Assuming SD still has copies of some of the old maps, like the old bridge in the early trailer or even dockyard’s blockout, why not add them to the rentable server’s map pool?
Sure they’re not all balanced, but it’s something different and fun to mess around in at the very least. From what I’ve heard, rentable servers don’t have a lot going for them as it is, so this would definitely help draw in people to buy them
I am sure SD would be hestitant sharing the untextured blockout of Dockyard for marketing reasons, but I don’t see why pre-redux versions couldn’t be part of the map pool, especially since they were already looking into the possibility of making Execution available on rentable servers again.
I would love for them to ad old maps to to rentable servers i hate the new terminal and would love to be able to access closed alpha version s of maps.
But even of they were optional downloads so people who dont want them taking up space, dont have to be forced to downlad. I can see why sd wouldnt want to release them for rentable servers becuse people would complain aboutthem some how. Even if there was a these maps are not officialy supported and are as is as is disclaimer you had to agree to people would still be assholes about it.
No, they will only have active maps in the pool. Those and Execution maps when that re-releases.
@stayfreshshoe said:
No, they will only have active maps in the pool. Those and Execution maps when that re-releases.
Wheres the dislike sad face button when u need one. I know u said there will only be execution on rentable servers but, still think there should be 1 or 2 sd owned servers with execution on them to start for those of us who do not wish to be on some ones rented server or the renter blocks access to serve.
Id be woried the renter of the server might make them clan or friend only server,and kick any one they dont like or want on the server out as there footing the bill on the server.
Did you guys consider this when younsaid no to sd owned execution servers
@stayfreshshoe said:
No, they will only have active maps in the pool. Those and Execution maps when that re-releases.
Then disable Terminal Redux and activate the Original one because the Redux is just totally uninteresting.
@Begin2018 said:
@stayfreshshoe said:
No, they will only have active maps in the pool. Those and Execution maps when that re-releases.Then disable Terminal Redux and activate the Original one because the Redux is just totally uninteresting.
I blocked it from cmm searches.and if i ever figure out how and they fix crap i mean quick join ill block it from that to. There was no reason to butcher the first half of the map, they could have given the map the dome/underground treatment where only minor changes were made. But the likes out weigh the dislikes.
I’ll drop an e-mail in and see what the devs say. The only issue I can think of is download size
@stayfreshshoe said:
I’ll drop an e-mail in and see what the devs say. The only issue I can think of is download size
Make it an optional map to download via steam dlc or something.
Honestly, I like the redux of both. More frantic gameplay that works well for DB.
@ThePigVomit said:
Honestly, I like the redux of both. More frantic gameplay that works well for DB.
Redux of terminal is trash but altho i prefer original dome new dome isnt complete trash. Like terminal became. Terminals like a whole new map not a tweaked map
@stayfreshshoe said:
I’ll drop an e-mail in and see what the devs say. The only issue I can think of is download size
Please give us an update on this.
@ThePigVomit said:
Honestly, I like the redux of both. More frantic gameplay that works well for DB.
Same. The redux versions of dome and terminal play out as completely different maps, at least in the first sections.
It wouldn’t hurt to have both available for people who prefer one over the other
@stayfreshshoe said:
I’ll drop an e-mail in and see what the devs say. The only issue I can think of is download size
Thanks for the feedback shoe.
Would it be possible to put the older maps in a DLC like @Mc1412013 suggested?
That way it wouldn’t hurt the filesize for people who were really worried about that, but would still be an option for people who are bored with vanilla DB and want something different to mess around with.
Please let us know if you can share any updates from the rest of the devs, this definitely gets me hyped up for rentable servers!
Agree, new terminal sucks balls. I dont think they had to make such vast changes to the first objective. Moving the spawn a bit closer would do. I loved blowing up that gate. Now its just another generator to be blown up. Meh
@Mc1412013 said:
@stayfreshshoe said:
I’ll drop an e-mail in and see what the devs say. The only issue I can think of is download sizePlease give us an update on this.
I’ve not had a reply yet 
@stayfreshshoe said:
@Mc1412013 said:
@stayfreshshoe said:
I’ll drop an e-mail in and see what the devs say. The only issue I can think of is download sizePlease give us an update on this.
I’ve not had a reply yet
Now the devs even ignore @stayfreshshoe. All hope is lost. 
@stayfreshshoe said:
The only issue I can think of is download size
Another issue is that SD has to provide some sort of maintenance for these maps in case map bugs get reported. This might not be worth the time and effort, even if reports are expected to be rare.
@teflonlove said:
@stayfreshshoe said:
The only issue I can think of is download sizeAnother issue is that SD has to provide some sort of maintenance for these maps in case map bugs get reported. This might not be worth the time and effort, even if reports are expected to be rare.
I can’t imagine it would really be that bad though. Like, the only bugs I can really see hitting them are bugs with the maps themselves, like being able to clip into certain walls or see through the map. But with everything besides stuff like the dockyard blockout, that wouldn’t really be an issue. Things like old dome and terminal had been in rotation for ages, and had several fixes before their reworks were even planned to make sure they were fine.
And I mean, rentable servers don’t exactly have much of a draw without different maps, so it might be worth working on them.
@FalC_16 said:
Agree, new terminal sucks balls. I dont think they had to make such vast changes to the first objective. Moving the spawn a bit closer would do. I loved blowing up that gate. Now its just another generator to be blown up. Meh
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, I really wouldn’t hate the map so much if they just kept the Forward Spawn as the Secondary Objective Node for the 1st Phase of Terminal. Without it the map is a boring clusterfuck and a mess; often times, unless it’s an outright stomp, it can potentially drag on for minutes upon minutes like the 1st Phase of Bridge.
The Generator that took its place is more useful to be left alone then to repair sometimes for the Attackers; it opens up a flanking route, via a trick-jump, against the incoming Defenders attempting to reclaim control of the Objective when left alone. The route itself is much less useful for Defenders to take as, is due to the point of exit after leaving that side-route being in direct line-of-sight of the MG nest, the route itself is also easily cut off with a well placed Molotov by Stoker. Ultimately, it serves almost no purpose compared to the Forward Spawn Node the map once had; which, of course, begs the question of how this got past the Public Test Servers in this state.