Can not argue with that.
{second thoughts, my bad}
This is just a consequence of the Contrapositive definition: A→B = /B→/A
(A implies B is equivalent to Not-B implies Not-A)
↳ In other words, if A is true then B is true, which also means that if B is false then A is false.
From this fundamental logical definition, you have something called a Demonstration by the Absurd.
You take the original statement (A), look at its implications (B), find something wrong with those implications (/B), and this invalidates the original statement (/A).
Pushing something to the extreme is a very practical way to reach the absurd (/B) to demonstrate that the original statement is wrong (/A)
4 Likes
Exactly. This is a commonly used argumentative approach which can often shut down statements that haven’t been fully considered.
The bigger picture here that @Croms_Faithful was getting at is that making a no-build zone for nothing more than “omg! It’s pretty!” kinda defeats the purpose of the game. The game was meant to be enjoyed and many of these beautiful landscapes were meant to be built on. Who doesn’t love the idea of a nice complementary build on an oasis? There’s a lot of really cool ideas here to that can utilize the terrain. However, many people have terrible building skills or only think about utility. To them, the oasis may be a giant fish farm that they can build an even more giant box over and horde it to themselves.
@DeaconElie I understand where you’re coming from, but with all due respect, your build style that you fiercely defended in the past with box builds does not help your argument here. You know full well Funcom won’t change the fact that you can build there. The reason I say your build style doesn’t help the argument is because it reinforces the attitude that any space, beautiful or not, can contain a large parking lot or box used for utility ONLY. If you want people to respect the environment and think “outside the box” you need to show them what they can do with the game. I’m not saying you need an elaborate build with tons of details, but to influence people to complement the land with their builds, you need to show them what that means. This is why I say to claim the land as your own when you see it opened up… and do NOT build a box there. Otherwise you’re just as guilty as they are. When people see they can build differently, they’ll start to reconsider how they handle the terrain they build on, especially in high traffic locations like that. I’ve seen the changes occur. It works.
This is why I don’t like box builds… sure, it can be looked at as arrogant and looking down on others for their build styles, but I look at it more as respecting the terrain I build on. If it’s a beautiful location, I want to enhance it with my build. You can feel free to disagree, but I know what works and what doesn’t when people see my builds. No one wants to look at a box, but they DO want to see a beautiful lakeside cabin.
5 Likes
Phasing an area like what Activision Blizzard does with WoW might work with PVE on official servers. Perhaps having only the clan you’re in and allied clans builds visible
As I pointed out, Reductio ad absurdum.
As I have pointed out before that has 0 to do with it. Lets say some one paves over the island in the oasis with the king kappa{?} To me there is no difference between just straight up paving it over with sandstone foundations, and building the most authentic ship on the map.
My issues aren’t with ugly box builds but megalopaly.
Ahh if only they were just lake side. I wish I was talking about some little bungalow on the beach, or some cliff side castle over looking the oasis; note: the take away from that is small on beach, large overlooking area, not so much how pretty they may be. If people didn’t build in the water or over the islands of the lakes, I’d have far less to gripe about. At least then everyone can share in the assets of the area.
I don’t build cubes, I build hat boxes 
Oh, got to thank the guys on the discord for helping me with the roof over the ramparts, was about to pull my hair out to get it to all go.
Phasing would be way too resource intensive for the creaky mess that the official server configs are currently.
Yeah yeah, but at least you understand the logic behind it now (which is valid, strictly speaking)
“Huge swaths of the map would become unbuildable” is what @Croms_Faithful and he’s completely right. If Funcom did what you’re now asking for, the most optimistic estimate is that at least 25% of the currently buildable surface area of the map would become unbuildable, depending on your definition of “POI”.
Supposing you consider only vistas to be POIs, this is what the map looks like:
Slap a disproportionate no-build zone, like the one you’re asking for the Oasis of Nekhet, around each one of those icons and see where that gets you.
But wait, you said POIs, which means “points of interest”, so let’s include them all, not just the vistas:
I’ll let that speak for itself.
No, really, I wonder why we’re like that 
Maybe it’s because you started with this:
and ended with this:
Nah, can’t be that. We’re all just blowing things out of proportion, and the only one who is maintaining a proper sense of proportion here is you 
4 Likes
Not to mention that different people have different ideas of what should fall under the “omg! it’s pretty!” protection, which is why I keep saying that the game shouldn’t be changed to match someone’s taste.
5 Likes
“They made the oasis a no-build zone, so I think they should consider how beautiful the [insert POI here] is and it should get the same treatment! It’s way prettier!” 
1 Like
That’s not really much better. Maybe a little bit, but I’ve seen quite a few round bases that they’ve become cliche as well. Regardless, my point is that you could build to complement the environment. That doesn’t complement it. It’s basically the same idea by putting a giant structure and covering it. I think a better use might be a village or something. Doesn’t have to be large, but could be creative enough. Also, not a huge wall. I see you didn’t do the huge wall, which is good, but yeah… it shouldn’t be so large to not see the environment. Just enough to protect the place from a purge. Often times I see “I have a 4 wall high gate! I need a 4 wall high perimeter wall!” And so on… the idea is if you want people to appreciate it, yet not build over it, make it something that people will turn their head and enjoy. I know if I think something is an eyesore, I’m gonna be on the same page as you, but probably with different reasoning. I hate seeing a terrible build that ruins a good spot.
Because that is the only way to do it
No it’s just you.
Why is Reductio ad absurdum your only argument?
NONE of your estimates are optimistic.
No one else has gone off the deep end saying every POI needs to have render distance no build zone around them, just you.
Sharing means compromise, I have yet seen you offer a comprise just a “your wrong”. Compromise does not mean concede.
I offered up a compromise, but with you its an all or nothing thing.
This has nothing to do with cosmetics.
As I have said this has nothing to do with cosmetics.
I’d rather see a sandstone hut on the beach then Camelot rising out of the water.
See, but it does matter. As someone who doesn’t care much for castle builds, I can say a castle has a time and place to work well if done right. It doesn’t work on that oasis. A better use of space is a smaller building or sets of buildings in a village format. It maintains the aesthetics of the environment, while complementing it with the practical implementation of a base. I wouldn’t wanna see Camelot on there either, but I won’t say someone can’t build there. Just the right kind of build should be done to maintain the feel and the beauty. And people should be able to go inside the space. Anyone that sees that would want to check it out anyway.
1 Like
To do what, exactly? Preserve the aesthetics you desire? Or are we talking about protecting something that isn’t highly subjective and impacts the actual gameplay?
Why should I need a different argument if this one is correct?
Right, we should all trust you that you’re suggesting reasonable no-build zones around other POIs, given how reasonable your suggestion for this particular POI was. 
Where exactly did you offer a “compromise”? All I’ve seen you do is insist on how the Oasis of Nekhet needs to be a no-build zone the size of one grid square.
As for my compromise, you weren’t paying attention. I already said that I’m completely on-board with adding no-build zones to protect the mini-boss, the world boss and her chest, and the Relic Hunters.
If your idea of compromise is to change my mind and accept that your idea is reasonable without any valid arguments behind it, then you need to look up what “compromise” means.
Sure, as long as players get an email to move before they implement it.
“You got two weeks to move or it will be removed for you”
Good thing i build out in the desert.
Just how is it working? I mean beside showing you just can’t be reasonable.
Yes, because unlike you I can be reasonable.
Yes you did, my bad. But how big an area. My favorite place to build at the oasis is on that rise the relic hunters are on. I never build close enough to aggro them, or cause them not to spawn.
Agree, that is not a compromise.
Unlike you, most people in this thread can see why adding disproportionately big no-build zones “because it’s pretty” is a bad idea, so I’d say it’s working well enough 
Aaaaaaaaand there we are. Suddenly you’re concerned about how big the no-build zone should be, because it might inconvenience your own build, but you’re totally okay with suggesting that the whole region should be a no-build zone.
Are you sure you can’t see why “no one should build here based on my tastes” is wrong?
As for “how big”, just big enough to prevent these things from being despawned is minimum, as far as I’m concerned. Increasing that minimal radius by a foundation or two would be good, but no more than that. The idea isn’t really to prevent them from being blocked, because if someone is motivated enough to block them, they will block them. The idea is to make it clear to those who don’t know that these are things you should not block.
Trolls, griefers, and jerks cannot be dealt with using game mechanics, because you can’t solve that problem with tech. Admins need to deal with them. And yeah, I know that official server moderation isn’t good. You literally cannot solve that problem with tech, because AGI doesn’t exist yet.
A definite no from me. The Oasis may be beautiful but I agree with others in that if we restrict building on all POIs we reduce the ability to build to the max.
I don’t care as long as it’s not blocking me from discovering, learning, accessing or acquiring anything special.
I don’t care if it looks like the most skilled building masterpiece or a depressed warehouse.
Survive. Build. Dominate.
Stop caring about others.
3 Likes
Not enough people use the stable gate - same amount of HP as regular gate, and just as effective as blocking NPC purge mobs, but small, unobtrusive, and makes for a good addition to a cottage type build.
(edit for spelling)
3 Likes
And you all got together and voted on it? Came to gather in a committee? Or since you are speak against me you assume everyone agrees with you?
Not at all what I meant 
Yes because it not about taste.
And why do you think I’d want them bigger then that? Now just hold on. I see the oasis as a biome. Lore stones, chests, bosses; mini and world, I almost agree with you. Bosses and chests I think need a bit bigger area, like agro plus half for the boss. If the chest is close enough to the boss it wouldn’t need it’s own zone.
Recent experience has given me reason to rethink my previous opinion.
It’s PVE, you know carebear Conan 
I love them. Wish they came in skins for the other build styles.