I'm Index Librorum (aka Prohibitorum), and this is a showroom for my maps and other projects.

For most of these maps, the terrain, map-wide assets, and stratum masks are made using Quadspinner's Gaea. For questions related to my workflow, contact me on discord or here on the forums. (though discord will get you a reply significantly faster)

Unless otherwise mentioned, all maps shown here are in the vault.

All projects:

Project Mesa, Project Situs Impactae, Project Praetensus, (Adaptive) Project Dust, Project Tabula.

Latest Project:

Well this is embarrassing. We were supposed to drop on the other side of this plateau... Looks like the enemy is already setting up bases there too. Kindly remove them so we can pretend this mistake never happened.

Click here for more information on Project Tabula.

I would like to suggest that any game that is ended as a draw using the draw button should not award or subtract rating points from any of the players.

Recently, it has become much more common to have at least one player disconnect at some point during a game. These issues have been reported and are no doubt worked on. In the mean time however, it has become clear that we lack a way to declare that a game should be ended or unranked because of problems of one kind or another.

Currently, when you use the draw button, the game understands this to mean that both teams are equal. As a consequence, the lower rated team gets assigned points, and the higher rated team loses points. However, unlike games like Chess, it is (near) impossible for a FAF match to end up in a genuine draw. For this reason, this logic does not make sense and the button's function should be changed.

I imagine the the easiest option to fix this issue is to either set the game as unranked, or award a default 0 points to all players, once a draw has been accepted. Alternatively, a new button specifically made to unrank a game could perhaps be implemented. I do not know how to code however, and I am sure that smarter people than me have better ideas.

It has been frustrating to have more than half of my games be spoiled by connection issues, and to lose points on top of that after accepting a draw is just not a great experience. Please make this change.

@gabitii How about you learn to scout, instead? The upgrade is time consuming and
very power expensive, so you'll have plenty of time to see people preparing. Add to that the fact that its a high-risk-high-reward strategy and you'll understand why you don't see the strategy used as often as you seem to imply.

@evildrew Your post is rife with generalities, but lack specifics. You spew accusations, but refuse to support them. For shame.

Have you seen @ComradeStryker 's posts? The lad wrote an essay's worth of suggestions so large, it had to be cut into several chapters and included a table of contents. He went into detail explaining the problems as he saw them, and offered specific solutions. And you know what happened? Several of these suggestions have since been adopted.

If you have a problem with the current balance, that is the post you should emulate.

You say the recent changes have ruined map designs. Which maps are these? You seem to have been unable to find any room in your post to name specifics. A quick look at the last 200 games you played shows you near-exclusively play two maps: a survival map, and a map that looks like what Settons would have been if Settons was a 10x10. You complain about a lack of strategic diversity and staleness, yet have you considered that perhaps your refusal to play more than two different type of games might be the cause of that? Is it not more fair to admit that you have a very specific preference for a very limited type of game, and that you don't like the balance changes that have been made? That would have been a post worth making, I would think.

Instead I get this barely coherent tirade describing a group of very motivated players, who are donating their effort and free time to improve a 15-year old game, as a "cancerous oligarchy". You call them "self-centred", inferior candidates, and imply they equal corrupt politicians and dictators. Do you hear yourself speak?

Well this is embarrassing. We were supposed to drop on the other side of this plateau... Looks like the enemy is already setting up bases there too. Kindly remove them so we can pretend this mistake never happened.

Project Tabula is a 20x20km map, although the main playing area is closer to 15x15km. Eight commanders may be spawned on top of a large plateau, which has a partial collapse in the middle effectively creating three main lanes. Access to the terrain beyond the plateau is blocked; although planes may use the airspace, units can not be dropped outside the plateau.

This is the first of my maps that uses clouds. Feedback on this feature in particular is highly appreciated.

The map is licensed under CC. BY-NC-SA 4.0 and is compatible with AI.

Very cool, thanks for taking the time to organize this!
I've got ideas already...

@gabitii Race differences are a thing, so sometimes you'll see units that feel like they're stronger than their other-race equivalents. That's okay, other races have their own strengths.

Additionally, turtling being punished is fairly healthy for the game, in my opinion.

Why must everything be balanced into mediocrity? So what if one commander is a bit better than the others. Other factions have other units that have their own strengths.

In a game of rock-paper-scissors we don't complain about the rock winning from knife, we use paper. Let's not end up with what is essentially a reskin of the same unit.

That is not to say that the faction as a whole should be overpowered when compared to other factions as a whole. The chrono looks too strong, so does the GC. But these issues can be resolved without taking away an advantage; decrease their strength, don't remove it.

For those who are now thinking "yea but that's what I want with gunrange": I refer you to the "this distance is worth 200 mass" image above.

Supreme Economy 2.3 causes that issue. Replace it with "Supreme Economy Next"

I've seen someone ask that the matchmaking timers be set up in a way that the larger brackets get filled first; the 4v4 timer should run out first, try to create the matches, and leftovers should be matched for 3v3, 2v2, and 1v1, sequentially.

Sounds like a good solution?

Easiest implementation might be to remove the individual timers, and use one global timer, then fill matches sequentially.

Lack of communication between different dev/balance/content teams and community, instability of connections, client being buggy and slow.

The fact that the game is still being actively maintained needs to be praised, though. It's not common to see this kind of activity in a decade old game.

Yea, I'm afraid that's a clear case of skill issue. Even a bunch of interceptors can take out a strat if microed properly, and at minute 20 you're going to have to be well into either T3 air or T3 land.

@saver I've recently used clouds in Project Tabula. Placed them so that they don't interfere with gameplay, though: only when you zoom all the way out do you have some light clouds, and there are some clouds below the plateau.

@doompants said in Which Supcom units would CHAT GPT use in case of a fight with another AI?:

Third paragraph mentioned how the Czar could use it's long-range artillery to rain destruction on enemies from afar, and I knew I had struck gold.

You simply haven't seen the glorious sideways CZAR bombardment strategy. Gotta make sure to angle it.

@brutus5000 The article in question discusses the GDPR, which is an EU-wide privacy law. This website (specifically from the EU) has a copy of the complete law and discusses some of its articles.

In any case, I am not a lawyer, and you guys probably know what you're all doing. o/

@gabitii How about you learn to scout, instead? The upgrade is time consuming and
very power expensive, so you'll have plenty of time to see people preparing. Add to that the fact that its a high-risk-high-reward strategy and you'll understand why you don't see the strategy used as often as you seem to imply.

@brutus5000 said in Account removal:

But there is no strict time window in the law.

That's not correct, as far as I understand it.

You must respond to a request for erasure without undue delay and at the latest within one month, letting the individual know whether you have erased the data in question, or that you have refused their request.

Source

Though,

You can extend the time to respond by a further two months if the request is complex or you have received a number of requests from the individual. You must let the individual know within one month of receiving their request and explain why the extension is necessary.

@deletethis

Was announced in the discord. The community manager is working on a newspost for the forums/client.

@ftxcommando Possibly an easy fix, then?

My clan and I have been experiencing similar issues and have reported it. @magge was made aware of the issue but requires gamelogs to debug. Maybe you can supply these as well?