Stardew Valley 1.11 Tweaks New Farm Maps

Stardew Valley [official site] received a big ol’ update last Monday, adding everything from new farm landscapes to new farm buildings and new farm divorces. A new patch followed up on Friday afternoon and while it’s not massive, it is worth pointing out. If you’ve been considering starting a new farm on one of the new plots, see, you might be interested to hear that they’ve been fiddled with a bit. Not huge, but useful to know.

So! Stardew Valley 1.1 brought four new farm maps, all quite different to the original one. The Forest Farm has lots of trees and things, Hill-top is a rocky place with mineral deposits, Wilderness spawns monsters to fight at night, and Riverland has, y’know, lots of water. They’re all slanted towards a particular activity or interest, ideal for people who’ve played a lot and might fancy returning somewhere new. But some of them had problems, including a crash on the Wilderness farm. As the version 1.11 patch notes explain, that bug is fixed, now all new maps have somewhere to fish, and the bushes on some plots can be chopped down.

Though I don’t know why you wouldn’t go straight for the Riverland farm. Have you SEEN all that water? Mate, who has to farm or romance when there’s water to stare at?

As for patch 1.1 at large, if you’ve not seen it, do check out the hefty changelog and this little trailer:

It’s a biggun, that patch.

Have you started over with 1.1? Or returned? You’ve started over on the Riverland farm, haven’t you. Sure, the islands and bridges are a bit of a nuisance but: water.


  1. geldonyetich says:

    So, does the patch give it an endgame of significance, or is is still just, “Sit back, relax, and earn more money than there is any meaningful purpose to have”?

    • RobinOttens says:

      [Spoiler warning]

      There’s a quest after you finish the community center that unlocks a load of new buildings each costing like a million G, and one that’s 10 million I think? And some more new buildings at Robin’s which are pretty expensive as well. There’s some changes to marriage and things you can do that sorta make that part more interesting as well I believe.

      Anyhoo, after getting bored by the endgame and dropping the game a few weeks ago, my girlfriend is fully back on board after this patch and she’s spent the last days playing and enjoying all the new content. Hasn’t even touched the new farms yet. So there’s one glowing recommendation for you.

    • Nauallis says:

      Endgame? In a game without any negative consequences and no required goals, remarking about an endgame is missing the point entirely.

      • Ser Crumbsalot says:

        Well, that’s not entirely true – when you “die” in the mines/pass out outdoors you loose items and/or money. If you don’t water your crops, they die and you loose money. You don’t feed the cattle, they don’t produce. Sure, these may not be insurmountable/lasting consequences, but they’re still negative.

        • Nauallis says:

          No, in game terms those are just consequences. They aren’t negative. It doesn’t matter if you have any money or not, because money is arbitrary to your goal – if you want to farm, then you need money for crops….and that’s it. But you don’t have a mortgage, nobody is taxing you, your character doesn’t require food or water, never gets sick, doesn’t need companionship. You can literally go to sleep again every single day after you get up and the game will never punish you for it. That’s my point – the entire game is player-goal driven. The game will never punish you for not meeting game goals. Didn’t deliver that item requested on the job board? Nothing happens! The local scientist wants a melon to study the local soil? You can put him off for… well forever, and he will never give you crap about it. That’s the beauty of Stardew Valley. Do whatever you want, because you can’t lose! That’s why I think remarking about the “endgame” is silly. “The endgame” is 100% a player goal.

          • l0stw0lf says:

            I determine my goals, reached them and stop. New content comes out = my end game contents

          • syndrome says:

            You’d be astonished how many people actually stress themselves out by setting goals and deadlines as ideals to strive for. This is how they effectively “measure” their success in a seemingly purposeless activity.

            I’m calling that “farming” in my own psychometry model. It relies on having a predictable seasonal period (regardless of what exactly those seasons are), and many minute tasks with which you can fill that time. This is how games like Minecraft and the entirety of the “survival genre” work. This is the compulsion John felt in NMS. The so-called “farming” loop, that we all conveniently call “grinding”.

            “Farming” behavior gives birth to “hoarding” and selfish disregard of others interests, and is generally a form of a greedy intelligence (think of an energy-efficiency algorithm), that lacks any sense for a greater picture or greater good. As an example, these people would throw away a piece of paper on the street just because “disposing of it properly is someone else’s job” — they intend their lives to be just a part of a much larger clockwork, disregarding any personal responsibility, but expecting things to constantly revolve and clean themselves up in huge tidal shifts. They are numerous, they do what they have to do (“If I don’t do it, someone else will”), they see others as means much more likely, they see the mankind as a lucrative place and position themselves accordingly (they are rarely hermits), and any situation is an opportunity for what they deem as a success. This is the extreme version of their ideals of course.

            See “Tragedy of the commons” @ Wikipedia if you want more on this.
            In general, this is the human cognitive issue stemming from having “too much information” at hand, and needing to sort it all out, which results with the energy expenditure that’s almost exclusively to personal benefit, with many vacuous categorization and terminology that yields new information, enabling them to be the ‘middle men’ of everything. In effect, this leads to the long-term escalation of commitment (and there is a plethora of associated cognitive biases, I could go on and on..), but also academia and corporate world, but such people would immediately feel discouraged if this was the plan all along. Rather, long-term goals spontaneously emerge from their much shorter attention span which is always tied up with the dedicatedly ritualized periodic compulsions. Rinse and repeat is their motto.

            Many people need tangible goals in the short-term to feel like they’re progressing, otherwise they completely lose any sense of progression and deem entire activity as unfun or plain boring.

            “Farming” people therefore strongly dislike anything unpredictable, arhythmic behavior, seemingly pointless walking, and chillaxing. This is how they appear to be handling patience masterfully — yet they don’t — they actually surf on the tides which they sense and understand, even though they’re unable to react quickly adaptively. To them, everything is scheduled, including cosmos.

            Think about people who always arrive on time, who work with numbers and/or are greedy misers, those who multiply their riches and are ready to start slowly, those who dislike “wasting” their time by acting spontaneous or being different from others (which may have inadvertent effects on their social appearance, which they value highly). Of course, this is the extreme version of this type of person, but there you go.

            If you’re interested I can go on with this, covering the other two archetypes.

          • geldonyetich says:

            If you can enjoy playing a game where the in-game goals drop off and become insignificant the longer you play, good for you.

            However, if you are going to start accusing me of being a neurotic individual who requires self-invented goals to enjoy a game, I have every right to turn around and ask you what kind of person you are to insist it is the better preference to play without any goal, self-invented or otherwise, because that’s how it is to me. That I should be enjoying the game your way or there must be something wrong with me.

            No. Ad hominem is not a logical refutation to a legitimate concern about a game’s design.

            Anyway, the 1M bell buildings are something, I guess, but a very finite something. I think the problem is that there’s basically just no balance or money sink that stops you from making infinite bells in this game. Given infinite time, you can make infinite money with a single patch of melons.

            Harvest Moon games usually resolve this with a finite story with a time limit. I’m not saying that’s the only way you can resolve it, though.

          • Nauallis says:

            Nah, you’re both wrong. The condescension doesn’t really convince me of anything… but nice try. Also, way to go getting triggered and overreacting, geldonyetich, by being called “silly” and “missing the point.” We’re talking about Stardew Valley, not every game ever.

          • geldonyetich says:

            I hate it when Internet sophomores find damage control and negatively charged nitpicking to be preferable over actually reading what was written. Suffice it to say, I’ve come to learn when a further discussion is futile on the Internet.

          • jrodman says:

            Can we clarify that “triggered” is really not cool around here? Because it’s not cool anywhere but at least I’d like to have a some amount of civil space.

  2. Blowfeld81 says:

    Started with 1.1.

    This is the game I like to go to after a busy day full of work; Esp. when I am sleeping in hotels on business trips.

  3. BarneyL says:

    This is the instant access game for next month’s Humble Monthly. Might be worth looking at for those who don’t have the game yet and want it at a small discount with the possibility of more stuff you may or may not want thrown in later.

  4. aepervius says:

    Have they solved the problem which made farming animal actually not worth the time (except to solve the community center quests) ? You had to spend a lot of time feeding wheat the cows, you got milk and cheese, but compared to crops the amount of money you got back , the ROI, was poor.

    • Sic says:

      Money problems disappear pretty quickly in this game. It’s not really about that at all.

    • aerozol says:

      Balance changes:
      All animal products are increased in value by 25%
      The Rancher profession now increases the value of animal products by 20%, up from 10%

      From the changelog: link to
      Some crops have been balanced slightly too.

      That said, it will always be more work than farming, but if you don’t want to do it, don’t, right? :)

  5. genoforprez says:

    I started over with 1.1, stared at all the new types of farm and then… SELECTED THE STANDARD FARM.

    That’s just the kind of uncontrollable rebel I am!

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      It’s really tempting. All that space. If you’re “powergaming” (do people still use that word?), it’s probably the best choice.

      I went with Forest mostly to get easier access to hardwood.

  6. CaptainCasey says:

    I went straight for the Riverfarm. Who wouldn’t? Any game with fishing and that’s all I do. My farm will be dilapidated but at least I’ll have plenty of fish.

    • jrodman says:

      Us piscophobes are afraid of that river farm. Now I have to go lie down.

  7. Sivart13 says:

    So far the biggest ConcernedApe has made with this game was not realizing that you follow up 1.1 with either 1.2 or 1.1.1, but certainly not 1.11.

    That’s just math.

    • GeoX says:

      What’s just math? It makes perfect sense to follow up 1.1[0] with 1.11. People who use 1.1.1. are the weird ones, even if it’s more common.

      • Harlander says:

        Split the difference and have the next patch be 1.100?

        • jrodman says:

          Not really relevant — I once worked on a source base where the versioning scheme was sequential prime numbers. IIRC, it was 4.2.prime_number, because they were meganerds and Douglas Adams.

          (Disclaimer: I make no claims as to whether or not I am a meganerd myself.)

  8. deadlybydsgn says:

    This game looks neat, but I’m holding out for when they deliver on the promised cooperative feature.