I still don't get some things, I heard explosive has a chance to instant-kill and corrosive adds bonus damage on previous hits and can spread. Can other elemental types spread? I think we need a list of which elements to use against which foes, including pvp duals.I heal if you shut it 20:17, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard that explosive damage can kill instantly, but I can confirm that corrosive damage spreads and is cumulative like that.-- 20:20, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Explosive definitely does NOT kill instantly, though some Explosive weapons can proc for a lot of damage (hello, Torgue Cobra). The current article does have some strategy about matching elements to enemies, but the definite winner against players is probably Shock, closely followed by Explosive. Compared to the average shielded Bandit, players have relatively high shields but relatively low health. So Shock is the best for quickly depleting a player's shields. Of course Berserk combined with a Muscleman shield and a good COM will need some Incendiary as well. Wannas 12:00, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Other "damage" articles

There's an article named "Shock" which basically talks about shock damage. Either we should create one page for each element and link to them from this page, or bring back the Shock's page content to this one and do a redirect here. What do you people think? I'm also thinking of doing an article named "Damage" about the specifics of how damage is applied and calculated, and I wonder how it would relate to this one. Link to it? Make this article a subsection? --QuantumOmega 18:49, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I think all elemental types should direct here, and we need to explain these more. I still don't get what explosive damage does exactly. I mean it says it is AOE but it is no more AOE than corrosive, in fact it doesn't even seem to have any AOE properties. Does all its damage at once... why do my explosive weapons do so little damage then? WTF I don't get it.I heal if you shut it 00:10, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i'd also like to get some light shed on the topic of Explosive damage, seems to be a large shortcoming when considering all of the other elements in the game. Nosferus 03:11, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

chance to happen

I have noticed that independent of the multiplier for an element the weapon text will note if the effect happens more often. I have had x1 weapons with "high chance to incinerate", "higher chance", or even "very high chance". We might want to put some examples of this somewhere. --Slyrat 19:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I suggest people check out this thread: Instant karma is doing excelent job trying to figure out how on earth the elemental damage works.Puupertti Ruma 21:30, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. That post indeed contains very thorough information that could benefit this wiki. --QuantumOmega 05:57, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


I added a major portion to this page about a week ago, but it's seen a few changes since, and I'm wondering if maybe we should revisit how the article is structured. The original build had some VERY basic information, with no technical specifics. I decided to put that in its own section at the end, independent so that people confused by math wouldn't have to read all that to understand the very basics. However, considering one of the follow-up editors decided to add a section on tech pool before that point, I'm rethinking that divide. Either we need to rigidly keep that division, rewrite, or risk some information being rewritten.

There are also some aspects of InstantKarma's thread that do concern me, however. Although I mostly took his information ver batim, I'm wondering exactly HOW accurate it is. First, he suggests that damage is multiplied by one coefficient for the damage type, and then again for a type/striking point multiplier after that. Why would there be two levels of multipliers, both of which involve the damage type? I'm going to theorize that this is wrong and there's just one multiplier. I also wish we had the values for damage against armor. IK only gave values for flesh and shields. The article seems incomplete without showcasing the merits of corrosive damage. I hope that we can derive that information at some point. --Azuarc 20:47, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm for rewriting the article in a way that the basic layout is roughly the same as the first incarnation of this page. Nonetheless, I find it lacking in details and for the that part I would like to see a quite a massive rewriting of the article. I'm suggesting a layot structured rougly as follows:
The brief: As now, but I think it should be mentioned that the guntype you are using affects the proc, and that the different elements do different damage to different targets. Also, it should IMHO mentioned that most of this wikipage takes it's reference from Instant Karma's posts. This could also be included at the bottom of the article as a used reference.
The summary of the different elements: as now.
"Tech Pool & Proc" + "Elemental Multiplier": This portion should IMHO be totally revamped. I think most, if not all, the information in the theory part should come here. I don't see it as too complex, and I think it is vital information that can not be left out, even if a "simplified" explanation of elemental effects is pursued. I believe that it can be presented in a way that shouldn't confuse readers too much. The key to that is to have a good headlining, to summarise the theory first and then give more detailed descriptions.
I propose this layout for the theory part:
First the mechanism behind the proc's, the pool, and the elemental multiplier should be told. For example:
"Every time an elemental gun is fired it has a chance to trigger it's elemental effect; to proc. This chance is governed by a hidden stat on the weapon called "Tech Pool". Tech Pool of the weapon seems to be directly dependant on the elemental multiplier of the weapon: a bigger multiplier a bigger tech pool. Every time a weapon procs, it's tech pool will lowered by an amount dependant on the weapon, and it will start regenerating by a fixed rate. If the weapon has procced enough that the tech pool is lower than the amount needed for a proc, the weapon cannot proc before the tech pool has regenerated enough. The damage of the proc is dependant on the weapon type used and the elemental multiplier." Feel free to use this if you wish.
The multipliers governing the target hit, and the different damages of the different elements could be here.
Then DoT, and Legendaries.
Strategy: With a revamp of the theory part, the strategy part might become a bit redundant. A complete rewrite or omission might be the fate of this.
I am not entirely sure why you see there couldn't be two different multipliers. As I see it, there are two things that affect the damage an elemental weapon does. First is the material that is hit, and then there is the elemental effect that is doing the damage. I'm sure the multipliers are calculated before hand by the game and added directly to the weapon stats when the weapon is made, but for us humans it is easier to remember two easy numbers than one hard. IK doesn't state explisitly if the material that is hit effects the base damage, the proc damage or what. If it affects the base damage, and this base damage then affects the elemental proc damage, all is fine. If it does affect the base damage, but not the proc damage, it would be quite complex and also quite odd.
I'm yet not quite convinced that the health pool of the enemy governs the DoT. I am quite sure that the radiance's damage is affected, if not even governed completely, by the health pool of the enemy hit, but does the same work with elemental DoTs?
As I see it, the elemental effects are not yet solved, but IK has made them alot clearer. --Puupertti Ruma 09:52, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with you, the article needs a complete revamp, and a structural reconstruction. I wrote the "Tech Pool & Proc" part, but it is mostly redundant information. The problem (IMO), is that there are too kinds of people:::#The people that want a quick insight to elemental damage, and don't want to be bogged down in details.
  1. The people that want to know every single mechanics of the game.
I think it is important that everyone know about tech pool and proc mechanism, but at the same time, we don't want to make the info look so intimidating that no one is going to read it.
I think the best solution is to make this page "Elemental Damage" be only about the in game effects, a quick intro to tech and procs, how they effect weapons etc. THEN, we create a page called "Elemental Damage Mechanics" That has all the numbers, the formulas, the number crunching etc. Happypal 10:31, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I share your position on the two kinds of people, happypal. However, as Puuperiti points out, it's hard to differentiate what's important in one explanation and what's important in the other. I do agree with a rewrite, but I'm not certain if we want one page or two. I can see the merits either way.

As for the one vs two coefficients, my reason is very simple. Both of them cross-reference the element type. If IK's values and formula are indeed correct, we could condense them into one. If fire does 80% of standard damage, but then only 50% against shields, why don't we label that as "fire vs shields" is 40%? There's literally no reason to have it written in two steps, the way that IK has it solved. Either he's wrong, or he's simply created an extra unneeded layer of work. --Azuarc 17:45, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer the two coefficients methods, because it is easier to imagine a weapon's average damage. For example, I find it more obvious that explosive has a 125% damage boost per proc, with a 1.0 coefficient on everything. I'd be a bit confused if I was told that it is extra effective against everything. FUrther more, I guess they are easier to seperate. We can have a section about "Elemental effect damage boost", which is general damage for when firing at something which is always a 1.0 coefficient. Then we can do a "Elemetal Affinity Section". In a pure mathematical numbers point of view, I can see the merits of a single coefficient approach, but only in that point of view (IMO).
In the end, I believe a single page is better. However, we have to be extra careful to make our page layout simple, the text understandable, the concepts introduced one by one in a clear way etc. I'm sure we can present every detail in a way which could appear simple to everyone, yet contain every detail. I have a pretty good idea of what we can do, so I might give it a try tomorrow. Happypal 08:50, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

How are coefficients derived? If there are indeed two, how are they disentangled? You can't fire a weapon at a target to work out the elemental coeff because you would need to know the material coeff to make a fair comparison,vice-vera.

Armor, Vehicles, and Elemental damage

While the page has info on how effective different elemental effects are on flesh and shields, there's a lack of data on damage done to armor, which is understandable seeing as players technically aren't armored. However, vehicles are armored to a degree if I'm not mistaken. If it's possible to start a PvP duel and have a player jump into a vehicle, I would think that players can attempt to gather data on how effective the different elements are on armor. I haven't tried this yet since I mostly play solo, and I doubt the friends I play with would be interested in taking the time to try this.StarPilot 21:54, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Getting into a vehicle while dueling immediately causes you to forfeit. Also, it's hard to figure out the exact damage to armour because different enemies have different amounts. To start with you'd need to know by exactly how much the target's armour reduces damage. Then you'd have to find out how much extra damage Corrosive does to that same area of the target. Add in different areas of the target being differently armoured, and even targets with metal shields (Lance Defenders/Wardens) and you have yourself one complicated problem. Wannas 12:00, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting the article, finally - GearCalc?

I'm gonna start rewriting the article as it makes close to 0% sense to any Borderlands freshman. I'd just like to know, are stats from GearCalc accurate enough to be used in the article? For example, it states that Elemental Sniper Rifles have 100% chance to proc at their highest possible multiplier, and also Explosive Snipers will always cause a x1 proc on every shot. I've confirmed both of these in-game...

So how much should GearCalc (and by extension WillowTree) be trusted? Wannas 12:00, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Eridian Weapon Mechanics?

The Corrosive&Incendiary Eridian weapons added in DLC3, does anyone know how they work? From what I have observed so far, they proc equally every shot and have a massive DOT that seem to outdamage guns like the Pestilent Defiler. Note that the Pestilent Defiler will still kill faster because it's bullet damage is still much higher than the Eridian weapons. Riceygringo 03:03, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

They don't proc elemental damage, they deal their elemental damage as default type. The DOT component is always based on initial damage and procs with same rules as any other elemental DOTs - 05:26, September 3, 2011 (UTC)


I rewrote parts of the article to be more encyclopediac and informative. Had to remove plenty of inexact conclusions and some blatantly false information. - 05:24, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Who loves colors?

Not me. {{Color|Corrosive}} etc. are very difficult to read against any of the class=borderlands cell backgrounds, most particularly that of the header cells. Insufficient contrast. Dämmerung 15:11, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Hum. Seems like I'm having problems with your latex, and you're having problems with my colors. Duly noted. I'll take care of it. happypal (talk • contribs) 16:02, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

It's still readable in color, just less so than otherwise due to the diminished contrast. I didn't go on any great black-and-white purity pogram (though I did feel the temptation), because I know that the fruit salad looks less terrible on the black background that most wiki users "enjoy." I just hope that there's a hook somewhere for CSS styling of the LaTeX, so that it can do whatever default wiki text does. It would be a shame to lose the LaTeX IMO. There's always your brute force background=white solution. Dämmerung 16:08, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

are you guys previewing your edits?   Dr. F    Chemicalweapon   Wordpress shovel   Boston globe bullhorn  17:19, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Just looks like happy's "pipe trick" sorta started from an old rev of the page, and by 'sorta' I mean is now crapping the bones of the intervening edits in the yard. All fixxored now. Dämmerung 17:31, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, apparently, I had an edit conflict, but MediaWiki didn't register it, making me crap all over Dämmerung's edit. :( happypal (talk • contribs) 18:11, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
(All edits since 24 Feb got whammoed. No big damage, just a few tiny tweaks here and there.) Dämmerung 18:42, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Combat Rifle proc intensity

My data (completely derivative of gearcalc, all glory and praise to it) shows that it is explosive CRs (incl. Ogre), not incendiary (incl. Draco), that have the anomalous proc intensity at x3 tech. Happypal, how'd you find this to be Incendiary? Dämmerung 18:23, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Er... Gearcalc actually. I'll double check tomorrow (sleep time here). happypal (talk • contribs) 20:53, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it took me writting this entire table:

Type gd_weap_combat_rifle.acc.acc3_Corrosive gd_weap_combat_rifle.acc.acc3_Shock gd_weap_combat_rifle.acc.acc5_Explosive gd_weap_combat_rifle.acc.acc5_Incendiary
Base Multiplier 0.4X 1X 1.5X 0.4X

(1) Corrosive: 70% chance to proc tech level 6 costing 20 for 0.4X damage
(2) Corrosive: 20% chance to proc tech level 9 costing 16 for 0.4X damage
(3) Corrosive: 20% chance to proc tech level 12 costing 12 for 0.4X damage
(4) Corrosive: 40% chance to proc tech level 15 costing 30 for 0.6X damage

(1) Shock: 70% chance to proc at tech level 6 costing 20 for 1.0X damage
(2) Shock: 20% chance to proc at tech level 9 costing 16 for 1.0X damage
(3) Shock: 20% chance to proc at tech level 12 costing 12 for 1.0X damage
(4) Shock: 40% chance to proc at tech level 15 costing 30 for 1.5X damage

(1) Explosive: 70% chance to proc at tech level 6 costing 20 for 1.5X damage
(2) Explosive: 20% chance to proc at tech level 9 costing 16 for 1.5X damage
(3) Explosive: 20% chance to proc at tech level 12 costing 12 for 2.3X damage
(4) Explosive: 40% chance to proc at tech level 15 costing 30 for 2.3X damage

(1) Incendiary: 70% chance to proc at tech level 6 costing 20 for 0.6X damage
(2) Incendiary: 20% chance to proc at tech level 9 costing 16 for 0.6X damage
(3) Incendiary: 20% chance to proc at tech level 12 costing 12 for 0.6X damage
(4) Incendiary: 40% chance to proc at tech level 15 costing 30 for 0.9X damage

To realize you were right. I think it is the fact that gearcalc didn't have the same elemental order as use that threw me in for a loop.

A always, thanks for putting my data into doubt. That's always the best way to have the most reliable results. happypal (talk • contribs) 09:38, March 16, 2012 (UTC)


So, just saw this slag edit. In relation to the zombies of Dr Ned, is this slag effect applied also with a movement speed decrease, or is the movement speed decrease part of the slag itself, or am I thinking of the wrong thing? deviouswatch (talk) 22:04, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

slag is blands2. spew is not an element available to players or characters.   Dr. F    Chemicalweapon   Wordpress shovel   Boston globe bullhorn  22:08, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, just answered that question myself as well! Shouldnt you add a side note to it then? deviouswatch (talk) 22:25, July 23, 2012 (UTC)


Hi all. I'm a newcomer to the 'Elemental Damage" page of the Borderlands Wikia, and I think there are a couple of things that maybe could use some clarification.

1. In "Elemental Prefixes," it's not clear what the two numbers in the right column, one in parentheses, mean. (E.g., "Tech = 6 (2.3)" for Tier Two and "Tech = 12 (3.3)" for Tier Three.") A bit more explanation would be helpful.

paranthetic is "actual" multiplier.

2. I don't understand parts of the "Weapons" section:

a. The top line of each chart has the type of gun and then "x1," "x2," "x3," and "x4" columns. From everything else in the article it would seem that this top line is the "elemental multiplier." However, the bottom line is ALSO called "Elemental Multiplier" and the numbers are different than at the top line. From the comments in the article, I think that this bottom line is supposed to be the elemental DAMAGE multiplier. If so, changing the name of the bottom line to "Elemental Damage Multplier" would make things a lot clearer. If it is something else, some explanation would be helpful.

elemental multiplier is different from xX of weapon. part of the mechanics of the game.

b. Some of the comments in the "Weapons" section raise some questions for me. Under the "Sniper Rifle" chart, it states: "Sniper rifles will always proc at the highest level the tech pool permits." Does this mean that if you have a hypothetical sniper rifle with a total possible tech pool of say, 57, but with only 33 tech pool points left because of previous procs, it must proc at x2? And that if the sniper rifle has a current tech pool of 45 points, it must proc at x3?


c. The comments under the "Sniper Rifle" and "Revolver" sections also seem to indicate that a weapon does not necessarily have to proc under its x1, x2, x3 or x4 column (I hesitate to say "elemental multiplier column" because of my confusion regarding the meaning of the bottom row) designated on its attributes card, but that it can proc under other, lower columns. For instance, can my x4 incendiary SMG proc under x1, x2 or x3 as well as x4? Also, if this is the case, can my incendiary x4 SMG proc at x1, x2 or x3 if it has 16 or more but less than 24 tech pool points, or does my x4 incendiary SMG have to have the full amount of tech pool points corresponding to the x4 column (i.e. 24) in order to proc at any level?

applies to sniper/revolver only. other weapons have other mechanics.

Overall, this section of the Borderlands Wikia has been very helpful to me in helping me understand how elemental weapons work. I hope that my questions/suggestions make sense and can contribute to the Wikia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thward (talkcontribs) 16:47, 28 July 2012‎

see:mechanics section of articles for further details.   Dr. F    Chemicalweapon   Wordpress shovel   Boston globe bullhorn  22:30, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Explosive Sniper Rifle Damage

This is my first post here or on any wiki for that matter, so if I've done something wrong I apologise in advance.

I have been testing out explosive sniper rifle damage on the crystals in the Lost Cave and I have noticed that with a x3 explosive sniper that there are 3 different damages not 2 like I expected. On the wiki page it says that the "weapon proc multiplier" (WPM) for x1 and x2 are both 1, and that x3 is 1.5. When my Sniper procs at x3 it does indeed do exactly 2.25 times (1.5 * 1.5) additional damage. When it procs x2 it does indeed do 1.5 times (1.5 * 1) additional damage. But when it procs x1 it does approx. 0.27 times additional damage. The "WPM" for x1 explosive snipers is more like 0.18. It is definately not 1

I done my testing by shooting the crystals with a non-elemental sniper that has a base damage of 517. The damage caused was 563. So by dividing 517/563 = 0.918. I call this the "damage modifier". I tested this with several weapons and always came back with the same "damage modifier". (I presume the "damage modifier" may be different for different level characters.)

From there I was able to calculate the damage caused by each proc of the explosive sniper in relation to it's own base damage and campare it with the formula given on the wiki page. Pocs x3 and x2 were exactly as they wiki formula said they would be but proc x1 showed an increase in damage of 0.27 not 1.5 as the wiki states. It turns out to have a "WPM" of approx 0.18
As this is my first time writing on a wiki, I would prefer if someone else could test this also and edit the wiki page. I would glady help out with a retest and explain my findings further if needs be. 00:56, September 13, 2012 (UTC) Phoenix

noted. ty 4 your time and efforts. daemmer and or happy will likely get on this asap.   Dr. F    Chemicalweapon   Wordpress shovel   Boston globe bullhorn  01:57, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I signed up to wikia to make comunitating easier. I am happy to help in any further testing if needed
- Phoenix - (talk) 04:07, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

testing needed? unlikely. conducted and checked and retested out to 4 significant figures? count on it. 1/4 of the users live for this type of thing. (edit - this section may be moved to the forums for more room. you will be notified if this happens.)   Dr. F    Chemicalweapon   Wordpress shovel   Boston globe bullhorn  05:46, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Bonus Elemental Damage

"The smaller splash range deals 50% of the weapon card damage, and the larger splash range deals 25% of the weapon card damage. These stack, however, so anything within the smaller range is also hit by the larger range, resulting in a total of 75% weapon card damage on close hits."

So I should expect my launcher to do less damage than the card states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katamariguy (talkcontribs)

No, launchers do the card damage plus extra damage from splash. You should expect the splash damage to do less damage than the card states. The direct impact damage is not what the paragraph is talking about. Final signature 20:25, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

"Deals Bonus Explosive Damage" Question (BL2)

"Deals Bonus Explosive Damage" Question (BL2):

I've seen other weapon types with "deals bonus expl damage" that are not listed.  Those rocket assault rifles, regular explosive rifles (and shotguns?), etc, can have it.  Any idea what the bonus is for these?  The wiki lists only sniper rifles, plasma casters, pistols, and rocket launchers.

Theqmann (talk) 01:13, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

affect of exceeding 100% effect chance

Is there any affect of exceeding 100% elemental effect chance in BL2? Between class skills, relics, class mods, etc, it's not that tough to hit 100% effect chance. I'm wondering if anybody's done any testing on this.

Dstarfire (talk) 05:24, April 24, 2015 (UTC)