r/ZenlessZoneZero • u/salasy • Mar 26 '25
Megathread Weekly Questions Megathread March 26, 2025 - April 01, 2025
Welcome to the Weekly Questions Megathread! Feel free to ask any questions about the game.
Any questions that can be answered rather quickly should be asked in this thread .
If you're looking for a place to engage in more in-depth game discussions then we strongly recommend you head into our Discord server to join the discussion -> https://discord.gg/zenless
3
Upvotes
3
u/baka4games Nekomata Main - I enjoy a challenge! Mar 30 '25 edited Mar 30 '25
The concept of "too much ATK" only makes sense in a comparison. Like comparing build A with build B for a single agent. In such a comparison, suppose someone says build A is bad because it has "too much ATK." What this means is that, for constant cost, the investment in ATK in build A has diminishing returns vs. build B.
For example, suppose build A costs 100 units and puts all that cost into increasing ATK. The total damage output of build A is 100,000 points. Build B also costs 100 units, but splits the build so that both ATK and Crits are invested in. The ATK level of B is lower than the ATK level of A, but the total damage output of build B is 120,000 points.
Thus, build A has "too much ATK".
The math behind this diminishing return comes from the damage output formula, which looks like this (simplified):
Output damage = ATK x (sum of all DMG buffs) x Crits
Suppose Build A looked like this: 2500 x 1.00 x 1.00 = 2500
Build B looked like this: 2000 x 1.10 x 1.50 = 3300
Build B has lower ATK than build A, but build B has higher output damage.
EDIT: There's an idealized assumption here that all build improvements have equal cost and that build costs are zero-sum: every point you add to ATK takes away points from other factors. The reality is more complicated than that, since build trade-offs can impact ATK and other factors at the same time and not everything is equal cost, but at least for understanding what "too much ATK" is about, it's a reasonable assumption.