It looks like we might have a misunderstanding here.
yes, there was some. i thought you were fixated on avoiding 0 damage, but fine with everything else down to that, and that you considered Square to have the same motives.
your 09:38:34 AM post clears things up a bit.
lemme run down what i think your positions are; correct me anywhere.
1) as a supporter of the Fractional M patch, you don't favor the round-downs to M that were causing "steps" in the original game's damage ascent.
2) you're not against pathetically low M values (like a hypothetical of 0.08) possibly causing 0 damage.
3) but you don't believe that
all M values from 0.01 to 0.99 should result in 0 damage.
4) nor do you favor all of them having a marginally nonzero damage value like 1, because that's nearly as bad.
5) you believe that Square established a Minimum M of 1 not because they always wanted damage to be >= (Attack - Defense), but because they were trying to perform a preemptive round-up to avoid the
widespread round-downs to zero damage described in #3.
6) you believe that a patch which eliminates said round-downs is no longer in need of preemptive round-ups. and that these round-ups were essentially the other side of the same dirty coin as the step-inducing round-downs.
