Path: clanworld.com!news.webspan.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!208.217.49.199!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.ultranet.com!bigboote.WPI.EDU!reno.WPI.EDU!eand
From: SteelAngel <eand@wpi.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.playing
Subject: Re: LMCTF 3.0 --> opinions?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:41:45 -0400
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980414154021.23685C-100000@reno.WPI.EDU>
References: <6ga5ti$9dt@newsops.execpc.com> <352f65d7.2319120@news.bignet.net> <Pine.OSF.3.96.980413170344.18470C-100000@reno.WPI.EDU> <6gv7qh$krl@newsops.execpc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: reno.wpi.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <6gv7qh$krl@newsops.execpc.com>
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.playing:38882

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Robert Sanheim wrote:

> Symmetrical maps are always pretty fair, which is very nice, and also
> are easier to learn than unsymmetrical.  A good, balanced ctf
> unsymmetrical map is very difficult to make.

Most LM CTF Maps though have symmetric base structure. But the bases are
laid out as to be off-centered from each other. IMHO, much better design
than the 2fort4 approach. 

SteelAngel