Seeing another solo player!
I was playing OC FFA just now as "Quark". It was an empty server. Saw first place was called "Amitosis" and was soloing.
What's the big deal?
Well, it's the first time in probably a year I've seen a solo player in 1st place on OC FFA.
Spectated for a while, then named myself "Meiosis". Tried to have a 1v1 with the other solo player lol... anyway "Amitosis" dominated the server for quite a while, and while it was an easy server, it was super cool to see.
Inevitably, slow teamers started ganging up on us as always, so I helped (help, not team) out a bit by virusing the teamer... lost our mass, but both of us regained some afterwards. I named myself "Meiosis 1v1" to make it clear I was a solo player too, and also "MeiosisSoloGG"... cause that was the longest solo domination I've seen in a while xD.
Anyway, just wanted to share an experience that is now so rare, but great too.
If you're reading this, and "Amitosis" was you, do you have discord? There's a solo community server that you may want to join (direct message me) :)
Posted Oct 25, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC
Note:
"Help" is doing things like virusing teamers on one occasion for the sake of assisting another solo domination.
"Team" is constantly exchanging mass. (just to clarify)
​
Also, u/AC_AChilles, wasn't my purpose, but maybe you can see how solo players aren't "driven by hatred" and how you can have good interactions without teaming?
GG! Great to hear from you again.
It is cute how you flat out teamed with him but used a different word ("help") so you can keep on calling yourself a solo player.
Sounds more like a "Duo Domination." Still, good job!
Edit:
Let's explore the meanings of the words "solo" and "team", from a lexicology perspective. The former (in a dictionary and general sense) describes a performance--be it music, theatre, or gaming--by one performer. The latter is used in a game or sport where multiple players form a side. Here you can clearly see that, in any gaming related context, the meaning of these words is defined by the number, not the action. When you "help" Amitosis, you and him act as a team. You both worked for a common objective which is "domination".
Next, the difference between "help" and "team" is not "how many times", but rather that one arise from an action's outcome (help) and the other a nominal relationship (team). A teaming relationship happens before any helpful/unhelpful action takes place (a priori), and an action's helpfulness is determined after said actions take place (a posteriori). When you help someone, it is the a posteriori helpfulness that made it a "help". When you team with someone, it is from the a priori decision to treat him as teammate that made it a "team".
So here's what happened:
To put simply: teaming and helping are not mutually exclusive. Still in context of Amitosis, we can say there are 4 possible outcomes.
(1) Not helpful to him, not teaming with him: he is defeated/hindered successfully
(2) Not helpful to him, teaming with him: tries to help, but blunders to the team's detriment
(3) Helpful to him, not teaming with him: sabotage/attack fails, blunders to the opponents' benefit
(4) Helpful to him, teaming with him: successful collaboration as the same team
Your case is clearly (4): de facto help (your help for Amitosis succeeded) with no sabotage attempt. Thus you are both helping and teaming.
What would happen if you were actually "not teaming"? Only (1) and (3) would satisfy that, which means that you must either:
(1) successfully sabotage Amitosis's run, or
(3) have tried to sabotage Amitosis's run.
Neither is the case because your decision to virus "teamers" is deliberate. Your "good interaction" from that session is brought to you by teaming.
omfg achilles stop finding excuses for teaming in ffa and play party mode, damn fucktard. slow teaming isnt even fun, its just sad. start playing on party mode and stop annoying the actual good players on the solo modes. i say this as a party mode teamer. its sad to see how childish you are.
Imagine wasting this much of your time arguing semantics in order to justify your own teaming in FFA 😂
LOL tbh I am wasting time too, this argument is just stupid...
First of all, the "helping" bit isn't the "good interaction" that I was talking about. More on that later...
​
I admit that by helping another solo player, I wasn't 100% solo in the game, however, it's still far from teaming. In any case, "Amitosis" was doing a 100% solo domination before and after I intervened slightly (and so was I).
Even if you do call it teaming, it was for something like 3 seconds. The point is, I could've actually helped "Amitosis" even more by feeding each other and we would've probably won the fight against the other team. I didn't though, because I know that solo players would only like to fight on their own. By virusing the opponent teamer once (it was a team of about 4 and they were bigger btw), I made the fight slightly easier and more balanced, but never ensured that he/she succeeds. So my case is more similar to (3) in your comment.
Furthermore, I moved away after the incident and we both continued to play solo afterwards without helping each other at all.
As for the priori and the posteriori analogy, it's not exactly the case either. While yes, I wouldn't have helped Amitosis if he/she was a teamer, I never thought of him/her as a teammate and I would've 1v1'ed in circumstances that would be possible. My actual decision to help only came from the fact that the fight was unbalanced.
Admittedly, my actions to "help" could be argued as not justified and it could even be called "teaming". But I hope you at least see the difference between what I did and other forms of teaming. I might not help at all if I'm ever in the same situation again.
Although, this was the first time in maybe an year that I helped another player mostly because I've never seen a solo player during that period. Of course, teams of more than 2 are the only reason I would even consider helping other solos.
​
Finally, by "good interaction" I meant it in a sense that solo players were able to purely have fun watching each other play and maybe do some 1v1s and that such fights don't need to be "driven by hatred".
Short answer:
Judging by your response I think you confused teaming with Slow Teaming.
Slow teaming is a subset of teaming, defined by exchanging mass slowly to avoid the mass decay. Given that you didn't do that for Amitosis, You'd much more justified to say "I didn't slow team with him" instead. However, you still teamed because you made that solo run a duo run.
"Team" is established from a priori reasons and "help" is established from a posteriori outcomes.
Long answer:
That was what I was talking about. As soon as that intervention was completed it wasn't a solo run anymore. When you intervened by virusing, it is motivated by your a priori observation that Amitosis is targeted (the "team" part). That you and Amitosis play in peace afterwards comes from the a posterori result that your intervention was in his favor (the "help" part).
If you virused and hit Amitosis instead, would you think it'd still be a "good interaction"?
As I said above, the terms "solo" and "team" is defined by the number, not time. You're probably thinking about Slow Team, which is a subset of teaming distinguished by mass exchange pattern that avoids mass decay.
You teamed but did not Slow Team.
Your motivation from the virusing is not to attack Amitosis, but rather to try helping. This a priori motivation already repudiate the soloness of the run. The a posteriori outcome that it was helpful cements both your teaming and helping relationship.
Yes, it wasn't Slow Teaming as I said above. However, that it is teaming still stands purely because it became a duo run.
This is quite ironic, because instead you showed how teaming is driven by empathy. You empathized with Amitosis being targeted as a "solo" player, but when you put yourself into the fray you formed a team.
On the flip side, if it were to be a solo run, you would simply virus Amitosis deliberately.
A priori and a posteriori
The Latin phrases a priori ('from the earlier') and a posteriori ('from the later') are philosophical terms popularized by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (first published in 1781, second edition in 1787), one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy. However, in their Latin forms they appear in Latin translations of Euclid's Elements, of about 300 BC, a work widely considered during the early European modern period as the model for precise thinking.
These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" which must follow it. Thus, the two kinds of knowledge, justification, or argument, may be glossed:
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
I don't virus solo players that are in the middle of a fight against teamers... that would just be the opposite case (me helping the teamer instead of the solo player). So, that would also be teaming unless the virus shot would help myself grow.
I also do realize that slow teaming is a subset of teaming in general... but I don't know about any type of teaming that only requires one virus shot... and that virus shot wasn't overlapped or anything, it was shooting a teamer who was bigger than the solo player that, in the end, did hardly anything to even help the solo player. We both lost all our mass, and my intention wasn't to win the fight by helping Amitosis anyway. I wasn't trying to gain mass for Amitosis, and definitely not for myself. I just wanted to give Amitosis a CHANCE to win by making a near-impossible fight more possible. Even after the virus shot, the teamers still had a big advantage in the fight. By my definition, if I were to "team" there, I would continue helping Amitosis until he/she had the advantage (or at least no disadvantage) in the fight, which I did not do.
Also, maybe I chose the wrong word by saying "interaction" but it didn't have anything to do with me helping Amitosis. I only wanted to point out solo fights with good intentions and watching each other play.