From df1f3dc7309469714073b1252b3caf8f3d2d1abc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: NewSoupVi <57900059+NewSoupVi@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 21:21:24 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Update docs/apworld_dev_faq.md

Co-authored-by: Exempt-Medic <60412657+Exempt-Medic@users.noreply.github.com>
---
 docs/apworld_dev_faq.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/docs/apworld_dev_faq.md b/docs/apworld_dev_faq.md
index 690265593b..2acb42836f 100644
--- a/docs/apworld_dev_faq.md
+++ b/docs/apworld_dev_faq.md
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ For performance reasons, AP only checks every entrance once. However, if entranc
 To account for this case, AP would have to recheck all entrances every time a new region is reached, until no new regions are reached.
 
 However, there is a way to **manually** define that a *specific* entrance needs to be rechecked during region sweep if a *specific* region is reached during it. This is what an indirect condition is.
-This keeps almost all of the performance upsides. Even a game making heavy use of indirect conditions (See: The Witness) is still way way faster than if it just blanket "rechecked all entrances until nothing new is found".
+This keeps almost all of the performance upsides. Even a game making heavy use of indirect conditions (See: The Witness) is still significantly faster than if it just blanket "rechecked all entrances until nothing new is found".
 The reason entrance access rules using `location.can_reach` and `entrance.can_reach` are also affected is simple: They call `region.can_reach` on their respective parent/source region.
 
 We recognize it can feel like a trap since it will not alert you when you are missing an indirect condition, and that some games have very complex access rules.