Talk:Pain Train

From Team Fortress Wiki
Revision as of 19:30, 24 January 2011 by Squidfeeder (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the only weapon...

"This is the only weapon that was introduced in the first wave of contributed weapons that did not start out as a skin for another weapon." I thought it started as a skin for the Pyro's axe? Randomscripter 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fire

  • Fire damage may inadvertently be increased against the user.

This was included in the bug section. This is apparently entirely speculative. Perhaps someone can test this? Until then, I believe it should be left out of the main article. Squidfeeder 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I mixed up the pages and translated this one instead, can someone please send it back as the initial state? Sorry again, I will await punishment ._. Vulturas 16:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Nevermind XD I restored it myself using the unaffected thing XDVulturas 16:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dummkopf! — Wind 16:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm working today more and trying faster because I have no homework for tomorrow, the ROwiki side is kinda pathetic, 5% a few days ago, 9% now...annoying>.> back to my train Vulturas 16:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well at least by the time your mistake was noticed (rapidly) on the IRC channel and transfered to admins to decide what to do (much longer), you corrected everything. So everything is find, you did well. Tturbo 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad that I didn't close the other window which was the /ro thing XD the /ro had copy pasted, went to get a snack, and started working on the original, after I've finished I looked up, lolwut no /ro... and panicked >.< but I noticed I had the spare window*cough* Anyway thanks for the compliment, I think?XD back to work for the Newb-> Vulturas 16:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bullet Vulnerability

It's actually hitscan vulnerability. How is this not considered useful trivia considering that there are non-bullet hitscan weapons? Well, not really hitscan, but certain weapons still deal 15% more damage to pain train users despite not being hitscan. Psychopath 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Pain Train makes you vulnerable to all melee weapons? Moussekateer 00:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I've witnessed Soldiers at full health with the Pain Train equipped die to a single crit. So, unless Valve patched it recently, yes.Psychopath 00:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a rather big bug if that's true. Moussekateer 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Either it should be known by Valve so they can fix the bug or it's an oversight in the naming of the downside. Considering that all bullet weapons are hitscan, they just did the calculation for hitscan weapons. They likely forgot that melee weapons are hitscan and the syringe guns are "hitscan" as far as damage dealing is calculated. The Targe Bash and most taunt kills too. Psychopath 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed it because it was listing non-bullet hitscan weapons and it's more of a bug than trivia. Also, I don't think most players even know what hitscan means. -Spik3d 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Would it be best put under a "Bugs" section if that's the case? Just that the Syringe Guns, Melee weapons, Targe bash, and most taunt kills do 15% more damage? Psychopath 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a better spot for it. -Spik3d 01:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. And look at all these indents in this talk page :P Psychopath 01:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone check this?

According to this thread, melee has been changed to not break sticky mines and also does not count towards bullet vulnerability. I believe that we should test out all the things listed to be sure if this has been changed or not (melee, syringes, targe bash, etc). -- Psychopath User Psychopath avatar.png 03:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Was discussing this on another thread today, and will require further testing to see if the 10% vulnerability no longer applies to melee weapons. I'll try to test this stuff out and bring back images proving if there indeed has been a change.--Tidmiste 03:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)