From Stardew Valley Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing Fishing.
  • Sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • Put new text below old text.
  • Be polite.
  • Assume good faith.
  • Don't delete discussions.

Angler fish and Angler Skill Profession

The Angler fish overlaps with the level 10 Angler profession, meaning the Name template uses the wrong picture for the skill. How should this be handled? Naggoth (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2016 (EST)

That's a good catch. I've added the parameter 'image' to the template, so updating to {{name|Angler|image=AlternativeImageName.png}} should correct it.--Katzeus (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2016 (EST)

Fisher and Angler skills

I did some testing on these skills on how the percentages stack up and it stacks multiplicatively rather than additively meaning that 25% and 50% isn't 75% but 87.5%. is this information useful to add? Horus-ra (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2016 (EST)

In game version 1.1 the value multipliers are 1.25 for fisher and 1.5 for angler, they do not stack. Ashpool (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2016 (BST)

Perfect Catches

Does making a perfect catch affect anything? Like maybe increased experience for the catch, or something? Is there a reason to try to make a perfect catch? TheRaven81 (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2016 (EDT)

I know that the fish type is set before you catch it, because that influences the behavior in the minigame, but it's entirely possible that there's a slight bonus to size (and thus quality). Where it really comes into play is in the fall fair fishing game if you're going for that 2000 Star Tokens for the Star...drop? Fancy energy upgrading thing. In that game, consistently getting perfect can give you upwards of triple your original score, so you'll hit that 2000 mark MUCH faster.Rashkavar (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2016 (EDT)
  • Fish type is determined at the beginning of the catch, so it doesn't influence that.
  • Fish quality is determined by where you cast your rod, but I don't know if it's ONLY based on that, it's possible its also based on Perfects, I can't disprove or prove either way.
  • Fish size I have no frame of reference on how is calculated, there is a chance fish size is influenced by perfects.
Hypothetical: Perfect might also only be the only indicator of a spectrum of lets call it "skill". It might be that only 100% skill shows something on your screen, but fishing at spot A with 75% or greater "skill" gets you a gold quality fish. Doing lower would give you silver in this scenario. Whereas spot B always gives you gold regardless of "skill". My reason for speculating this is that there are some spots where you get all gold fish but with one or two silver outliers. But that might also be caused by experimenter error as fishing cast actually is a spectrum and can have error.
So those are some possibilities on what "Perfect" might do, but I have no data to back up any of it. -- Kapra (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2016 (EDT)
Perfect catches increase fishing experience (specifically, existing experience points * 1.4) -- but not during the minigame. Margotbean (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is the perfect catch multiplier listed as 2.4? Unless there's something I'm missing, this should be 1.4. The treasure bonus should also be 1.2. KThomas14 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2017 (BST)
You're missing the same thing I missed when I commented above. Specifically,
num += num * 1.2 and num += num * 1.4.
If you read it as num = num * 1.4 then you get what I wrote last December, which is wrong. —margotbean (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2017 (BST)

Iridium Rod Bait and Tackle issue

When I try to equip bait and tackle on my new Iridium Rod, for some reason it switches between them, regardless of which one I put on the rod first. I know bait isn't a huge bonus, but if I find some in a treasure chest while fishing, I might as well use it. I do know how to equip things normally - right clicking on it. I can attach the tackle, or the bait, but when I try to attach the other one, it swaps places rather than using the second equip spot. Is this a glitch, or am I just failing to play the game properly?Rashkavar (talk)

I'm afraid I'm not much help but I didn't experience this. What I do is pick up the bait (or tackle, either first), right click the rod (don't right click again), pick up the other one, right click the rod, and it works. If this doesn't work for you, make sure your game is up to date. If it is, I'm sorry I have no advice. =/ -- Kapra (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2016 (EDT)
You might be trying to equip the "Magnet". That is not in fact tackle, but a separate type of bait. You cannot equip 2 types of bait at once.

Foods that increase fishing level

At the time of writing this, I am currently working on finding all the foods that influence the fishing skill and will add them here. After I implement them, please can someone put the images in. (I don't know how) Thanks. Witch (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2016 (GMT)

You can see all the known (known on the wiki) food that increase fishing, not including uncooked (if any uncooked do), on the Cooking page. Ctrl-F Fishing. To post images do [[File:item name.png]] or {{Name|item name}}, the second one will do a picture and text/link, not just a picture. -- Kapra (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2016 (EDT)

We may need to add a chart about the items from the treasure chests.

--Bomingwang (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2016 (EDT)

Fishing game fish diffrent


i've noticed here while it was raining in the summer at the east dock i got a fish with a diff icon. was wondering if that was an indicator. of a legendary fish or something.Chrissyofhailfire (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

The different icon does indeed mean you were reeling in a Legendary fish. The Crimsonfish I believe. Maybe a picture/note should be added showing the difference? --DigDug (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

Crab Pot Footnote

There is a footnote that states "Footnote: *The first level of fishing cannot be completed with crab pots, because the player does not have access to bait until level 2."

This can be circumvented through the creation of Wild Bait. CrazyPieGuy (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2018 (BST)

Ah yes, I read the reddit post about that. "How to level up in Fishing without fishing" or something similar. I'll add it to the page. Thanks! margotbean (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2018 (BST)

Points to level 10

XP points to reach level 10 (15k) seems outdated... or Ui Info Suite v.1.7.17 (12 Aug 2018) is not showing all the number algarisms (print). I'll keep an eye to see if I can reach level 10 with only 5k points. Sapador (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2018 (BST)

The code for leveling up is in Farmer::checkForLevelGain. The numbers on the page are current. I suggest contacting the mod maker. margotbean (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2018 (BST)
This is not a bug in Ui Info Suite. The mod is only showing you the experience you need to get to reach the next level. It's not showing the total amount of experience you've gained up to that point. You DO only need 5000 experience to go from level 9 to level 10. It is correct. (Not signed comment by User:Cdaragorn, on 14:55, 19 August 2018‎)
Oh, I see... The table on the wiki is showing the total amount of XP from all levels, while the UI mod shows the XP points of each level separately. 10k to reach level 9, and 15k to reach level 10, which makes 5k from 9 to 10... Nooooow, it's clear! :) Sory for misunderstanding it. -- Sapador (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2018 (BST)
I was fooled as well, I'm going to add "Total" to the column headers just so it's crystal clear. Thanks! margotbean (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2018 (BST)

Master Angler achievement

I am trying to get all the achievements and i noticed that you don't need to catch every fish for the master angler achievement. 10/9/2018 19.00


Trash definitely still give 3XP each. I thought the wiki change to zero XP was a bit dodgy so I did a quick test on a blank farm, cheated myself a rod and fished the farm pond to reach level 1 with trash catches (plus the inevitable sunfish first catch). All six possible trash items each give 3 XP, I checked carefully, and UI Info Suite and Lookup Anything both agree on 3XP, and I levelled up at the right time too. I also did a second check, warping around the map to catch the algae and seaweed, and again, very definitely 3XP each One More Day (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing the work! I changed the page because I searched the entire decompiled code for "gainExperience(1" and found only 2 places where it's used, for crab pots & fishing poles. The fishing pole function doesn't include anything about trash, only what's in Fish.xnb.
So, the source of the 3XP in the code will remain a mystery for now, but I can't argue with in-game testing. Thanks for keeping the wiki accurate and for commenting here, I appreciate it greatly! margotbean (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Angled fishing in mobile

New and recently downloaded Stardew Valley on my phone. I was looking for some tips and found one that said that you can angle where you cast during fishing. Apparently it’s only for pc? Is it possible to do that on mobile?? N00b13 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no way to angle the cast on mobile. margotbean (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that’s a shame. Thanks for answering though. N00b13 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem. If you find other details about the mobile version that the wiki is missing, please come back and add them! margotbean (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Treasure Chest Mechanics

Below is interpreted code of the Tools/FishingRod.cs::openTreasureMenuEndFunction. This should help explain the percentages listed on the Fishing page's Treasure section.

 var num1 = 1f;
 while(rndD() < num1)
 	num1 *= 0.4f; // can roll for goodies multiple times
 		case 0: // ore wood coal or stone
 			if(distance>=5 && rnd()<.3) iridium(1,3)
 			else if(distance>=4 && rnd()<.1) gold (2,7)
 			else if(distance>=3 && rnd()<.6) iron (2,7)
 			else // copper, wood, stone, coal
 		case 1: // spinner and bait
 			if(distance >= 4 && rnd() < .1 && lvl >= 6) dressed_spinner
 			if(lvl >= 6) bait(1)
 			else bait(10) // bug?
 		case 2: // artifacts and lost books 25%
 			if(lostBooksFound < 21 && rnd() < .1) lost_book
 			if(archFound > 0)
 				if(lvl > 1 && rnd() < .25) [skeletal_tail|nautilus_fossil|amphibian_fossil] // 6.25% (2.083% individually)
 				if(lvl > 1 && rnd() < .50) [ancient_doll...bone_flute] //9.375% (0.55% individually)
 				else geode //9.375%
 		case 3: // geodes, gems, weapons/rings
 				case 0: // geodes
 					// geodes by distance and more randomization
 					// 5% + luck x 3% stack double
 				case 1: // gems
 					if(lvl<2) coal(1,4)
 						if(distance>=4) rnd() < .3 ? fire_quartz : [ruby|emerald]
 						else if(distance>=3) rnd() < .3 ? frozen_tear : [jade:aquamarine]
 						else rnd() < .3 ? earth_crystal : [amythest:topaz]
 					//2.8% x distance = diamond chance
 					//5% double stack (no luck bonus! bug?)
 				case 2: // weapons and rings
 					if(lvl<2) mixed_seeds(1,4)
 					else getEquipment()

-- Geonigma (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2019

X-box Controls

Just a note that you don't actually have to hold down the X button after your cast; you can just cast and then tap X when you get a hit. Also the page could be clearer that you need to tap or hold/release the X button to catch (I never use the A button, I find it doesn't work very well for me). Not sure I'm authorized to make the edit but would be happy to do so with admin permission.

P.S. the journal exploit works on X-box as well; you move the mouse over to the journal icon using the right stick, press A to enter the journal, and then press B followed by X when you get a bite :) Kaori kins (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please add this info to the page - the controls and the exploit! margotbean (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
info has been added :) Kaori kins (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Nice work, thank you! margotbean (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wild Bait from Treasure Chests

It is now possible to get Wild Bait (the Linus type) from treasure chests. Three times did I get 5x wild bait when reeling in treasure chests in a single day. I don't know the chances or requirements (re: the table in the article), but it's definitely possible in 1.4. Pangaea (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Were you already using wild bait? I've found code that if you get double fish and a treasure chest, there is a 25% you will get some wild bait in the chest. BlaDe (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Didn't use Wild Bait the first time I got it, because I've never used it before (had normal bait). Can't recall if I used it the two other times, but I'm leaning towards yes, because I did try it out (never got double fish with any of them). It's also possible I ran out, put normal bait on, and then got more wild bait. I don't recall 100% the sequence of events there, but I definitely didn't use it the first time. Pangaea (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It's in the change notes "Wild Bait can now be obtained from fishing treasure chests if you know the crafting recipe."  :D margotbean (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Casting Distance

I have made my recent edit by restructuring existing information. However, I see problems in the information itself. I have removed the "increase" of casting distance at skill level 8, since clearly it goes from 5 to 5: pretty ephemeral. Unless, of course, that is not right, in which case the existing info was wrong before I touched it.

I also find this talk of casting "distance" and "depth" in terms of "tiles" to be a fiction. What depth is, if it is described accurately, is simply a game rating of the cast, dependent only on the meter, and only vaguely related to visual distance, in no case related to "tiles", or land distance. That's fine, but it does beg the question I already raised at Talk:Fishing Strategy#Depth. Butterbur (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that you deleted the part that describes how depth changes the chances to find specific fish. This is a fundamental fishing mechanic and should almost certainly be listed on the page that enumerates all the fishing mechanics. Can we add it back in? --Zamiel (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I cannot keep up with these edits! Zamiel -- Add the depth part back in, and then everyone stop editing until tomorrow, to give us all time to THINK about what we're adding/changing/deleting before we hit that Save button. As it is, the other 11 languages will have a difficult time with what's already been done. Let's get it right on the talk pages before we make any more changes. For now, I'm marking them as under construction. Thank you, margotbean (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I added the depth part back in to Fishing/Proposed. Recommend diverting discussion to Talk:Fishing Strategy#Depth. --Zamiel (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Then I would propose we talk about depth on this talk page, since your proposal is to have it in "Fishing", while mine was to move it to "Fishing Strategy" (and I'm not sure I remain there yet - it depends). Btw, I saw your comment about fish types. You were seeing only a temporary removal as I was working on a move that was interrupted. My article changes today have included that topic in "Fishing" again, but reworded. Butterbur (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Energy Mechanic

While I didn't change the given information (because I'm not certain), I suspect that it is slightly off. As written, it implies that the UI uses the CEILING function to make fractional energy numbers into whole numbers for display (the reduction at level 1 shows up on the 10th cast). I'm inclined to think that it actually uses a rounding function, so that the UI changes when the fractional part is less than one half (which would make it show up on the 6th cast). Of course, you may have fractional energy already when you start fishing, so it could show up any time in any case. I think I'm going to wordsmith again. Butterbur (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not the game uses a ceiling function for the UI, but I did test that at level 1, the 10th cast uses 7 energy instead of 8. I also tested that at level 10, the game consistently uses 7 energy. --Zamiel (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


I have a big problem with exposing "depth" in the article. It is an internal variable, its engineering meaning is different from standard English, and its engineering application is to influence internal calculations, but not to determine whole outcomes. What's more, the values that the variable can take are meaningless to the reader unless one reads the code and understands how it is used in calculation.

The whole point of the Wiki is to provide information in standard language without the need to delve in such a manner. The article name space is for general player information. Engineering documentation and internals are useful only to those interested in engineering, not all general players. The Wiki provides the Modding name space for information useful to those interested in that activity, and that is the place for any internals that should appear here. Butterbur (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear from the get-go that "depth" has nothing to do with modding. It is simply a term for how good a particular water tile is. Min-maxers, and the general Stardew Valley player-base more generally, have a highly vested interest in knowing which fishing tiles are good. But as I've said elsewhere, I am not opposed to renaming "depth" to something more of your liking. Do you have any suggestions for a better word to use than "depth"? We could rename it to "water tile value", but that is obviously pretty verbose, so it isn't much of an improvement. --Zamiel (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I don't do modding, so I don't know much about what they might need to know. That's fine. I think I understand what "depth" is, well enough. It's not just that I don't want to use the word, especially the engineering sense of it, it's that the whole idea of it should not be exposed, not through *any* word. The minute someone latches on to specific measured distances from land, they will think that the numbers will have some predictable way of ensuring their maximum acheivement in fishing. I think the whole point is that ConcernedApe has built the system in such a way that it will not be deterministic (at least as far as RNG takes that). All there is in a cast is *influence*. Farther is better: better fish types, better quality of fish. That's really all there is to say, and it can't be further quantized (usefully) because of the random element in the final determinations.
So I say, who cares about knowing "depth" measures. The min-maxers want guiding to the most/least of effects, and the most that can be said is "cast farther, and it's better" and "get your fishing skill to level 4 asap and you can cast as far as you ever will". I don't understand why you're concerned about the "depth" concept in explaining. "Cast as far away from land as possible". "Go to spots that have clearance from land, so you can get far out into the water." Doesn't that cover it? Butterbur (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, forgot one more thing. I think the important thing here is actual cast distance from land. That's the thing a player can control. But that's not what "depth" is. The most anyone can do to control the "depth" variable while playing is to make long casts. Isn't that right? Butterbur (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Explanation. Depth is a tweaked and manipulated variable that is set according to its own needs based on actual cast distance and limited by fishing skill level. Its purpose is to weight the generated random numbers so they respond in the desired direction sufficiently to produce actual perceptible changes in fish quality and type in the desired degree to balance play. The simple distance count of the cast is insufficient to provide proper weighting. Depth is the solution. Yes? Butterbur (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I've rewritten the page to eliminate any notion of "depth" in order to see if we like it any better. You can see it at Fishing/Proposed2. --Zamiel (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Chiming in to say that I care immensely about the mechanics around depth, even closer to land. When trying to catch fish for fishing bundles, sometimes a close tile had a better chance than a far away tile. When you look at it from a speed running angle, it becomes more important. Even if I wasn't speed running, I like to know the mechanics behind it. Whether that is for this page or not, I don't know, but that is an example of why someone cares. BlaDe (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I also prefer Fishing/Proposed over Fishing/Proposed2, but I can see the value in the simplification. --Zamiel (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much, BlaDe. I'd like to know more. I've never really pursued min/max in a gamer fashion, and don't really understand "speed running". I'm guessing it's a matter of completing game goals (or your own goals) as fast as possible? Racing to see who can do it fastest?
I'm becoming unsure that I understand the way you and Zamiel are using the word "mechanics" also. To me, manipulating a fishing rod is a "mechanic": timing the release of the cast, controlling the green bar (up, down, staionary), that sort of thing. And that's how I've been treating the word in the article. I'm thinking, though, that you're really talking more about implementation details, the mechanics of the game engineering, as distinct from the mechanics of the game itself? Yes, they sometimes bear a relation to one another, not always. Mathematical calculation I understand well. The other, not a specialty of mine.
First cut: I had thought first of moving more material to "Fishing Strategy" than I'm inclined to now. Some of it resides pretty comfortably in this article. Your observations about using shorter casting on purpose is a detail I've thought about myself, for my own, but hadn't considered it might be a particular interest to others. Shorter casts take less time. They seek more-common fish. They produce lesser quality. So, less time is generally good. More-common fish may be just what's called for: bundles, requests fulfillment, eating/cooking. Lesser quality may do just fine: bundles, requests fulfillment, eating/cooking, "any fish" cooking, bait. So I see interest even beyond min-maxing. My first thought is that that level of focus belongs more on the "Fishing Strategy" page. This page has more "what", the defining of limits, and basic "how"; that one has more "how to" as in specific scenarios, along with "why". I think creating some strategies on fishing close-in could be a good addition there.
I can understand why engineering details might be of interest to you, and some others. I've been trying to articulate basic rules for the Wiki (as I see them) rather than establishing absolute boundaries. The tricks are in the details, though. Some might work in articles, some not, and perhaps some special-interest articles could be created as adjuncts to the central ones, with some details that wouldn't work well here. Margot would have to be the one to apply more guidance on that. I'm just another editor, though I've been here a while and intend to stay indefinitely.
About "depth" specifically: I see this detail as being especially problematic and ill-suited. The word "depth" just doesn't evoke the sense of its function: the rigging of random numbers to be less random. It starts with cast distance and then distorts and twists that into a rigging factor. Its eventual value is a compilation of many code segments and arcane handling, and even then, the value has little inate meaning recognizable to the code reader. It takes the random number distribution and curves it or bulges it statistically, but there's no way to relate exactly how much or in what way. I think that's what it's intended to hide. It's too complex and difficult to describe without writing many pages, which just gets to be overkill. But there's no alternative to overkill if you want to get into what it is. It's a documentation no-win scenario, anywhere. I say stick with casting distance (easily understandable) and how to handle the fishing rod to get the distance you want to target. By the way, the "Fishing" article does not say *what percentage* of casting load you should use to get *X distance*. (I'd focus on skill levels 4 and above; everyone would go through the lower levels like - water.) ;) I think "distance 1" is pretty easy, and pretty basic. If you can find the answer to "what meter percentage range will get you to distance 2", then you'll be on track for having a useful guideline to put in an article. I'm not sure just how I'd do that, and I know I'm not enough interested, but I think that's the way to pry something useful out of code. Just giving depth numbers will do no one any good. Butterbur (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Zamiel, your proposed2 is based on something other than what is in the article now, so I have no way to know differences. I am just not going to search word by word. Butterbur (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Folks, I'm calling it a day. Butterbur (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to drop "depth". When I first starting at looking at fish code it was around spawns, which uses depth as the variable name, but elsewhere it is ClearWaterDistance or DistanceToLand. Whatever we go with, it has to be clear that it is not the distance of the bobber to the fishing rod, but the distance of the bobber to the nearest land tile. This is important when fishing in lakes, ponds and rivers, and is something that all players should know. BlaDe (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I know the distance is important. But I would argue that describing the distance in tiles is not so important, because there is no way to identify the count from the game. Also, ClearWaterDistance is a function whose value is not the tile count, is that not true? The count is already manipulated by then. I know nothing about DistanceToLand. As I have said, engineers do not always name things according to real meaning. So, I would suggest talking about the "distance to land" (common language use, not technical term) but avoid mentioning exact count. Relative count (bigger / smaller), sure, that works, or else use indefinite characterization: small, medium, large. Will that serve your purpose? Butterbur (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Butterbur Just text-compare the source of both articles and you can easily see the differences. (e.g. diff, winmerge, etc.) --Zamiel (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, ok, Zamiel. How do I text compare on Windows? I have no tools for that. (Another of many reasons I do no engineering on my own computer.) Butterbur (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I just got Fishing level 8 in a game, and behold!, my longest casts immediately became longer (actual visual distance). I have determined that the distance rose from 4 tiles to 5. I was standing at the town river south of Jodi's house, by the bush to the west. Proceeding east to where the river bank jogs south repeatedly, one can pace out the tiles to find that the blue water due south of the bush is 4 tiles into the river (non-walkable space). At level 7 I could just reach that blue water. At level 8, I was another tile in, as one can determine from the jog of blue water just east.

So, not only does that prove that actual cast distance is different from "depth" or ClearWaterDistance (when are they ever 4?), but that while the calculation values remain constant at level 8, the cast distance does increase visually. If any computation of the actual distance in tiles is recorded internally, then it must increase from 4 to 5. And we know that this is not so for depth, waterDepth, or ClearWaterDistance. The values are distinct.

So, I also ask (into the ether), why does the game give visual cues that do not affect the quality and fish type calculations that are so critical to some methods of play? It could definitely be a bug (or more than one). If not, then the mechanics of the calculation are out of sync with the game cues, which I call misleading to the player. Perhaps ConcernedApe would like to look at that and consider what to do. Something's definitely funky here. Butterbur (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It might help if I define these terms as used in code. ClearWaterDistance is a value saved on FishingRod. It is set on cast when the bobber lands in the water. A function call DistanceToLand is called to calculate the distance to the closest non-water tile, which is saved onto ClearWaterDistance. To work out what fish is hooked, ClearWaterDistance is used, with 1 added if the bobber is intersecting bubbles. This is what is passed in to a local variable called depth.
To determine fish quality, the saved ClearWaterDistance value is used, in a way I have explained somewhere.
It is the function DistanceToLand which can't return 4. I believe this is the result of an off by 1 error, and a bug. I pasted the code on one of the many talk pages we have been editing if interested. I don't think it is important to convey this anomaly in the main page
Though difficult, it can be determined how many tiles a cast has gone visually, as you have demonstrated. I do think it is important to convey that tiles affect result, maybe in a way similar to this: BlaDe (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
That graphic is really good. I'll add it to Fishing/Proposed. --Zamiel (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
And thanks also, BlaDe. This clarifies the exact code functioning a great deal. I almost think it is possible to write about the code now, whereas it was too murky earlier. But there's still the issue of where to write about it. Butterbur (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
One more observation: my tile counts above are actual casting distance: that is, distance from player (fishing rod) to bobber. Technically, that's not "distance to land" all the time, although from where I was standing, I think it is so all the time. Butterbur (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we should use something like distance instead of depth. The reason I think in terms of depth is that the first thing I looked at with fishing was around chances for fish, so I was staring at a depth variable for ages, so that term has stuck with me. Distance is a better term, which combined with the image, will get the point across BlaDe (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, just as long as it's not a reference to an internal value or variable. Butterbur (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


You can compare with winmerge, like I said in my last message. --Zamiel (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
What is winmerge? Where do I find the executable? Butterbur (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a program that is the first result on google when you search for "winmerge". =p I mean, you don't have to use winmerge, you can use anything you want, like, or notepad++, or the hundreds of other options to compare two text files. Or you can just click on the "View history" link on proposed2 to see what is updated, since it was copied from proposed1. --Zamiel (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Not a Windows native app. I'm sure it probably works fine. But in over 10 years I've never needed to use this function for anything I've done, and Wikis have their own built-in differencing system. I consider it too much overhead to learn a new program in order to see your changes. Even your proposed1 was built on a version that does not have my article changes, so it is inadequate to tell the differences between our edits. And shuffling between two proposals is not acceptable. I was asked to co-edit with you on the first, but that was after I had done significant work in the article already that morning that is not reflected there. Sorry, the working scenario is too much overhead. I'm not willing to proceed on that basis. Butterbur (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It shouldn't be that much work - just surf to, paste in both pages, and click on the big "Compare" button at the top of the screen. --Zamiel (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not really just about the work, Zamiel. We're supposed to be consulting in order to resolve different approaches. The only way to do that is to have a starting point in common, which was never created. In addition, we need to communicate frequently and edit a piece at a time so we can each respond to the other's changes as we go. I think we should limit our editing to the largest points of contention, because, if we can resolve those, I think all the other changes can be made directly in the article by ordinary methods.
You have been editing in a vacuum. I have written scads of my thoughts and questions on the talk pages, and have asked for yours, but without reply as to content. "I am willing to call depth by another name" doesn't cover the issues. You seem to be needing something and are afraid I'm trying to take it away. I am trying to find out what it is and to see how to supply it. I can't do so if you hold back. This takes time and effort, but that is the nature of cooperative activity. It's slow. Adjust your pace. It's necessary here.
Your work exists in your proposal files, so you can get it again at need. But we need that common starting point, and that needs to be the article as it exists at this moment. No other base for changing the article has relevance. There's nothing in my work that can't be modified or replaced, and there's nothing in yours that can't be added. But we need to proceed in an orderly way, one thing at a time, and stay focussed on the most important things while we work through the bottleneck. There appear to be a lot of details that should prove no obstacle, but it's the tough stuff we need to handle first. Once that set is reconciled, we can move those to the article, and the other stuff should flow behind in the ordinary way without much bother. Butterbur (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, the Fishing/Proposed page was created from this revision of the Fishing page, which is the exact commit/revision that Margo instructed us to stop editing it at. Thus, I do believe that it is the correct common starting point for any future work on the Fishing page. Looking at it now, it looks like you disregarded Margo's instructions and made additional edits to the Fishing page after she said to stop editing the page. Thus, I believe that the best course of action is for us to integrate those changes into the Fishing/Proposed page (if they still make sense). Of course, I believe that the current revision of the page covers everything already, so we might need to discuss which edits that you want to make in particular. --Zamiel (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Not so. She halted editing for the previous day, and I complied. The next morning, I resumed, and after I had been at it a while, she informed me that we should work on a proposed document pending some resolution of issues. Again I complied. Also, my edits are now not the only ones since your proposed copy. In addition, we never resolved how to go ahead with contructing and editing the proposal. I do not agree to what has happened in the interim. Butterbur (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's clarify a little bit about the time-line.

  • Margot said to stop editing the page at 23:12, 30 January 2020‎.
  • I created the Fishing/Proposed page on 16:26, 31 January 2020‎ (which was based on the revision of the page at 23:12, 30 January 2020, when Margo said to stop editing it‎).
  • I posted on the talk page, letting everyone know about the new page on 16:59, 31 January 2020. I felt it was kind of implied at that point (from what Margo said) that people should be collaborating on the "temporary/proposed" version of the Fishing page instead of editing the main page directly.
  • I think that you must not have seen or noticed the new page or the new talk page messages, as you then made a series of edits directly to the Fishing page from 16:41 to 17:42, 31 January 2020‎.
  • Since you did not notice the above implication, Margo posted on your talk page to explicitly inform you that you should not be editing the Fishing page at 17:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC).

Thus, I believe that the correct common starting point should be the edit of the revision of the page at 23:12, 30 January 2020. --Zamiel (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds right. I still hadn't noticed your talk page announcement, to this moment.
Please believe me, no sour grapes here. But I did not expect this editing task to be as demanding or time-consuming as it is proving to be. I have other circumstances in my life that are demanding my engagement, and find that I cannot spare any more for here, certainly not to bring it to a conclusion. I think I should withdraw now. And again, it has nothing to do with you or anyone on the Wiki or the Wiki itself. I just got myself in too deep, and it was a mistake. Best of everything in your editing. I'm sure that even if I had stayed that we could have found the common way we were hoping for. Butterbur (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you know the movie "Ice Age"? I'm the squirrel at the beginning. Butterbur (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No hard feelings. I didn't think that it would be too time consuming, I guess it was just the fact that some of your edits got lost in translation, so to speak. At this time, it is still to be determined to go with:

  • Fishing/Proposed (e.g. describing the mechanics using the concept of "depth")
  • Fishing/Proposed2 (e.g. describing the mechanics in terms of "tiles away")
  • something else

I prefer Fishing/Proposed, especially with Blade's nice infographic, which makes the underlying concepts crystal clear. --Zamiel (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

If BlaDe (or anyone) could clean up the image and remove the pathing markers, that would be a very good thing. margotbean (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
So it looks like we have a consensus that Fishing/Proposed is better? --Zamiel (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The image needs the pathing markers removed, and I have some tweaks to the text to make in order to simplify it a bit for the average user (mainly removing links to any mods or external spreadsheets), otherwise, I'm ok with it. margotbean (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the page now, the pathing markers don't appear to be there. I'm pretty sure he already removed them like 1-2 weeks ago. Can you put links to the external mods and spreadsheets in a "Notes" or "Technical" section at the bottom then? It's important information for min-maxers to know about. --Zamiel (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I haven't touched the image. Pathing markers are still there. Ideally I or someone would write a script that goes over the map and tints the water tiles based on distance, then we could have a gallery of all maps (on the wiki or somewhere else, I don't care) BlaDe (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
We've heard of "scope creep", yes? We can put that script on the "to do" list, but for now just cleaning up the existing example image is enough to get the page live. I have no problem with a sentence that says "for more info." or "for the exact details" see Modding:Fish data, where a link to the spreadsheet already exists.
I want to be very clear about the relationship between depth/casting distance and tiles away from land, on all pages. This is a change in terminology that will need to be carried out on all 12 language wikis. When we move the page to the main "Fishing" page, I'd like to leave the "Under Construction" template at the top to inform translators that there's been a change, and some of the info. still needs to be compacted. margotbean (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Did I make it clear earlier that the "depth" variable is not the same value as casting distance? Please watch out with terminology. Butterbur (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Not scope creep for me, as I always intended to do it. I didn't like how I made the first image, doing it programatically provides a cleaner result:
I will do all maps for my own purposes, but need to go bed now. I will link when they are all done here, and you can decide if they should be put on the wiki BlaDe (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
New image is very thorough, but lacks the numbers that show casting distance. Why are we explaining that 4 and 6 are not possible if we're not showing it? margotbean (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I realised after going to bed that I hadn't provided a key. I will add this when I can. I think we are best to describe this as distanceToLand BlaDe (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Margot, a casting distance of 4 *is* possible. I have done it, demonstrably, as I described. You can get it consistently as a maximum cast when you are level 4 through 7. Step it off on land and near the river bank at Willow Lane as I did and you will see. It's also possible at levels 8 to 10, but it is not then a maximum cast. If anyone is saying otherwise, they're talking about internal data values, not casting distance. I am talking about how the UI represents distance. WYSIWYG. Or so it will appear to all players. Unless they read code. Which do you think is going to make sense to Wiki readers? Butterbur (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This is untrue. I just tested, walking directly down from 1 Willow Lane, with level 4 fishing and a maximum cast, the depth is 3 . --Zamiel (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. The "depth" may be 3, but the casting distance is 4. From the bush south of Jodi's house, it just reaches the blue water. At fishing 8, it reaches well into the blue water, one tile further. Pace it off further east, where you can count the tiles on the land, and look across west to the color of the water at the same latitude. Butterbur (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't spend time on this right now. But one day I will. In the mean time, game version 1.4.5 was released between when I tested and when you did. Any possibility something changed? Didn't look like it would from notes. Butterbur (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I also tested at Fishing 7, not 4. That also shouldn't have made a difference. But the distance went up as soon as I hit level 8 (while "depth" supposedly remained the same). Butterbur (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
When you said "casting distance", I assumed you were talking about depth. What exactly do you mean by "casting distance"? You should probably define that and explain how it is different from depth. Furthermore, from what I understand, depth is the only relevant metric to fishing mechanics, or so I thought, so it is a little confusing to be talking about something else now. --Zamiel (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is getting hard to read on mobile, so I am purposefully not indenting. I have updated the fishing/proposed page to refer to "distance" rather than depth. As said previously, depth got stuck in my head because the first thing I investigated around fishing was working out what fish is hooked, in which the variable name of depth was used. DistanceFromLand, shortened to distance is a better descriptive term. It has been suggested that I try different colours on the images to illustrate distance. Does anyone have any suggestions? I should be able to experiment beginning next week. I also suggest we update the treasure chest items, as some items are only available at certain distances. Referring to this as max cast distance gets confusing with the "max" that appears for a full bar cast. BlaDe (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Zamiel, I have written the answers to all your questions before, weeks ago. If you didn't understand, why didn't you say so then? Depth is *not* "the only relevant metric to fishing mechanics", and you've been thinking that all the time I've told you it isn't? Look at the UI, the visual distances! That's relevant too! I told you before that "depth" is an internal variable name that is related to distances but is not the same. Its purpose is to help adjust the odds of getting higher quality values. I've told you before that engineers don't always name their variables well, and also that variable uses can migrate as code changes. Original intent may not be the same as current relevance. I have defined various distances above, in the Depth and Winmerge sections. Butterbur (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I finally realized why I've been so reluctant to contribute to this discussion: voting on Fishing/Proposed vs Fishing vs Fishing/Proposed2 is choosing between three equally bad choices. All versions of the article contain a section on distance/depth/insert-your-favorite-term that I find unacceptable. Primary reasons:
  • We don't really understand clearWaterDistance (e.g., Talk:Fishing Strategy#Quality and ClearWaterDistance)
  • The level of detail provided does not belong on Fishing. The target audience should be relatively new players -- who could care less about trying to count tiles just to change the chance of catching a fish from 14.25% to 15%. I'd also suggest the focus of Fishing should be information that be confirmed in-game, e.g., it has a detectable relevance to game-play.
So I vote for a clean slate: remove all the questionable content from Fishing. Start by making sure we have a version of the article that everyone accepts as valid. Then make sure we know what's going on -- and hopefully also agree where it belongs -- before adding more details about the-unnamed-d-variable.
I'm opting to simply make this proposed change immediately, because I think there's been bad information on this article for much, much too long. I've taken into consideration all three versions of the article, and only done the minimum necessary amount of "new" writing (specifically, Casting Distance and Fish Quality are completely new; the blurbs in the Treasure Chest section are new). Distance now refers solely to casting distance and depth has been purged completely. For the record, I added two specific statements to Casting Distance that disagree with previous content because I'm convinced the old content was wrong:
  • "Max" casts do not receive any special benefit, instead of claiming that iridium ore is more likely. clearWaterDistance>=5 is the requirement for iridium ore; the code doesn't track maximum-distance casts in any way.
  • Fishing skill (including any buffs from eating food) improves fish quality. See Talk:Fishing Strategy#Quality and ClearWaterDistance.
I think the article would still benefit from more cleanup, but right now my top priority is just making it acceptable. May the dust settle. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fishing Distance Maps BlaDe (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Very nice! I have to ask, though, have you played with any colors other than a yellow palette? A distance of 1 is difficult to distinguish from land. margotbean (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I decided to finally test this, and am confident to say it is accurate.
I would like to get the images added or linked to from the wiki. If people are happy in principle, I will look at where to put these.
I am happy to take suggestions on changing the colour to make them more accessible. BlaDe (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That was easy, the obvious place is BlaDe (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me. The existing images have some issues and the color scheme on your images looks great! The easiest choice is to add a link to the image gallery, which I think we should do on the Fishing page for sure, under the "Casting Distance" section. The more difficult thing would be to replace the existing images on the Fishing Strategy page... in several languages. I do think that's the better option, and if we do it, I think it should be done before v1.5 is released. Thoughts? margotbean (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Afterthought: Can you add images for the Witch's Swamp and Mutant Bug Lair? margotbean (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Those images are now added to the gallery. It would be more complete to have the images on the page directly. I will take a copy of the Fishing Locations section and start having a play. BlaDe (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I added 2 versions of the submarine and the swamp, and I can't work out how to delete the versions without Distances in the title... BlaDe (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do the extra checks that you've documented.

Some of the tiles you investigated in detail are ones that I've mentioned in earlier posts, e.g. the tiles at (21,31), (19,30). The three-rock tile I tested was actually the one at (26,40), not (20,34), scanning up-down instead of across. But in any case, the issue is there is somewhat moot -- the problem with cWD changing value in the middle of a tile was a problem specifically in v1.3. My tests in v1.4 always show values of cWD changing (roughly) at tile edges.

However, in the meantime I had shifted my focus to the eastern pier so I could expand the tests to include crimsonfish. I've superimposed all those results onto an older version of your map: . I'd actually put this all on the back-burner, so it took a few days to dig it back up and refamiliarize myself.

First, I believe your maps accurately represent the raw values of clearWaterDistance (cWD) for each tile. But cWD itself isn't relevant in-game -- it's only relevant to the extent that it helps players predict in-game values such as fish quality, fish size, types of treasure, and presence of legendary fish. I've focussed on the in-game values because I think they're what actually matter.

Second, the one in-game value that does look consistent with your maps is legendary fish locations. The google doc shows the Crimsonfish test results: at all tested locations with cWD>=3 on your map, Crimsonfish were hooked. At a couple spots with cWD=2 Crimsonfish were only hooked when bubbles were present. I also did some tests in the Mountain Lake which confirmed that the Legend could be hooked at a variety of map spots with cWD=5 (on the north, east, and west sides of the lake).

Third, all other in-game values I've tested (fish quality, fish size, and treasure types) are not consistent with your map values -- unless the map is shifted one tile left and down. In other words:

  • if fishing to the north or west, when your map says cWD=3, the in-game values tend to match cWD=5
  • if fishing to the south or east, when your map says cWD=3, the in-game values tend to match cWD=2.

The fish quality/size data was determined based on Talk:Fishing Strategy#Quality and ClearWaterDistance. It's the easiest in-game value, so I've done a ton of tests: different characters, different fishing levels, with/without fishing buffs, baits, tackles, different seasons, some at the Mountains or Cindersap Forest, etc. Also, every number placed on the map is based upon multiple cases where my bobber landed as close to the middle of the tile as possible; for some tiles (e.g., the cyan '2') I tested bobber locations throughout the tile. So I'm sure the numbers really represent those tiles.

Late in my tests I realized that cWD values could also be reliably inferred from treasure chests -- gems, in particular, have distinct cWD values. Per FishingRod::openTreasureMenuEndFunction:

  • at cWD>=4, the only gems caught are Fire Quartz, Emerald, and Ruby
  • at cWD=3, the only gems caught are Frozen Tear, Jade, and Aquamarine
  • at cWD<3, the only gems caught are Earth Crystal, Topaz, and Amethyst.

I've retested maybe a dozen of the beach locations to look specifically at treasure. In every case, the gems I find at a location always match the fish-size-derived cWD value. I'm pretty confident these results will apply equally well to other treasures (in particular, iridium ore), because they're all handled in the same function. Plus, the gold/iron/copper ore caught during these tests was all consistent with the fish-size-derived cWD values.

So bottom line: I think the current maps will help players to find legendary fish (at least on the two maps where cWD affects legendary fish). But I think if players try to use the maps to catch best-quality fish and/or cWD-dependent treasure, they're going to fail more often than not. Unless anyone else has in-game results showing otherwise. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the contents of chests, specifically minerals and gems, to confirm the clearWaterDistance.
I have added additional testing to my document:
I didn't look closely at the fish quality, but going by the gemstones I am getting it to match up perfectly. Depending on your platform, are you able to do something similar to show your results? It would be good to get to the bottom of this inconsistency. BlaDe (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for yet another set of tests, even if they do just increase the confusion! It looks like we really are getting different results.
You got an aquamarine (implying cWD=3) at [25,40], but I just got two topazes and an earth crystal (cWD<3). My bobber location was very close to the one in your image in all cases -- one topaz maybe 15 pixels north (on top of the single rock); the other topaz I was within 10 pixels; the earth crystal was when my bobber was maybe 15 pixels south. I made a point of bracketing the bobber location pictured in your screenshot. Only when I moved my bobber clearly further south, maybe by 30 pixels, did I catch a frozen tear (cWD=3).
FWIW, these tests (and nearly all my treasure tests) have been with a character at fishing level 10, profession pirate, magnet bait, treasure hunter tackle, +3 luck. In winter of year 6. I've only experimented widely with character levels/equipment/seasons in my fish-size tests.
My primary platform is iOS (SV version, so I can't easily do screenshots. I also have the game on my MacBook, but I'm pathetically bad at fishing on the MacBook, plus my trackpad has become possessed by gremlins in the last few days (keeps spontaneously sending unwanted signals), so I need to get that fixed before making any attempt to do similar tests on MacBook. (Although I'm pretty sure I've done fish-size tests on MacBook in the past, with results same as on iOS).
Any ideas on where to go next to identify what's going on? Nebulous Maestress (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I will repeat with no mods on pc and on android. If anyone else is reading this and wants to lend a hand, can you try repeating the tests shown in the document linked above? I suspect it may be a platform thing. BlaDe (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
It's looking like the discrepancy is platform-specific: on MacBook, I've been getting fish sizes and gem types that match the map values. Specifically, I finally managed to catch a gem at [25,40] playing on MacBook and got an aquamarine. And some of the fish I've caught at that location are too large to be consistent with cWD=2 (on second thought, I don't think I had ever tested fish sizes before on MacBook).
It's an odd type of quirk to be platform-dependent. Other details of the fishing bobber seem identical (e.g., maximum and minimum bobber cast distances/locations are identical, in all four directions), so I'm not coming up with an easy way to check other platforms, especially the other mobile versions. It's going to take players on more platforms paying attention to what gemstones they catch at a given location.
In any case, platform-specific also implies it's a bug on those platforms, and that we understand how fishing distance/depth/score is supposed to work and can meaningfully document that information on the wiki. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


Alright, Zamiel. Here's a bone. When you go fishing, you stand on land, take the pole, and cast the bobber. If it's a successful cast, the bobber lands in water. The distance that the bobber travels when you cast it is the "casting distance". From you to the bobber: casting distance. You should note that the UI communicates this distance to the player visually. In some places, you can count off the number of tiles a cast traveled by observing where the bobber landed and then pacing off tiles on land that are parallel to where the bobber was.

As I have said, this is the distance that increases as skill level increases, first at level 1, then at level 4, and finally at level 8. The bush below Jodi's is a good place to cast from to see the effects. Note how far a cast goes into the water. Move east to where the river bank jots south, and find out how many tiles south of where you were standing that is. Check your measure by looking back west at the bobber spot. You need to be able to see that far on your screen. I can see it on mine.

If when you made the cast, the fishing bar was at 90% or more, you can then judge visually what the maximum casting distance is for your current level of skill. This is the primary factor that determines all the best-possible of the calculations like "distance to land", and whatever else, including "depth".

Casting, and casting distance, and casting direction, are the things the player can control when playing. The game runs through other temporary internals on its way to determining the fishing process, like effects of bubbles, and the resultant effects, like quality of fish caught. Depth is one of those internals. Better? Butterbur (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fishing, Fish, or Fishing Strategy?

Are there any existing guidelines on which fish-related page should contain which content?

This has already come up in relation to details of clearWaterDistance. But another prime example is the bobber bar mini-game: there's some content at Fishing#Controls, some at Fishing#Bar Size, and some at Fish#Fishing Mini-game. I understand having some repeated content, but there should be one location that is the authoritative reference and contains all information. Right now Fish#Fishing Mini-game is the most complete, but it doesn't contain the information at Fishing#Bar Size.

Plus I'm not sure what's the rationale for having a how-to-do-fishing section on a page that's described as "a list of fish and their locations". Details on how to play one mini-game seem out of place when there's no mention of the other stages of catching a fish (e.g., the casting mini-game). Yet one reorganization attempt was reverted. Why?

My thoughts:

  • Fishing should target a general audience.
    • The information should be relevant to nearly anyone who plays the game, including newer players and players who aren't interested in maximizing profits or speed runs.
    • Fishing should limit unnecessary spoilers, especially regarding fish details. When I was starting out I was grateful that Fishing taught me how to play the fishing mini-game, but didn't reveal any details about where/how to find specific fish.
  • Fish obviously should be the authoritative list of all fish.
    • Spoilers about location/etc. are OK.
    • I could understand keeping the mixed/smooth/etc. type details on Fish. Those are characteristics of the fish: it's terminology used on each individual fish page and needs a legend somewhere. But perhaps it should instead be part of a section titled Fish Characteristics? Such a section could cover other infobox variables, e.g. difficulty, and how they're used.
  • Fishing Strategy should target experienced/hard-core players with detailed information on how to maximize fishing types/quality/whatever.
  • Should Treasure Chests be moved to its own page?
    • It seems like a huge table that's bloating an already large, heavily-used page.
    • The details seem unnecessarily spoilerish (e.g., if I'd looked at the table early on I would have been a bit miffed to find out that artifacts appear in treasure chests before I discovered it myself in-game).
    • Adding strategy-specific details such as clearWaterDistance>=5 seems more justifiable if the table is not on an intro-level page.

Comments? Nebulous Maestress (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I have limited comments, since I've purposely not been keeping up with all the discussions about depth vs. casting distance vs. visible tiles (I wanted the final result to be understandable to a newcomer to the conversation, and also I have NOT had time or energy to delve into the code!).
There are no guidelines on what belongs on which page, we're breaking new ground here.
Moving Treasure Chests to its own page would require a fairly large number of cascading changes, on the EN wiki and in all 12 languages, so I have to advise against it. Similarly, fish behavior (smooth, mixed, etc.) is linked to in Template:Infobox fish in all 12 languages, so moving it and breaking the link is not something I want to do.
Fish difficulty and size are already on the Fish page in the table, I don't quite understand if you're suggesting we move that out of the table to a separate section? With another table that includes a list of all fish and the details? I'm clearly confused as to what you're suggesting... sincere apologies for that!
Saying that some treasures require you to cast far away is a bit non-specific. Can we intelligently say something like "90-100% of the horizontal green casting bar" (if that's even accurate)? margotbean (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Re: Fish behavior info
I'm proposing that Fish#Fishing Mini-Game be converted into a section on "Fish Characteristics" that effectively acts as a legend for the infobox. After all, that's actually why the infobox links to that section; it's not because a mini-game tutorial is important.
The section would then be availble if other editors want to provide definitions of the other terms used in the infobox. For example, "Difficulty is a number between 0 and 100 that determines how much experience you gain. It also ...?" I mention difficulty precisely because I have no idea what's controlled/altered by it, and would like to see someone add that info.
If template links/etc. are the top concern, then go one step further. Create a "===Behavior===" subsection and make the infobox link directly to that subsection (Portuguese already has the subsection). Making that edit across every language version doesn't require any language comprehension (i.e., just copy-and-paste the infobox label into a subsection header and link), and I'd be willing to do it.
Re: fishing for treasure
I think the only 100% accurate statement that is possible at this time is "cast far from land". Anything more specific would be untested and/or incorrect. The code requirement is clearWaterDistance>=5. But we're still debating / guessing what that actually means in game. 90% of the locations that I tested in-game against :File:BeachDistance.png had incorrect values.
It is definitely not "x% of casting bar". A level-8 character could do a 50% cast and reach cWD=5. Or that level-8 character could stand in a stupid location (middle of an island, narrow point in river), do a 100% cast and reach cWD=1. A level-0 character could do a 100% cast to the west and reach cWD=5, but a 100% cast to the south wouldn't work.
If I were to go fishing in-game for treasure, the only fact I'd truly trust is that further from land is better. Personally, I'd also try to cast towards the west to maximize my chances, but I'm pretty sure that's not an absolute requirement. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fishing Bar Pixels

Does anyone have the equations for how to find the pixel size of the bar at each fishing level? For example, if I'm using Seafoam Pudding and Cork Bobber with a base fishing skill of 10, how many pixels high would my fishing bar be? How many pixels is the total bar? What percentage of the full fishing bar does the green bar fill? I would like to be able to calculate whether the Trap Bobber or Cork Bobber is more effective at a particular level; especially with Cork Bobber making it easier to get Perfects, which can increase earnings significantly when it increases a gold quality fish to iridium quality. To be clear, I'm referring to the catching of legendary fish. Obviously, level 14 fishing is going to be enough that Dressed Spinner becomes the most effective for money/time in most situations. Thermophile (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The size of the bar in pixels is (see BobberBar::BobberBar):
bobberBarHeight = 96 + Game1.player.FishingLevel * 8;
Meaning 96 at level 0; 176 at level 10; 208 at level 14. (Except if beginner rod is used and character is below level 5 -- then size is fixed at 136 pixels). 24 pixels are added if the cork bobber is used. The total size of the bar is 568 pixels. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should measure the size of Fishing Bar by the actual pixel length, because of the scale of the game interface, and when you fishing with 75% it will be 132 real pixels at level 10. We could use the game-pixels(I would like to call it grid or cell, or other better.) in the image of fishing rod in the mini-game as the unit: 2 girds each level, 22 girds at level 0 (I think we should ignore the 2 game-pixels of the bar's stroke), 42 girds at level 10, seafoam pumping with cork bobber to get 56 girds. It is converted that the total length of the rod is 140 grids, but it should be noted that the bamboo knots on the fishing rod is not six equal parts of the whole length (the bottom section is shorter). Maybe we could measure the bar by as a percentage of the whole length, but it doesn't seem to work in my eyes: 15.71%(appr.) at level 0, 30.00% at level 10, and 1.43%(appr.) per level. Well, if someone decides to change the units of measurement,make sure that other related pages, such as Cork Bobber, should also be changed accordingly :) Reiki (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that with a fishing level of 14 and the cork bobber, you fill up almost exactly 40% of the bar? That means that, even in cases like the Legend, you have a decent chance of catching it by doing nothing, simply by virtue of it being in the green bar 40% of the time on average. Certainly makes getting that 15k iridium payload a lot easier. Thermophile (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


"The likelihood of catching rarer types of fish increases over water without bubbles." Can someone explain that that means, because it's very vague? And does it or does it not affect chest chances? --Unsigned comment by Raist (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020

I believe thats a typo. For the purposes of choosing the type of fish, bubbles causes the bobber to act as if it is one tile further away (+1 to clearWaterDistance). This does not alter the chances for chest contents, and where the bobber lands has no affect on if you get a chest or not. BlaDe (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
So it specifically says "Bubbles do not influence fish quality" and "The likelihood of catching rarer types of fish increases over water without bubbles." I would argue both of those are wrong, and it would be more accurate to say that it "increases your chances for higher quality fish in that spot than if there weren't bubbles" as a simpler version of explaining distance and depth. Raist (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I think most of the discrepancy here is that "fish quality" is being used to mean two very different concepts.
For me, "fish quality" means normal/silver/gold/iridium -- that's the meaning in Fishing#Fish Quality, and (as far as I know) throughout the Fishing article. Bubbles have no effect on whether fish are normal/silver/gold/iridium.
But when Raist says "increases your chances for higher quality fish" I assume "quality" actually means "less common" and/or "higher difficulty" fish. Bubbles do indeed affect the types of fish (e.g., Octopus vs Sardine) and whether you catch trash instead of fish.
I'm modifying the entire article to explicitly document fishing scores and their effect; in the process, the original statement about the effect of bubbles has been altered to be less vague. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Treasure Chests revamp

I've updated the treasure chest table to add accurate/valid info about effect of Fishing Score on all items. And I restored/filled in the columm providing item chances.

The table used to contain chances for some items, but that column was removed. On the assumption that it was removed because the column was incomplete, I've now filled in values for every item in the table. The values I've added to the article are roughly 1.7 times larger than the previous values, because I'm taking into account multiple passes through the big calculation loop in openTreasureMenuEndFunction. The previous values were effectively the chance of an item appearing in the first slot of a treasure chest; the chances are higher when you include the chance of it appearing in the second/third/etc. slot. For low-probability items, integrating over all slots increases the chances by 1.667 (the factor is slightly lower for high-probability items, such as coal).

The implication is that the chances are now being provided as the chance of an item per treasure chest, which I think is the most relevant quantity for players, even if it does introduce another layer of obfuscation between the raw code and the values in the table. The sum of all the chances doesn't add to 100% -- but no matter how you do the table, it doesn't add to 100%, because just one loop through the code can actually add many different items to a chest; just one loop could add rice shoots, wild bait, and any number of special items (rings, boots, weapons, etc.).

The other big complication with treasure chances is the multitude of different requirements that tweak what items are possible -- and adding/removing one possible item has a cascading effect on the chances of multiple other items. So I've calculated the chances under a range of conditions (different fishing skill levels, different fishing scores, daily luck, luck buffs, with/without lost books, with/without artifacts, with/without wild bait, etc.) to determine the minimum and maximum values for each item. Items where the chance varies are typically those that substitute when other items are not possible. Coal gets substituted for several items, so its range is particularly large: it's added in place of artifacts when they're not possible; it's added in place of gems when the player's fishing skill is too low; it's a fallback for ores/resources, so it's more likely at low fishing scores (when gold ore and iron ore aren't possible, increasing the chances of copper ore, stone, wood, and coal).

In short, I've attempted to condense alot of complexity into a single column that hopefully makes sense and is useful. But let me know if there are any suggestions for improvements. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work that went into the calculations, but they must be transparent, i.e., you must provide something to show the specific calculations you performed. They have to be able to be validated by others. A link to a spreadsheet or spreadsheets would be acceptable. A separate wiki page is also a possibility. margotbean (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
To use lost books as an example. They have a 2.5% chance of being added each time through the main loop. So out of 100 treasure chests:
  • After one loop, 2.5 have a lost book: running total is 2.5. The other 97.5 add some other item, then restart the loop.
  • 60% of the 97.5 fail at the start of the second loop; those 58.5 definitely don't contain a lost book. 39 chests remain in loop.
  • In the second loop, 2.5% of the 39 chests get a lost book; add .975 to the running total to get 3.475. 38.025 get some other item then restart the loop.
  • 60% of 38.025 fail at the start of the third loop. Another 22.815 definitely don't have a lost book. 15.21 remain in loop.
Rinse and repeat as desired. I repeated 20 times, at which point 4.098 chests have lost books (4.098/2.5 = 1.64. Slightly less than 1.6667 because 2.5% is not vanishingly small). Nebulous Maestress (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
That's great for lost books, but what about the rest? You said you performed calculations over a range of conditions, can you put those in a spreadsheet or separate wiki page? margotbean (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The primary reference is the game code, as documented in the article. The only way to truly validate the numbers is to work through the game code. Geonigma did provide one interpretation of the game code in #Treasure Chest Mechanics, which doesn't include v1.4 changes (Rice Shoots, Wild Bait) but otherwise remains equally relevant. However, that interpretation also highlights for me the futility of the effort: it contains several typos (e.g., chance of iridium ore is 0.03, not 0.3) and logic differences (elseif/if swapped in various places). Note that Geonigma used the correct iridium ore chance of 0.03 in the value added to the article -- the typo on the talk page is just an error introducing when trying to type up the details. So Geonigma's interpretation provides some general guidelines for how to make sense of the game code, but it's useless for actually validating anything. Validation is only possible by slogging through the workflow of the game code to work out the single-loop chance for a specific item; the only difference between the resulting number and the one shown in the article should be the 1.66 factor from integrating over multiple loops.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the range of conditions are really only relevant for the fallback items such as coal, bait, stone, wood, etc. Does anyone playing the game care about what conditions are necessary to change the chance of wood from 2% to 5%? That's the only reason I can think of for why someone playing the game would be interested in a spreadsheet of chance under every possible condition. If it has no relevance to gameplay I'm not sure why it should be put into a wiki article.Nebulous Maestress (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I realized there were some extra complications with the last two items in openTreasureMenuEndFunction (i.e., the tests involving treasures.count), so I've updated the info for diamonds and bait accordingly. The details get really obscure, yet the variation in diamond chances ends up being less than 1%, so it's of little relevance to gameplay. The easiest way to explain what I did -- and also provide transparency/verifiability -- seems to be sharing the code I used for the calculations: Nebulous Maestress (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I've created a github repo for the code: The description states that it's not my code, but I would encourage you to create your own repo to replace the one I created. margotbean (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Bobber Distance Is Wrong

Replacing Fishing Score with Bobber Distance is (best case) misleading or (worst case) blatantly incorrect. The upshot of one of the many long discussions about why distance shouldn't be used (Talk:Fishing Strategy#ClearWaterDistance and quality) was that fishing score was an acceptable term.

The rationale for unilaterally overriding the community consensus was that Fishing Score is a "made-up term". In my opinion, a made-up term is overwhelmingly preferable to a term that already has a very different meaning to players. Every reader seeing "Bobber Distance" is automatically going to assume it means "Casting Distance", which is wrong. I'd much rather have readers scratch their heads when they see "Fishing Score", follow the link to read up on it, and end up obtaining valid information from this site.

It's been repeatedly proven on this wiki that any use of "distance" to describe this quantity will be misunderstood by readers and editors. That's exactly how the Fishing article came to be filled with false information (e.g., "iridium ore can only be caught at maximum casting distance"; "there is no increase in casting distance at fishing level 8").

The only way to use distance and ensure it doesn't get confused with casting distance is to use some very long cumbersome term such as "Bobber Distance From Nearest Land/Pier". Except 85% of the time, the value implied by "Bobber Distance From Nearest Land/Pier" is wrong:

Bobber Distance From Nearest Land/Pier Fishing Score
1 0
2 1
3 2
4 3
5 5
6 5
7 5
8 5

"Bobber Distance From Nearest Land/Pier" could be used in qualitative statements (e.g., "larger values mean higher quality fish"). But it can't be used quantitatively ("Aquamarine is found at BDFNLP=3 is wrong). Having a section that tries to explain that the bobber distance isn't really equal to the bobber distance is confusing and won't do anything to help the 99% of readers who don't even know that section exists. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable with the current version of the Fishing article. Changing "Fishing Score" to "Bobber Distance" fundamentally changed the substance and intent of my edit. I feel like all my work has done nothing but re-introduce the same false information that I previously removed about treasure chest requirements.
I've been trying to find alternatives/compromises that don't involve the use of a "made-up term", but it's difficult. The game code uses "clearWaterDistance", "distanceToLand", and "waterDepth". Livin' off the Land (22 Spring, Year 1) uses "distance your bobber lands from any dry land". I've already summarized my concerns with any distance-based term. Depth implies water color, but there's no correlation with water color. (Also, even in game code, waterDepth has a slightly different meaning -- it's clearWaterDistance adjusted by bubbles). These issues have been raised repeatedly in the past: see #Casting Distance, #Depth, #Distance, Talk:Fishing Strategy#Depth. The number and length of the discussions alone proves that "distance" and "depth" have caused a ton of confusion.
If necessary to reach a compromise, I could accept clearWaterDistance. As long as the entire phrase is used (or there's an accepted abbreviation such as, cWD), I think it's less likely to be mistaken for casting distance. I don't like that it's not plain English (e.g., it can't be translated, so clearWaterDistance would presumably have to be used in every language). I don't like that there's still risk of confusion (primarily via the temptation to shorten it to just "distance"). But it's better than "Bobber Distance".
A second option (and my preference) would be allowing the use of a made-up term (whether "Fishing Score" or some other proposed term) -- and instead focus on ways to fix the perceived problems with a made-up term. For example, making sure every use of the term is a link to its definition and/or has a reference link explaining what it means; creating a redirect for the term so searches lead readers to the definition. Any other concerns about made-up terms could be discussed -- but without knowing the concerns, I don't know how to address them.
Are there other suggestions? Reactions? Nebulous Maestress (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, it seems like "Fish Score" is something that would be calculated at the Stardew Valley Fair, so that's not my first choice.
The problem is that the discussion ended, and I copied the new Fishing Strategy page into all languages that had that page, and now at least 2 of them have been translated. So, it feels like re-opening a closed issue. I understand that you dislike (immensely) the term "Bobber Distance" because it's not what it sounds like it is. I totally get that. Without re-reading the pages and pages of discussion, I'm going to suggest that we stick with bobber distance, and define it (on the Fishing page) as something that is not the actual # of tiles away from walkable land that the bobber lands. The key to the images already omits distance of 4, so the page already hints that the term bobber distance is not what it might seem. It is related to actual bobber distance, is it not? margotbean (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not reopening a closed issue. I'm trying to finish up a set of edits that I started less than a week ago. In those edits I used the term 'Fishing Score' because that's the term that was proposed and accepted in previous discussions. What reopened the old discussion was you replacing the previously-accepted term with 'Bobber Distance'. 'Bobber Distance'is not only misleading, but it also has no precedent, no previous usage on the wiki, and no prior discussions in favor of it. The default term here -- the term that does not require any closed issues to be reopened -- should be 'Fishing Score'.
None of the text under discussion has been copied to any other language. The only content that has been copied to other languages is BlaDe's new maps and an error-riddled section on "Casting Distance". Without a valid explanation of what is shown in the maps, or how it's relevant to gameplay, the maps are essentially useless. That's exactly the information I'm trying to add to the wiki.
Is 'Bobber Distance' related? Yes, but only in the same way that milled Rice is related to Rice Shoots -- there's a bunch of stuff that you need to do to get from one to the other. Related definitely does not mean interchangeable. It might be valid to say 'you can get Rice by killing Grubs' -- but it's pretty misleading.
I think 'Score' is the simplest term -- all readers will recognize it; it correctly implies a game-specific number that you want to increase. If 'Bobber Score' is somehow better than 'Fishing Score', that's fine by me. Or else some other terms I've considered are 'Zone', 'Tier', or 'Bracket'. Are any of those options acceptable? Nebulous Maestress (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of any new feedback, I've opted to restore Fishing Score, so that the article is no longer providing false information. If there's interest in continuing this discussion, the article can of course be further modified, but I don't want to knowingly leave false facts in place any longer. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The in-game code uses the term "distance", therefore, the wiki will use distance. margotbean (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The game code doesn't use "distance" -- it uses "clearWaterDistance" to prevent ambiguity with dozens of other distance-related variables. It's even more important to avoid ambiguity on the wiki, especially given that for three years this article explicitly told readers that casting distance controls treasure chest contents. If a term based on distance is going to be used, there must be no chance of readers misinterpreting it to mean casting distance. Bobber distance completely fails this test.
I think clearWaterDistance is a (marginally) acceptable compromise, so I propose to re-re-re-edit the article to introduce clearWaterDistance. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
This is talked about in-game, the tv says this: "Get your hands on a fishin' pole and sell your catch! Fishing is a great way to make a little extra cash when you have some down time. The distance your bobber lands from any dry land determines what kinds of fish you'll hook... as well as the location, season, time of day, and weather!". It is important to distinguish that it is not simply how far away you have casted from where the farmer is standing.
I don't like the approach of having code terms be the end all of terms here. For the most part we can (and should) reuse them, but there are some that don't fit. E.g. we say bubbles, not splashPoint. Code says DustSpirits, but in-game says Dust Sprites .BlaDe (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your points; I'm just struggling to find acceptable options. Also, I'm not sure what the upshot is as far as your preferences. For example, if bubbles is OK, does that mean you think a made-up term is OK here?
The TV phrase of "distance your bobber lands from any dry land" is a mouthful (keyboard-full?). But maybe it could be abbreviated as "dry land distance" -- which at least highlights how it differs from casting distance. "Dry land distance" still glosses over the quirks (i.e., that it's not numerically equivalent to the distance), but is there any chance it's acceptable on all other counts? Nebulous Maestress (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Restarting indents I'm not a big fan of fishing score, but it removes ambiguity of distance. Maybe we should look at it a different way; the only thing that matters is the tile where bobber lands. Do we try tile location? Tile distance? Tile score? Tile calculation? BlaDe (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was one of those people who wrote massive comments some time ago and pointed out some of the errors in terminology within the code. (I say "errors" because they confuse humans, not because the code necessarily has bugs.) I gave up then, and haven't followed the issue closely since. So I can't suggest a term to use. I can only say that "clear water distance" would be a mistake in wiki text, because it might be confused with clearWaterDistance (the code variable/routine), and it's been shown that the intentions do not match. Further, while I would normally recommend going with text that is given in the game's UI, but that text seems also to cause confusion here. I don't see an alternative but to create (AND DEFINE) another term and use that. Then at least there is no connection between it and code or game misstatements. Butterbur (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I know you've both looked closely at this issue in the past, so your opinions are particularly helpful. It's restored my hope that an unambiguous, non-distance-based term is possible.
I'm inclined to say that something like 'tile score' is a bit too generic -- yes, the value is controlled by location, but I'd also like some sense that the purpose is fishing-specific. How about 'fishing zone' (or maybe 'water zone')? 'Zone' implies that it's based on the location/tile, as well as being short and easily understood. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Aha! I think you're on to something with "fishing zone" (more specific to fishing activity) and with "water zone" (more focus on the location of the bobber). Can't say for sure which is better, but my first thought is that "fishing zone" is superior. It emphasizes that it's related to fishing, but it also homes in on the fact that the location where you fish from is the key to benefits: you want to get in the right zone. And that implies bobber location. It's also free from the confusions of misleading names.
The details of how it works can explain what you want to do when fishing for this purpose or that. In the end, the only thing you have real game control over is where you put the bobber. The point of the text is to make clear what options you have, and to make it possible for you to identify where your bobber target is, given your intentions. In other words: "this is how it works" theory, and "for best results doing X, do that" recommendations.
In writing, I find it helpful to be clear on what the communication goal is. Then you take the technical knowledge and write it into a form that meets the goal. It's surprising how many people who understand the technical stuff don't also see how designing word usage to describe it well matters so much. It's a pleasure to see how you have the handles on that. Butterbur (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and updated the article to use Fishing Zone.
My primary motivation is to remove the misleading information on the current version of the article. If the article had some term in place that wasn't going to be mis-read as Casting Distance I'd be happy to delay the edit while waiting for more feedback -- and hoping for a clear consensus to be reached.
I also think that editing the article is necessary to really see how well Fishing Zone works, as Butterbur said. Plus, having a major but contested revert hanging over the page freezes alot of other edits. Nebulous Maestress (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)