Talk:Sapper

From Team Fortress Wiki
Revision as of 00:06, 29 November 2010 by StarYoshi (talk | contribs) (Infobox Fix?: new section)
Jump to: navigation, search

Can Engineers get sapper kill assists from Pyros?

I don't think so, since it only takes one hit to destroy a sapper. Delicious cake 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What about in the instance where the Engineer hits the sapper once, damaging it but not destroying it, and then a Pyro destroys it? That would be a kill assist for the Engineer.--Focusknock s 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sapper skin

That skin is awesome. If I had an iphone/ipod touch, I would totally get that. --Firestorm 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too. All the new merchandise is cool. -- Nineaxis Duck Gib.png 17:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It's too bad that international shipping is twenty freakin' dollars --Firestorm 17:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Destroy 3 0" exploit

I would argue the "Destroy 3 0" trick belongs in Bugs, since it's prone to abuse - I managed to milk a single unattended Level 1 Sentry for over 20 points before it got destroyed by the Sapper damage. And that was with a simple bind; with scripting the situation is likely a lot worse. NVis 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It likely won't get fixed until it gets more exposure. MK 08:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

"Although it was sped up severely, the Spy would slowly flick a switch on the Electro Sapper's interface." Is the term 'severely' used properly here? The definition of the word is "difficult to endure" or "grave". I don't think that that word would be properly used in this setting. How about "Although greatly sped up,..." or something similar? Funkadacious 22:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Severely" isn't completely out of context, but something like "significantly" would probably be a better word. Toomai Glittershine 23:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. "severly" just sounded a bit out of place to me. Funkadacious 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Fix?

I had a discussion about this with someone else, but does anyone know why the infobox has lines for "Tradeable" and "Giftable," even though other pages with almost identical infobox data don't suffer from this? Just curious, as I sifted through the page for almost an hour the other day and couldn't think of a way to remove the lines (rather than just putting in "no" variables for Tradeable and Giftable as they are now). Anyone know of a fix? StarYoshi 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)