Talk:Video game exploit/Archive 1

Untitled

This article is not about QFT as a nation, individuals or otherwise. Please keep information relating to them confined to any article about them which may exist. Daerim 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An aimbot is not an exploit

An aimbot is an external program that intentionally alters the way the game works. Usually, an exploit does not require additional software and is abuse of the out-of-the-box game mechanics themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.108.164 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aimbot is not an exploit, however it is a hack/modification. Hosts of these games, aka "servers" have coding to stop people with aimbot, ex; banning players. This rarely works and is almost always irrelevent. Major games like Call of Duty and Battlefield still suffer from aimbots despite "preventative measures"

Merge proposal

Bunny hopping to this article, since it's a type of exploit and most of the artcle is original research.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Mate?? Really though, this merge does not make sense. If you count this as an exploit, then jump-shooting is an exploit, hiding in the shadows is an exploit, and essentially playing the game will become an exploit. Honestly, this is not an exploit. It is a tactic that many (me included) use on a daily basis in order to not get our *sses pwned. 208.102.198.212 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good merge candidate, as merging in more than a line or two would seriously overbalance Exploit (online gaming). The alternative of merging a line or two would effectively amount to a redirect of Bunny hopping to Exploit (online gaming). There's no consensus at either talk page that Bunny hopping is always an exploit, or non-notable outside of its use as an exploit, so Exploit (online gaming) is not a good redirect target for Bunny hopping. Even if there was consensus that Bunny hopping is always an exploit, you'd still have to demonstrate that it's not notable enough for its own article. The lack of any support for this merge proposal after eight months suggests it will not gain consensus, so I'm removing the merge tags. Feel free to remove any original research from Bunny hopping using normal editing functions. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV / Rewrite / This article is utter garbage

It's a list, and a POV list at that. Whatever the writer wanted is listed as an exploit - a good example is *twinking* as an exploit, which doesn't involve a single bit of exploiting unless you're using glitches to duplicate the items. Speedhacking? Still not exploiting, because it requires cheat software. Botting? Not exploiting. Data mining? In general doesn't confer a bonus in game - and isn't even done in game.

Twinking is actually a form of exploiting because it's design flaws that were not intended, so players take advantage of those things until they're fixed yet continue to locate loopholes. If I were you, i'd make sure to review the definition of exploiting and do extra research on the topics before removing them from the article as it appears to be your POV instead of the last editor. 205.242.88.119 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tentative definition of exploiting: Something that grants an unfair advantage in-game in a way that isn't intended by the developers while working fully from within the game - aimbots, botting, speedhacking are just plain cheating, twinking isn't even cheating nevermind exploiting unless so specified by the EULA - pretty much only holes, duping and mechanics bugs are exploits here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.106.48.120 (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a stab at cleaning it. A quick search on Google Books provided a bunch of WP:RS to provide a better article. —Mrwojo (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the result after a full pass: before, after. —Mrwojo (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]