Electrical Burn chances%

Are they fixed, or are they affected by things like more pep or the SoT COM’s burn chance increase ?

…testing now. Seems like it by way of the card text, but let’s see if I can figure it out without an unreasonable sample size.

edit - got a good baseline started I think. I’m using Shock and AAAGH! to proc electrocute DoT (which, conveniently, triggers a single instance of electrocution every single time for six ticks). BAR is off, and I have points in unrelated skills to get to Electrical Burn, where I have one point applied. This is 50 shots for 300 tics, with which I counted the number of times Electrical Burn fired (including once where it fired twice in one set of six). This looks like it’s attempting to hit 4% as expected. I’ll add a bunch of More Pep to see if we get a different rate.

2nd edit - I wanted more sample data because More Pep may be acting in one of three ways, so I went to around 1K:

  1. As an addition to Electrical Burn (which would be 24%: a very noticeable 20% increase)
  2. As a percentage increase (which would be 4.8%: a negligible 0.8% increase)
  3. It won’t affect the proc chance at all, which would keep the rate at 4%

It’s floating at around 0.44%. I don’t think More Pep is adding a full 20% chance to Electrical Burn, but it’s hard to tell if it is adding 0.08%. Need more samples…

3rd edit - 1500 electrocute tics threw 67 Electrical Burn effects for a rate of about 4.4%. I don’t think that’s coming from More Pep; I think that’s still the baseline from the one point in Electrical Burn. Still, consider this: 5 points in Electrical Burn is a 20% chance for an electrocute damage tick, or one out of five times. Each instance of electrocution will fire six ticks, so you should trigger Electrical Burn on average once for every instance of electrocution DoT.



I was expecting an answer that looked like “I think it does” or something similar. :stuck_out_tongue:
This is mighty fine work Adabiviak!

at 4.4% it’s very hard to tell the difference from the RNG noise.
We would need a very big sample size.

Testing with more points in EB should make any difference more clear since 20% more of a bigger number will be more noticeable… but the higher you go, the more you run into chances of getting a 100% ignition and having no results at all.

I recently had an argument with someone on Youtube about Gaige’s middle tree. This person averred he had tested things just as carefully as the people on the old and new forums I had mentioned.

He’d specced into LBT a number of times, it wasn’t working, and he had concluded as an objective result that LBT wasn’t worth it.

Not sure why I’m mentioning this…

Great work @Adabiviak.

Is it possible to have 2 EB proc on the same shock DoT ? Did you get any @Adabiviak ?

A test with 10/5 EB could tell us. :slight_smile:

Also, side question: what is the fastest reloading Non-Tediore gun?
So far my answer is Dahl pistols with Dahl or Tediore grip (1.4)

Honestly, without EB, I’m not sure it would be worth it at all. The gamechanger (SaA) is much less interesting without it, EE is half as useful, the capstone can be copied by the BFF capstone if you equip a Roid shields and a lot of skills are just very average at best. WDT and IO are worth it ( and even then, IO was questionable before the update)

Overall, Gaige is probably the character with the biggest number of useless or weak skills… Over half of them are just plain bad, and only a select few are amazing enough to define the playstyle. Gaige would be the character that would be the least affected by returning to level 61 cap…

I was thinking of that: with full points in each skill and a Catalyst COM that buffs both Electrical Burn (to 40%) and More Pep (to 20% chance to ignite), the difference should be magnified to a full 8% (since it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near 60% for the other calculation option).

Still, I’m seeing some low initial numbers, and could use some peer review. First, I don’t think the burn damage is the same as the initial shock damage; it’s some fraction thereof (the individual burn damage ticks are less than the shock, but there are more, so the total DoT is a bit higher). I’m checking this in case subsequent Electrical Burn instances simply double the damage shown (which is not what I see… I think the ticks have to fire at exactly the same time for that).

What I think I’m seeing is that if Electrical Burn re-triggers while burn DoT is still active from the original source, the first set of burn DoT will be canceled, and a second set will simply start anew (instead of getting dual instances of burn damage or double damage values).

For example, If I trigger Electrical Burn with Shock and AGGH!, and in the middle of that burn DoT, Electrical Burn triggers again, I will not see 32 burn damage ticks (nor will I see the damage numbers combined); I’ll see like maybe 20 standard-damage ticks, depending on when the second instance of Electrical Burn triggered.

If I trigger burn damage with a weapon, then proc Shock and AGGH! which triggers Electrical Burn before the burn DoT from the weapon ends, I will see 32 damage tics (two full sets of burn DoT, one from each source).

I’m not sure if it is the source or the instance of the initial electrocution DoT that, as the trigger for Electrical Burn, that would cause it to cancel and start over as opposed to starting a second instance. I am having an unusually difficult time configuring an experiment to check for it being instance-based. I need gear that would trigger two independent electrocution instances at almost, but not exactly, the same time, both of which would need to then trigger Electrical Burn, so I could see if the second instance of Electrical Burn canceled the DoT from the first. Electrocution DoT only fires a few damage ticks, and at this point there’s enough DoT numbers that some are hidden behind others, and it’s tricky to identify the source of the electrocution damage (first instance? second instance? original shock damage?) I’m literally reviewing video frame by frame, but am open to suggestions here. For example, consider the Electrical Burn icon on your status bar. It lights up when Electrical Burn is triggered. Does it stay lit for a fixed amount of time? If so, if a second instance of Electrical Burn fired while the icon was up from a previous one, I would have to audit the number of electrocute DoT ticks at the end to confirm (which gets awkward if it fires a third time). It’s possible, but that’s a pretty rough stretch of research.

For the record, I get one extra ‘fractional’ damage tick for any given type of elemental DoT… not sure why the wiki doesn’t count these? Electrocution throws 7 ticks, burn throws 16, and corrosion throws 25. This last fractional bit comes out with the last full-value DoT tick, but as it can trigger a (rather weak) Electrical Burn instance (from electrocution damage) on its own, I’m counting it as a separate tick. Anyone else see these?

tl;dr - I don’t think Electrical Burn can stack when triggered from the same source.

Also, as I’ve been writing this for some time and I see some replies have come in since then:

[quote=“Chuck80, post:5, topic:1051134”]
Is it possible to have 2 EB proc on the same shock DoT ? Did you get any @Adabiviak ?[/quote]Yes, but as I mentioned above, the second seems to reset the first.

A fast reloading weapon like an all-Tediore pistol should allow you to create 2 SaA in quick succession.

I think its safe to discard the first calculation as a possibility: non of the skills that increase elemental chances work this way.

Another thing that could help is the audio cue we get when a burn effect procs. Maybe it can be listened to to see if multiple burn effects are created from a single SaA. (And help confirm that more pep does affect EB at the same time)

I’ll lend a hand testing tonight when I get home.

So I tried to proc multiple burn DoTs from the same source and was unable to do so.
I did a constant one shot reload repeat until I was out of ammo and not once has the number for burn damage appeared more frequently or increased significantly. So it’s a source thing, not instance.

No matter, it just means that I won’t need a gun that’s THAT fast on the reload.

We can agree on some of those points and save a couple of others for when I’ve slept during the last 72 hours (´ω`)

My post was more of a somehwat whimsical reaction to @Adabiviak’s graphs and the differing definitions of ‘careful testing’ we sometimes come across (^_~)

1 Like

Ah! got it :smile:

Far in the past, when the lv cap was 50, I tested EB with multiple sources (I.e. a Tesla-grenade+shock-sniper, if I remember it right). And I remember something like the EB just once per enemy at any time. EB-stacking wasn’t possible at all!
Could anyone confirm this or is it just bad rememberance?

1 Like

Interesting, that would cut down on my testing time and make making builds more straightforward.

For testing, I would use a Tesla with around 1.0 secs fuse time, longbow or Standard delivery plus any maliwan sniper at the dummy.
You could go into tvhm/nvhm to lower the ammo cost if you like, cause a big enough sample size would cost you several millions of grenade/sniper ammo otherwise.

Or use Shock and Aaaargh

So, at some point I may have kinda sorta accidentally tested this ability extensively without ever having like… written anything down, but from that I did glean some pretty interesting points of fact.

The skill should be thought of more like its own status effect, that happens to do fire damage equal to the tick of electrocute damage that triggered it.

It cannot be applied more than once at a time, per enemy, regardless of the number of electrical sources involved. It can only ever have its Timer and Damage reset, never applied a second time.

It counts as its own separate damage application, meaning all modifiers that would effect inflicted damage, also effect it, such as slag and EE

EE will apply to the base Electrocute damage, and then to the EB damage a second, multiplicative time. As will slag.

Because the ability cant be active more then once at a time, per enemy, having 5/5 is probably not needed. I run only 1/5 with DPS builds and use legendary cat to boost when I feel like it. That said, 3/5 is the sweet spot, with other boosts, it will usually proc once per electrocute.

What I am getting at here, is that the chances were never “broken” per se to need to be “fixed”, Its a misunderstanding of what the skill does, and an underestimation of how powerful it is, when abused properly.

Eg. Chainlightning, Grognozzle, 1/5EB, 5/5EE, Best possible Legendary Cat mod. And this is the build I use


works like this:

Kill enemy to trigger EE and EB
Slag another enemy
Hit that enemy with Chain lightning

Electrocute damage is tripled from slag, then gets +60% from 10/5EE +ComBonus

EB procs, Starts with Tick damage equal to previous electrocute
Gets tripled AGAIN from slag, gets +60% AGAIN from EE, Does NOT get ComBonus twice (don’t know why)

Electrical burn is probably one of the single most damaging DoT skills in the game, When triggered.

Hopefully this Update didn’t change this. That would make me sad.

(edited for clarity)

I can confirm that it didn’t change.

I also run at lower than 5/5, I get 7/5 with a catalyst COM, it’s enough to be reliable.

I was wondering if more pep affected it.

Good, that was one of the more fun ways to tubby far spider ants, nothing says lol like a 10m Dot.

I use 6/5, and it works consistently.

More pep is a complicated thing, because of how low the bonuses it actually applies are, its hard to say for certain, but ever test I ran seemed to confirm a slight nudge, but often low enough to be suspect.

i’m 51% sure more pep works on EB, and 99% sure it does for IO, as my Cat build almost relies on that synergy for slag.

1 Like

It works on IO, you can up that to 100% :smile:

1 Like

About that. Are each instances of EB separate ?

Let’s say I proc it on 2 different enemies at the same time, and reapply it on only one of them, what happens to the first one ?
It’s once PER ENEMY right ?
Does a second application of EB with a lower damage value reset the timer only (and keeps the old higher value) or does it overwrite it ?

1 Like