Inflammable prefix

Inflammable means the same thing as flammable. I knew this, but it never actually occurred to me that an “Inflammable” shield is… perhaps not the right word to use for shields that are fireproof.

Just felt like putting that out there. Surely* somebody else has noticed this and mentioned it before?

  • and don’t call me Shirley

You’re kidding, Shirley. :dukejk:

I doubt it’ll be changed. Maybe in BL 3(4)?

1 Like

I don’t expect it to change either. It just amazed me that I completely missed this point and somebody had to say, “Hey, that’s wrong.” Really though, it’s the language’s fault. Inflammable == flammable. Come on.


Because “Retardant The Bee” doesn’t quite role off the tongue as well. Along with the potential for misinterpretation from the player base, or bad publicity in general. :wink:


Wow never really thought about that lol

Nothing wrong with Fireproof though! We already have a Blastproof.


Pls check my file out and see what I have to say about BL3.

Uninflammable is probably the right term, but I don’t think anyone actually uses that, and it might have caused more confusion than it saved. Seriously though, I never knew they meant the same thing; my mind is seriously blown right now. :thinking:

1 Like

I noticed that the first time I got an inflammable love thumper: english is not my mother tongue so at first I thought that maybe it had many meanings other than the obvious one but that isn’t the case; since I had nothing better to do while looking for one with a decent roid damage, I wondered that maybe the developers wanted to imply that it can be set on fire but it won’t burn, since one still receive the fire damage but not the burn (DoT) damage.

Haha it’s funny you say that. I think the obvious definition of inflammable would be “can not be lit on fire” which is consistent with the game’s definition of it :stuck_out_tongue:

“Nonflammable” is the most commonly used word. :slight_smile:

Came across this interesting bit about how “inflammable” and “flammable” came about:

Sheesh- why not just call the thing ‘Asbestos’ FotF then?

Yeah I noticed that inflammable meant flammable. Learned that a couple of weeks ago. Salvadorable said that it should be Nonflammable. I agree with this. The prefix should change in BL3. But I was also thinking that Gearbox could put a unique shield that has “inflammable” prefix shield and it would be a troll shield. :smile: You would be set of fire easily. Or it could be used for something. But I’m not sure. It would be like the unique items from Scarlett’s DLC.

Let’s see if I’ve understood this correctly. In order to make an inflammable shield uninflammable, you have to put in “un” before “in”. Unless you have a flammable shield… then you have to put in “in” after “un”, or simply put “in” after “un”. Gotcha! Uninflammable …in …un …shield. :confused:

Why is everyone rejecting my idea of fireproof D:

'Cause asbestos sounds better. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like


1 Like

While we’re talking about GBX prefixes’ policy, I think some of maliwan snipers’ are also not appropriate: why is the damage accessory’s prefix barking and the mag size’s monstrous? Monstrous makes me think about damage a lot more than barking; more on that, in my country there’s the saying “a barking dog doesn’t bite” (literal translation, maybe it’s the same in english, maybe not; let me know, please) so to me barking for the damage prefix feels really wrong.

“Monstrous” makes me think of something really big, so I think it fits. It’s very commonly used as a reference to size. You do have a point about “Barking”, though. Maybe “Biting” would’ve been a better choice, but for some reason I think “Biting” would work even better for the critical hit damage accessory (even though I really like “Gentleman’s” for crit damage).

Don’t forget Maliwan’s a bunch of war-hippies.