes that some.  Also, hours are 50 frames long and hence, days are 1200 frames long (120 dwarven actions).  Judging by the units used in most of the raws, very little that is even very long term is measured in "days".  Plump helmets have a growing time (GROW_DUR) of 300, which is 25 days.  (This appears to work off a counter that is incrimented until it hits the GROW_DUR value, and this counter is only checked every 100 frames. 25 days * 1200 frames per day = 30,000 frames.)

Yes, I know that. I mean some should be measured in days, and some not. Sorry, I thought it was 1400 for some reason. Also, from my testing, it is 11 squares per move for dwarves (I preformed such testing for a bug report), but that doesn't matter. It would be nice if GROW_DUR was measured in hours, because crops are supposed to change with the season, for purposes of this suggestion.

Second, Toady has stated that he doesn't really want dwarves "eating more often".  Of course, if you just double the length of the year, and make them eat 1.5 times as much, they're technically eating less often, but whatever.

The point is to make the dwarves not eat more often. They just move/do work/etc more per day.

Fourth, things like immigrants are currently best handled by simply pausing the game (since it's mostly about looking through data charts to figure out what you want to do with them), making game speed irrelevant.  Likewise, I routinely pause in the middle of seiges to handle more pressing issues, like allocating how wood is being used.

I know, it was just annoying when I lost a dwarf to forgetting to pull the lever.

Ultimately, it boils down to this, according to my analysis:

Pros - dwarves will now spend more time doing things in workshops, and since it means more time is spent in the workshop relative to running around from stockpile to workshop to stockpile, the most relevant stat for how fast tasks are completed will shift more towards a dwarf's skill than simple stockpile pathing efficiency.

Cons - The game will just plain go slower.  Forts already die of boredom or impatience (or FPS drop, which is essentially the same thing) more than any other cause.

Well, my idea was to not increase workshop time (in frames), but I guess you could measure in 1/50 hours...
Also, FPS is supposed to stay the same, even increase (less calculation of caravan/immigrant/farming). Just events that are seasonal in RL remain seasonal.

Honestly, as a general rule, I'm not much on "tweak one specific harcoded variable" suggestions (because then there's always people who think that it should be "3", no "5", no five is just stupid, you obviously need "10"!), but I can see the reasoning behind this.

Phht. Make it NOT hardcoded! An init option could work wonders:
[FRAMES_PER_DAY:1200]
How it would work? Keep a variable called framesleft, whatever. Decrement that per frame. When 0, new day. framesleft is set to the init option.

[NW_Kohaku]

Phht. Make it NOT hardcoded! An init option could work wonders:
[FRAMES_PER_DAY:1200]
How it would work? Keep a variable called framesleft, whatever. Decrement that per frame. When 0, new day. framesleft is set to the init option.

Generally, I do like having an init option or "stick it in a raw" solution more than hardcoding.  Still, it does beg a question of how abusable it might be to have utterly scalable relative time.  What would Einstein say to having the ability to save, change the init.txt, and reload, and suddenly, time is now compressed 10 times compared to space?!

Granted, we already have the ultra-broken ability to make dwarves have [SPEED:0].

Yes, I know that. I mean some should be measured in days, and some not. Sorry, I thought it was 1400 for some reason. Also, from my testing, it is 11 squares per move for dwarves (I preformed such testing for a bug report), but that doesn't matter. It would be nice if GROW_DUR was measured in hours, because crops are supposed to change with the season, for purposes of this suggestion.

Dwarves default to [SPEED:900] still, but there are two factors involved - agility can fudge speed by around 1.2 to .5 speed, and muscle mass actually slows dwarves down, so that strong dwarves go slower.  5000 strength and 5000 agility almost cancel out.  I told this to Toady, but he seemed to think it was fine as it was, saying something about big people going slower.  (Of course, I would say that football Halfbacks are very muscular men... and they can certainly outrun the average man.)

My main argument is that it's stupid that dwarves only walk 127 squares a day if they walk non-stop. Even if a square can hold a dragon, I seriously doubt that that is even near correct. In adventure mode, for example, the day is seven times longer. You can hunt sasquatches in the morning, butcher them at noon, then head back to town to get +large bronze breastplate+ in the afternoon. And that's just the daytime. In fortress mode, if a dwarf tries to do so, he would take three days (day + night, though night doesn't exist). If all dwarves were in adventure mode, then all the problems I outlined would be solved.

Wanna see my Volume and Mass thread?  I calculate out tiles, based on the assumption that they are cubes, and each cube represents a "story" of a building, to be essentially 3 meter cubes.

According to a quick googling, http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node18.html , the average human walks 1.3 meters per second.  That is roughly 2.31 seconds per dwarven turn, which, at 10 frames per turn, would mean the "accurate" time would be roughly making a frame = .231 seconds.  Rounding that to a quarter second for rounder numbers, that makes for 14,400 frames an hour, 345,600 frames a day, 9,676,800 frames a month, 116,121,600 frames a year.  (Compared to the current rate, which is 288 times faster.)

Yes, I know you didn't say you wanted to go down to Adventurer speeds, but, really, when we are talking about the difference between time compressing 288 times and "only" time compressing 192 times (the 1.5 times slower rate you suggested), we're still taking about orders of magnitude of unreality.

Fortress mode simply can't have a realistic timeframe.

Well, my idea was to not increase workshop time (in frames), but I guess you could measure in 1/50 hours...
Also, FPS is supposed to stay the same, even increase (less calculation of caravan/immigrant/farming). Just events that are seasonal in RL remain seasonal.

Should be frames.  Otherwise, if you have init-changable time, and you can change "frames per day", but steps are measured in frames, while work is measured in fractions of a day, there get to be very weird relativities in actions that are potentially exploitable.

[dree12]

Generally, I do like having an init option or "stick it in a raw" solution more than hardcoding.  Still, it does beg a question of how abusable it might be to have utterly scalable relative time.  What would Einstein say to having the ability to save, change the init.txt, and reload, and suddenly, time is now compressed 10 times compared to space?!

Well, it could solve boredom. Set it to 6000 frames per day at the start, to allow for crisp action. Decrease it to 800 when you have a 200 dwarf fortress, making sieges come monthly.

Dwarves default to [SPEED:900] still, but there are two factors involved - agility can fudge speed by around 1.2 to .5 speed, and muscle mass actually slows dwarves down, so that strong dwarves go slower.  5000 strength and 5000 agility almost cancel out.  I told this to Toady, but he seemed to think it was fine as it was, saying something about big people going slower.  (Of course, I would say that football Halfbacks are very muscular men... and they can certainly outrun the average man.)

Not to start an argument, but HUMANS average at speed 900. Dwarves have a - to agility, which works out to an average speed 810. This holds up well in testing, so...

Yes, I know you didn't say you wanted to go down to Adventurer speeds, but, really, when we are talking about the difference between time compressing 288 times and "only" time compressing 192 times (the 1.5 times slower rate you suggested), we're still taking about orders of magnitude of unreality.

192 times is a huge improvement over 288 times. I think it would be a nice balence for playability/realism. Think about it, would you rather have dwarves mine 1 square in 30 frames or 1 square in 45 squares? The latter is actually playable and more realistic (they're dwarves, after all)

Basically, we're playing dwarf fortress. I don't think anyone would say "What would Einstien say" when you're talking about a game where massive megaforts are held up by a tiny pillar.

[NW_Kohaku]

First, and most importantly:

Basically, we're playing dwarf fortress. I don't think anyone would say "What would Einstien say" when you're talking about a game where massive megaforts are held up by a tiny pillar.

I would do it, because I think it's funny.  There's a great quote someone has sigged that goes "Well, apparently, our only problems are time and space" "Oh no! Someone turn on the Einstein signal!"

Well, it could solve boredom. Set it to 6000 frames per day at the start, to allow for crisp action. Decrease it to 800 when you have a 200 dwarf fortress, making sieges come monthly.

Technically, you'd need 400.  Although triple standard time compression could potentially make seiging creatures take a full year just to reach your front gate.  Likewise, caravans would likely not have a chance to reach your trade depot and unload their goods before they would need to leave.

As for 6000, well, just [SPEED:0] and be done with it.  That's basically getting everything done 11 times faster instead of just 5! I mean, it's cheating either way.

Not to start an argument, but HUMANS average at speed 900. Dwarves have a - to agility, which works out to an average speed 810. This holds up well in testing, so...

Ah, I often work with modded playable races, so I forgot that.  Average agility should be 900... Average strength is 1250.  810 is 1.23 times as much time as normal, so muscle is actually hurting more than agility here, since 900 should only give you roughly 1.04 times as much time as normal at most, but I'd have to go back to testing different stat values in the arena for that.

192 times is a huge improvement over 288 times. I think it would be a nice balence for playability/realism. Think about it, would you rather have dwarves mine 1 square in 30 frames or 1 square in 45 squares? The latter is actually playable and more realistic (they're dwarves, after all)

It's an "improvement" in the sense that "only" using an artillary strike to kill an insect is an "improvement" over launching a nuclear weapon. 

It's still not nearly going to be realistic by any measure, so "more realistic" walking speeds doesn't really make for a good argument.  After all, why stop there?  Why not a "more realistic" 100 speed compression (that would be a huge improvement over 192 by the same logic that 192 is a huge improvement over 288), which would then be trumped by a more realistic 10 speed compression, which is trumped by no speed compression.

That is, unless you are actually running this game in total real time (actually, that would require an FPS to be running at exactly 4), and have modded most of the jobs that dwarves do to take literal hours, then you're still time compressing the game in an unrealistic fashion no matter what arbitrary number you pick, and simply saying that you like the arbitrary number 192 better than the arbitrary 288.  (Which is, again, "3" "no, 5!" "5 is stupid, 10!")

[Zalminen]

Finally, what do you mean by not being able to prepare for caravans? I've never had a trading problem "make rock mugs on repeat" didn't fix.

Well, I'd count constantly running out of time to actually carry the mugs to the trade depot a problem 

[dree12]

I would do it, because I think it's funny.  There's a great quote someone has sigged that goes "Well, apparently, our only problems are time and space" "Oh no! Someone turn on the Einstein signal!"

Hey, Einstein was for the idea of time appearing quicker/slower to the observer, who is reading HIS copy of the dwarvern calender. The caravans, sieges, and immigrants come from the same place the observer is, so arrive according to their time. Basically, setting FRAMES_PER_DAY is just moving the fort closer/farther from a black hole. 

Technically, you'd need 400.  Although triple standard time compression could potentially make seiging creatures take a full year just to reach your front gate.  Likewise, caravans would likely not have a chance to reach your trade depot and unload their goods before they would need to leave.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Sieges and caravans would arrive, and then wait a month, and THEN leave. They don't need to leave before they arrive. I know it doesn't make much sense...
Urist McTrader: Bah! It's been 2 years and we haven't reached Gemtown!
Tekkud McCaravanGuard: Well, we were told they set FRAMES_PER_DAY to 300, so we should continue on.
...but it works ingame.

As for 6000, well, just [SPEED:0] and be done with it.  That's basically getting everything done 11 times faster instead of just 5! I mean, it's cheating either way.

Actually, you have eating, drinking, sleeping as in regular time, AND farm production is down. Plus, early game you get good immies and caravans without worrying about bad sieges and ambushes. 6000 should be a challenge early-game, then 200 a challenge late-game. Think about civilization, years pass slower later. This is simply the reverse.

Not to start an argument, but HUMANS average at speed 900. Dwarves have a - to agility, which works out to an average speed 810. This holds up well in testing, so...

Actually, I was wrong here. 900 agility is worse than 1000, sorry about that. Just mod a human to have SPEED:99900 (one step in 1000 frames), make a dwarf, Runesmith it to 900 agility, and see the speed.

It's an "improvement" in the sense that "only" using an artillary strike to kill an insect is an "improvement" over launching a nuclear weapon.

It's still not nearly going to be realistic by any measure, so "more realistic" walking speeds doesn't really make for a good argument.  After all, why stop there?  Why not a "more realistic" 100 speed compression (that would be a huge improvement over 192 by the same logic that 192 is a huge improvement over 288), which would then be trumped by a more realistic 10 speed compression, which is trumped by no speed compression. 

Yes, but consider a house that was built in two different places. In one place, it was built for $2880000, and in the other, for $1920000. A buyer (ignoring location) would take the improvement, wouldn't he?

[NW_Kohaku]

I think you're misunderstanding me. Sieges and caravans would arrive, and then wait a month, and THEN leave. They don't need to leave before they arrive. I know it doesn't make much sense...
Urist McTrader: Bah! It's been 2 years and we haven't reached Gemtown!
Tekkud McCaravanGuard: Well, we were told they set FRAMES_PER_DAY to 300, so we should continue on.
...but it works ingame.

Actually, you're misunderstanding me.  Those caravans do not have travel times to get to your fortress map's edge, they are created on the map's edge at the time that the caravans are supposed to arrive.  The problem is that, due to the way that caravans then have to travel from the map's edge to the trading depot, and the fact that they would only get around 15 steps per day, thanks to being fairly slow caravans, you are talking about having a maximum range of about 420 steps to get to the trading depot before a month is over... and that's not even all the delays, they would then unload their goods and wait for your trader to arrive before you could trade with them, all of which occurs while time flies several times faster than normal, before the caravan would leave.  It is entirely possible with enough time compression that they simply wouldn't be able to get ready to trade before they would be forced to leave.

Actually, you have eating, drinking, sleeping as in regular time, AND farm production is down. Plus, early game you get good immies and caravans without worrying about bad sieges and ambushes. 6000 should be a challenge early-game, then 200 a challenge late-game. Think about civilization, years pass slower later. This is simply the reverse.

200 is a "challenge" in game only in the sense that it would critically challenge the patience of the player.

Yes, but consider a house that was built in two different places. In one place, it was built for $2880000, and in the other, for $1920000. A buyer (ignoring location) would take the improvement, wouldn't he?

This is still missing the point of my argument - if $1,920,000 is better than $2,880,000 just because it is a lower number, and that is the only argument, then why stop there?  Why pay $1,920,000 for a house when you can get the exact same house (if we are ignoring location) for $10,000. 

The problem is that your logic does not provide any stopping point.  If we accepted the logic that 192 is better than 288 just because it is a smaller number, then it would logically follow that the smallest possible number is the best one.  Therefore, why not play the game in total real time, with a year taking a year?  It only makes sense if the logic that drives this is that "slower is better"...

This then exposes the problem, once you reduce it to the absurd extreme: Smaller is not, by definition better, because you want the game to go fast enough to be able to get things done, realism be darned.  Therefore, saying that 192 is better than 288 just because it is smaller is not a valid argument, because it ignores the other constraints upon the problem.

[dree12]

Actually, you're misunderstanding me.  Those caravans do not have travel times to get to your fortress map's edge, they are created on the map's edge at the time that the caravans are supposed to arrive.  The problem is that, due to the way that caravans then have to travel from the map's edge to the trading depot, and the fact that they would only get around 15 steps per day, thanks to being fairly slow caravans, you are talking about having a maximum range of about 420 steps to get to the trading depot before a month is over... and that's not even all the delays, they would then unload their goods and wait for your trader to arrive before you could trade with them, all of which occurs while time flies several times faster than normal, before the caravan would leave.  It is entirely possible with enough time compression that they simply wouldn't be able to get ready to trade before they would be forced to leave.

Okay, so you're misunderstanding the first post. Caravans are a "frame" activity, they arrive seasonally but actually wait for their to be enough time to trade first.

200 is a "challenge" in game only in the sense that it would critically challenge the patience of the player.

No, 200 is a challenge in that caravans, immigrants, and sieges arrive at the same time. That means tantrums, chaos, and Fun.

The problem is that your logic does not provide any stopping point.  If we accepted the logic that 192 is better than 288 just because it is a smaller number, then it would logically follow that the smallest possible number is the best one.  Therefore, why not play the game in total real time, with a year taking a year?  It only makes sense if the logic that drives this is that "slower is better"...

Ignoring location.
What if, the cheaper the house, the more bad the location is? The point of the init options is players can choose. People with ultra-quick processers can set the frames_per_day and fps_cap for their maximum entertainment, while people running Win98 do so as well. Compare it to people who don't care about the location much, and people who want a nice, flat, countryside house.

This then exposes the problem, once you reduce it to the absurd extreme: Smaller is not, by definition better, because you want the game to go fast enough to be able to get things done, realism be darned.  Therefore, saying that 192 is better than 288 just because it is smaller is not a valid argument, because it ignores the other constraints upon the problem.

Again, that's why you should be able to set it.