Talk:Mace

I don't get the "12×(7+height)/14" formula. It simplifies down to "10.5 + 1.5×height" which is the intuitive form given that the critical damage is 10.5 and it deals 1.5 more per block as the sentence says. Why write it the former overcomplicated way?  Nixinova   T   C   00:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree... gonna ping @Prplrose, person who put in the formula. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering the user has only one contribution, they are unlikely to respond to a ping. I'll edit the page to include only the intuitive formula, and we can revert the change if there is a good reason to include the old formula. Tis (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's really better, thx. Also I got the formula wrong from the source code, so it was wrong anyway. Now it should be ok. --Prplrose (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Maces can be enchanted with Curse of Vanishing and Mending in Minecraft Bedrock previews. https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MCPE-179679 Nemuri (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The embedded calculator widget is currently still using the old damage formula. Where should I go to update it? Enderhippo (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The code for the calculator is located at https://github.com/mc-wiki/mcw-calc. We are already in the process of updating it to the new formula of --👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

with no levels of density and an unarmored target it take 20 blocks to do the required damage (in java)

15 with density 1

12 with density 2

10 with density 3

9 with density 4

8 with density 5 76.141.102.14 20:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

These numbers are correct in Java Edition (when you get a critical hit, which is normal when falling from so high).

However, in the latest Bedrock Edition Preview, you need to fall much farther.

Height (in blocks) the player needs to fall to get Over-Overkill

Density level	Height	Rounded
0	47.667	48
1	31.778	32
2	23.833	24
3	19.067	20
4	15.889	16
5	13.619	14

• The height values above are based on the damage done by a critical smash attack with the mace in Bedrock Edition Preview 1.21.0.24.
• "Rounded" is just the values in height rounded up to the next whole block.

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 02:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, references 2 and 4 are exactly the same, can someone fix this? Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks fixed to me! Idk when it was fixed but whoever did that, thanks! Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The sprite of the mace has the old(outdated) description.

The description on the icon is reading:

"Attack speed: 1.6"

instead of

"attack speed: 0.5"

Can someone change this plz?

BZ715

BZ715 (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And the base damage was reduced to 5 BZ715 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that SeaOfPixels made some very helpful edits to Mace, but I now have some questions about things that need verified and about how the information should be ogranized.

• First, why have the exception for elytra be in Mace § Activation, but have the exception for Slow Falling be in Mace § Falling? This seems inconsistent.
• Second, a player with Slow Falling cannot perform a smash attack. This means the mace does the normal amount of damage and there is no smash burst, right?
• Third, a mace used by a player using an elytra will not get extra damage. This means the mace will still perform a smash attack, but the attack will only deal the base damage, right?
• SeaOfPixels removed the information about Wind Burst not causing a smash burst and not affecting entities other than the player using the mace. Is the information true? If so, then is it simply more appropriate on the Wind Burst page and thus not appropriate on this page?

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 18:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a somewhat different concern — I didn’t see any mention of mace changes in the 24w18a snapshot release notes. Does that mean the rebalance has only affected Bedrock?

Also, right now we effectively have two versions of the mace, one available in 1.20.80/1.20.6 through experimental gameplay, and another in the 1.21(.0) development builds. How we’re going to fit both into one article? — BabylonAS 09:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BabylonAS that it's important to separate information about what is available in release (BE 1.20.80/JE 1.20.6) and what is in the 1.21 development version. Maybe creating subsections would be the easiest solution –MetalManeMc, 👁 Image
French👁 Image
Wiki admin (Talk to me!👁 Image
) 09:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed SeaOfPixels reverted Revision 2556885 and I am wondering if my revision was really that bad.

Consider the example:

I don't understand how {30, 10, and 10} are just 1 amount, and not multiple amounts (plural). --Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I also don't understand how the recipient of the damage is not at full health while receiving the damage. I understand that the recipient's state changes from having full health to not having full health, but I thought it was a standard to pair the word "from" with the word "to" when describing a state as a modifier.

• "wearing full Protection IV netherite armor from full health" is a pair of modifiers, attached to the object "a player":
  • "wearing full Protection IV netherite armor"
  • "from full health"

Modifiers usually use "at" instead of "from" when possible. It is common to say from full health "I bought milk at the store" "I bought milk from the store". --Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• In this context, using "at" instead of "from" makes the sentence less clear, since "at" makes the sentence sound like it's when the user of the mace is at full health rather than the target. "From" is also correct in this context in terms of English grammar. SeaOfPixels (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @SeaOfPixels: I hope you are not reacting to your emotions here.

  Why would "wearing full Protection IV netherite armor" and "from full health" have different nouns they are modifying? That makes no sense. The subject isn't even in this sentence, so it would be hard to apply a modifier to them.

  You are implying that "The amount of fallen blocks needed to defeat a player wearing full Protection IV netherite at full health are the following:" means "The amount of blocks that a player needs to fall, when the player is at full health, in order to defeat a player wearing full Protection IV netherite armor, are the following:".

  Or are you saying that "The amount of fallen blocks needed to defeat a player wearing full Protection IV netherite at full health are the following:" means "The amount of blocks that a player needs to fall, when the player is wearing full Protection IV and is at full health, in order to defeat another player are the following:" (which makes more sense).

  Either way, attaching modifiers to an un-references subject after the object has been listed does not grammatically make sense to me. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Simanelix requested that this be discussed here on the talk page. The values put in the damage comparisons section are correct, it's the calculator that is incorrect. This is because the calculator does not account for the fact that you have to fall 1.5 blocks before damage starts increasing. The numbers listed in damage comparisons are correct and were made from physical testing, the calculator needs to be updated to account for the first 1.5 blocks fallen not increasing damage. SeaOfPixels (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I had completely missed that in my calculations. I will make sure to add that to my formulas and update / check any height values accordingly. Actually, I guess you would just add 1.5 blocks, which explains the previous values. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Multiple of the values in this section are incorrect. For example: let's consider a Breach IV mace. Because this enchantment does not affect damage reduction from the protection enchantment, a "maxed-out" player will have a minimum DR of 64%. With some quick calculation (20/0.36) we find that the lowest lethal damage to this target is ~56, assuming the combination of Breach and Armor Toughness fully negate the target's base armor. This damage is reached after falling ~17 blocks, certainly more than 10 (10 is currently listed). If those numbers truly did come from experimentation then I suggest the experimenter revises their methodology. 142.134.59.84 14:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, only the values related to Breach-enchanted maces are incorrect. The other values have simply added 2 blocks to account for the possibility of hitting the ground too quickly. 142.134.59.84 15:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Fixed, copied the correct tables from Breach. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)