Talk:Exploits

Typing

Stuff like "click jump" or "click crouch" does not sound right. You don't click keys on your keyboard. You PRESS them. --Sadface 00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree Pierow 19:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdated?

Many of these exploits are patched but they are still present on the page. Ond kaja 20:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If an exploit has been patched, please move it to the "Patched exploits" section -Firestorm 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Documenting current exploits

...it looks like there hasn't been a problem with it previously, but how do other people feel about it? Personally, I'm torn; yeah, we should be documenting as much as possible, and yeah, it is relevant, but we shouldn't be providing potential 'sploiters with ammo for their arsenal. I dunno. Thoughts? ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 01:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered why there were step-by-step tidbits on how to perform these exploits, or mention unpatched exploits. Civilian I'm fine with but others just don't need to be revealed for information's sake. Same for glitches/bugs. --Vaught 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be documenting how to do perform the exploits until they are fixed, but I don't see why they shouldn't at least be reported here. Usually the server owners report the bugs quickly to Valve and anything of a significantly game-changing nature is usually fixed within a few days, so harm would be kept to a minimum. Also, anything written here will have likely already done its tour on SPUF, so I doubt we could spread any information as quickly as they can. -- -- 02:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 I agree with this solution. Note that they exist, without posting specific instructions on how to do them. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 02:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose If we say "these things are exploitable", some users are going to find out how to do them (whether by searching or experimenting in game). We don't want to be responsible for certain players having a bad experience because of information we've decided to list.-RJ 02:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment So your opinion is that we should leave current, active exploits out of the game (at least for the PC version) entirely? ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment We can't really document past exploits since some tend to make their returns, such as the sentry exploit. --Vaught 02:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment So you're saying we should delete the Exploits page entirely? ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 02:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Honestly, this is a double-edged sword here. Keep it and risk being a catalyst for griefers or delete and leave people in the dark. That or water it down so it keeps the basics like "Exploit A did this and was patched this day." while keeping it brief and simple. --Vaught 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Support People will find out these exploits one way or another. I figure it's reasonable if we document them, but not how to do them. TheMedik 02:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't list active exploits that can have a negative influence on game-play, that's my opinion. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJackson (talk) • contribs)

 I agree. It'll make the page actually useful for people checking if what they recently saw in-game was an exploit or is legal. ShunyValdez 03:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Agreed Maybe stick a notice if something can be triggered by accident, but that's it on the details. --CruelCow 19:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Great now, everyone can know all the exploits. -- Nightbox _{(t s)} 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So...what's the word? How are we going to deal with this? --Vaught 20:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the conclusion is that we document exploits, but not how to do them. Tally-ho. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support TF2 Wiki is everything Team Fortress correct? Everything Team Fortress is everything in team fortress... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pierow (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 23 March 2011

References?

A lot of the current listed exploits are completely new to me, and I have never seen them referenced anywhere. I think I could easily remove half the currently-listed exploits, because there's no documentation to back them up, and I've never seen them anywhere. What do we do? I'm itching to re-write this thing. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 03:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It'll make the article shorter if we can remove patched exploits. That said, I would like to preserve the history of TF2's exploits. Maybe as a new page? ShunyValdez 03:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Many of the exploits listed here are outright fabrications. They have the quality of kids swapping stories about Pokemon secrets and uncles that work at Nintendo. My suggestion is not only that should we look for references, but that experienced contributors shouldn't hesitate to remove an exploit from the page unless someone else can verify that it is real. Zoolooman 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So basically, all exploits (new and old) are considered fabrications unless there's verification/references? ShunyValdez 03:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how we can trust them without references. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 12:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 Agreed: I doubt that you'll find an exploit that wasn't uploaded to youtube at least once. --CruelCow 19:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 Support Well if you keep the patched ones (because if they're patched it means they were true) for historical purposes, removing the unpatched one with nothing to back it up, seems pretty normal to me. You have to double check to see if it's true and remove fabrications. Or you could create a new section with un-verified exploits and another one for false exploits. Tturbo 20:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up

As Ond kaja pointed out, many of these exploits are outdated, and I have the feeling some aren't even real or ever were real. A focused effort to clean up the page would be appreciated. I'm attempting to do this now, but it would be much easier if others helped me. Uncle Richardson 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea this page is a major dump. I've looked it at a few times with no real idea where to start. I personally have no idea which ones no longer exist, or ever existed. Feel free to get started and O'll take your lead if you want. Moussekateer 01:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Decided that instead of doing several small edits, it would likely be infinitely easier to write a mockup in a Word file and make one major update. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this, since we can't test if something works in Xbox 360 or PS3 versions or what never existed in the first place. Uncle Richardson 01:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I'm not doing the mock up. Simply reorganizing existing content, and will then worry about filtering out the patched or false exploits. Wondering about "Terrain Exploit," since these are issues with maps themselves and not with programming. Should keep or move to appropriate map pages when possible?Uncle Richardson 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrain Exploits section

In my clean up, I'm considering moving or flat out deleting the "Terrain Exploits" section. Issues listed in this section are problems with map geometry and not with the game code. As such, these issues belong in map specific sections. Uncle Richardson 03:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Patched exploits

When considering exploits patched in the PC/Mac version, but not the 360 and PS3 versions, should we include them in the working exploits section? Uncle Richardson 03:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be in a new section. Maybe working exploiits in console version? ShunyValdez 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A brand new section would probably be good. How should we organize this? Working Exploits, PC/Mac Patched Exploits, 360 Patched Exploits? Can't really have a PS3 Patched Exploits section, no PS3 patches :P Must remember to put sig line next time. Uncle Richardson 12:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ShunyValdez 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Map Specific Exploits

I'm working on an organizational draft on my talk page and I noticed that the section that by and large takes the most space is the Map Specific Exploits. I propose we move these to the appropriate map pages, so as to put substance on those pages (let's face it, some are pretty empty) and to clean this mess up some. Uncle Richardson 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A new page for map exploits would be cleaner. Maybe we can rename this as Gameplay Exploits. The current Exploits page can just have an introduction and a link to the two pages. We can even move patched exploits to a new page if it'll make the Gameplay Exploits page cleaner. ShunyValdez 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that it is entirely necessary. (sorry) It wouldn't be a very big page at all and seeing as all the information is already on the page it would be quite redundant. Pierow 08:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Halloween Gift custom texture 'hack'?

I have heard of players who used custom Halloween Gift texture files to make the gift more easily visible when it spawns in order to gain an advantage in finding it. I can confirm that such files exist, as I saw them available on FPSBanana before they were taken down for being hacks. Would information about this be suitable for the Trivia section in Haunted Halloween Gift? Or should it go into Exploits? Not quite sure where it belongs, and would like to check if it belongs on the Wiki at all. -- McWang 05:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Boston Basher exploit

There is an exploit with the Boston Basher.It is using the Boston Basher to achieve "I'm Bat Man" without fighting. It is constantly missing your Boston Basher to bled yourself and returning to a resupply locker. I saw someone did that and achieved "I'm Bat Man quickly! I think it is an Exploit. Mardamien24 02:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a bug, not an exploit. A lot of achievements are buggy. —Moussekateer·talk 02:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Then we must place it in the "Bugs" section of Boston Basher. Mardamien24 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Soldier Exploit

Is the soldier kamikaze survival with the rocket jumper really an exploit? I thought it was meant to be like that.... Valve could easily fix it if they considered it an exploit. Pierow 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well in my opinion it's not exploit. Becouse u using fake Projectiles. Rins (talk | contribs) 08:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO it's an exploit, but not a bug, see where I'm going with this? Turboplant 18:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So we Both agree on it. That is good. Can I remove it?Pierow 08:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines.

I think there should be some guidelines for exploits. Some of the exploits listed , i think, are not exploits at all because they are so simple to do and don't have any real effect. Also with a lot of the "Map specific exploits" the writing style makes it sound like a written tutorial as to how to perform said exploits. That is very contradictory to the quote at the top that looks down on exploits (by the Administrator). Pretty much, this page needs either a cleanup or guidelines. That's my opinion anyway. also should i post this in discussions? `Pierow 08:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The 'tutorials' are also at odds with the more formal tone of the rest of the page. Cranberry Jerk 20:26, 9 July 2012 (PDT)

2Fort Entering Enemy's Spawn 3 Exploit patched or not

I had a go at this exploit by jumping around like a looney around every plank i saw under both spawn rooms on my local server but no luck. Has this been patched yet? Bojjob 14:19, 23 December 2011 (PST)

To be honest it probably is. *shrugs* Go ahead and try some more and if no luck then remove it. —Rocket Ship BBQ(•) 14:49, 23 December 2011 (PST)

What does "broken" mean?

I don't understand this sentence: "An exploit is said to be broken if it is unintentional to the game's developers, because it is a broken feature of the game." Besides the fact that I think it's improper grammar, I think it's very unclear. All bugs are "unintentional"; developers obviously aren't intending to have bugs. What's the difference between the Mad Milk through the gate bug, marked "broken", and the Sandman through the gate bug, which isn't? Strange Quirk 17:04, 16 February 2012 (PST)

The definition of bug is indeed "something unintended by the programmers". I agree that the way "broken" is used here is indeed unclear, since all exploits/bugs would be "broken" by that definition you said.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 08:29, 11 March 2012 (PDT)

Engineer Stored Crit w/ Gunslinger

There's one exploit to where if you hold certain keys, hit a team mate twice, continue to hold the key, then hit an enemy, it'll be a crit. Definite exploit.

KritzTheDrake (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2014 (PDT)

All Replay Achievement Exploit

There's an exploit where the player/user can render and upload their replay {i know that's already a game feature} but they can go to the replay files of the uploaded replay and edit the url of the video and change it to a popular/viral url video allowing the replay to have allot of views and likes making the game think the user earned those views causing them to get all the replay achievements

[i had to do the exploit in order to show proof]

File:Exploit proof.jpeg

Look at the views and likes

Zerox10 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2014 (PDT)

And... how exactly is this an "exploit"? Its not "game breaking", secondly, they're just achievements. And also, there's other tools that literally just GRANT the achievement straight up. So honestly, this isn't really an exploit. Nothing game breaking that affects gameplay. Ashes (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2014 (PDT)

Mini-crits with Minigun.

There was a patch on the 13th of November that:
Fixed a bug that allowed weapons to be equipped in invalid loadout slots
This allowed the user to equip and eat the buffalo steak sandwich, in which they could then they could use their minigun of choice and fire minicrit bullets. Should we add this to the exploits table? -- CoreDude98 (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2014 (PST)