Subscription pricing
How have those who have gone for local questions first in Logic Games found that strategy? I am about to try it out, however, I feel like the act of looking for them might cause a scattered feeling which might have a negative affect. And do you think the time it takes to hunt the local questions is worth it?
0
5 comments
I like the could be true -> must be true approach. Still, that may not be as useful as doing a bunch of games linearly and figuring out what you need to drill to make it so that you can more or less easily burn straight through your LG sections.
Im not a fan. If an early question in a game looks like it is going to be super open ended, I didn't solve for all possible worlds, and a quick glance at the answer choices makes me feel overwhelmed, then I'll make a decision: a) go back and solve for all worlds b) skip it and answer more questions before it in hopes that those worlds will save me time. But going into a game planning to only do local questions as a strategy seems like a band-aid for lack of mastery. Skipping monster global questions is a good tool to have in your belt, though!
Oh, like, "If X is in 6 and Y is in 4..."
I mean, this could help if the local questions tend to be quicker/easier/more helpful on average. I find games are usually balanced in the amount of work you can eliminate from certain questions with work you've done primarily to answer other questions.
If that doesn't make sense, I can try to word it differently.
No. More like answering local questions in games to help out with the more global questions. Like answering a given situation, then using that board to help out in acceptable situations questions.
Sometimes you can use the boards/splits for could be true questions to help answer must be true questions and vice versa. Is this what you mean?