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)
Outdated?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)
- 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. --
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)
- 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)
- 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)
