this goes to the heart of *why* Square had Minimum M in the first place. it's fairly obvious they were trying to avoid low M causing 0 damage. instead, there is a floor that's usually well above that (depending on Attack and Defense values). the question is: how averse would Square have been to values that aren't zero, but are ridiculously close to it? if having nonzero damage were their only goal, they could simply have given the damage value itself a floor of 1 -- but they chose to modify M instead.
Some games use 1 as a damage floor (SD3, AoE2), but FF5 uses 0. If FF5 used 1, it would not be possible to nullify damage by having high defense (Bone Mail, Cursed Ring, etc.). I don't think giving the final damage a floor of 1 was ever a possibility.
good points.. but they don't change the fact that in cases where Attack is notably above Defense, Minimum M serves to elevate damage well above 1. (e.g. 30 Attack - 0 Defense gets a damage of at least 30.) and the patch changes you propose would eliminate much of that elevation.
let me amend my statement from the last post (italics for added part):
If having nonzero damage were their only goal, they could simply have given the damage value itself a floor of 1 whenever Attack exceeds Defense -- but they chose to modify M instead.
As for why the minimum M value is 1, is it not simply because 1 is the lowest number an integer can be? Giving it a floor of 0 would be silly; you would be able to nullify damage (high atk, low M) by simply using Defend or being in the back row.
if the math causes the damage in these cases to round down to zero, what's so silly about it being kept as zero? you seem to be arguing that it's not silly to bring Minimum M down from 1 to 1/8, but suddenly it's an issue when it goes from 1/8 to 0? why?! arithmetically, 1/8 is closer to 0 than it is to 1.
and that was the main point of my last post: if Square's Minimum M established a damage floor well above zero (for cases of reduced M, not the high Defense >= Attack example), how sane is it to assume that throwing out a majority of this floor is in keeping with Square's intentions?
It seems logical to me that both back row and Defend modifiers should come into effect when facing Goblins and Nut Eaters just like with high level monsters. When you are defending in the back row you should expect that the regular 10 damage will be reduced to 10/2/2=2.
but it didn't necessarily seem logical to Square. which is why they do the following:
1) M = some term (e.g. (Level * Strength)/128) + constant. That last term is evidence that they wanted nonzero M, even for wimpy attackers.
2) Various M or Attack modifiers, including division of M by 2.
3) If M is 0, set it to 1. Evidence that they were serious about that nonzero M.
4) Damage = (Attack - Defense) * M
This is not possible when M is an integer, but with the fractional M system I see no reason why this shouldn't be made possible (correct me if I am wrong).
it's possible, but like i said in the last message, it's a bit of a reinterpretation.
what you haven't really answered from my last post is: Do you think Square set Minimum M to 1 because they wanted to ensure damage of at least (Attack - Defense), or do you think they did it because they wanted to ensure Damage was merely >= 1? if your answer is the latter, then tell me:
1) what's so significant about the change from 0 to 1 that it's worth the effort?
2) why M was used to try and achieve the goal. Square could have floored the damage value at 1 whenever Attack exceeds Defense, but instead opted to put a lower bound on M instead, knowing that would result in considerably higher damage.
as your position stands now, you're asserting that most of Square's Minimum M is expendable, yet expending all of it is "silly". what makes you so confident in both stances?
my position is that a plummet from 1 to 1/8 is at least as silly as that from 1/8 to 0.
We have EVEN MORE themes now, but some old ones are gone...