“Barrier Locations”....“Boundary Locations”

...

Uhhh

Oh, my mistake, changed my mind about the word but must have missed the second usage of it. I’ll self-kill, but will leave voting open in case I’ve also missed a nuance of “any single Location would be in more than one Room”.

Imagine a 3x3 room of Dirt. The group of 8 squares excluding the central square arguably meets all the qualifications of a Room (depending on how you define ‘enclosed’). Therefore the outer squares are in two rooms simultaneously. It gets even worse with larger rooms. This is what I tried to avoid when I wrote the Location proposal.

Kevan, I know you already killed this, but I still want to say, what exactly IS your problem with the current definition of a room?

It outlines what can be a boundary, clears up that a door (which is an empty location) is NOT “in” the room, and makes the somewhat unneeded extra clarification that if a room is built with another room inside it already that the largest is only a room (Although this last one may need to be changed slightly if the Proposal “Standing the Heat” passes).

“A group of connected Locations enclosed by Walls, Doors and/or Rock is known as a Room.” is the thing, as it means that Rock enclosed by Rock is also part of a Room (so a 2x2 cell of Dirt subsumes its rock walls to become a 4x4 Room, and then a 6x6 room, etc).

The real problem is that if you have two separate cells of Dirt in a solid mass of Rock, they will quickly become the same Room - draw a squiggly line around them and the Dirt and Rock is “a group of connected Locations enclosed by Walls, Doors and/or Rock”, bigger than both individual cells, so “only the largest counts as a Room”. You end up with the entire mountain being defined as one big Room.

And thanks for the clarification, Purplebeard, I see where you were coming from now.