Subject: [BUG] order mistake

today i had a order:

70' winning by at most 3 goals
Rens Drent on position 11

he just subsitueted even when i was losing the match 2-1,

my other player same order but he was not subsitueted.
(edited)

winning by at most 3 goals = if goal difference is lower or equal to 3

You should have chosen the order: winning by at least 3 goals


So it's no bug, you just missunderstood the order you defined [:P]

winning by at most 3 goals,

but i was not even winning?

i was losing and how come the other player was not subsitueted

I don't know if you need to be winning to activate this order. But it logically doesn't need to be so...

And why are you planning subs after all. Only NTs need it. It's just a waste for normal teams, unless you make the subs at half-time [;)]

tell me why then my other player with exact same order was not subsitueted?

and to answer your question about subs:
i still play in the cup and because i expected a big win i wanted to sae my best strikers so they could have played in cup.

Are you sure there was another order or that the player you wanted to enter the game was available (no injury or red card)?

to clarify

at most 3 goals means you can be winning by 3 goals, 2 goals, 1 goal, drawing or losing.

If you wanted to substitute only if you were leading by 3 or more goals then you should use the

"at least" condition.

Hope that makes things clearer.

And why are you planning subs after all. Only NTs need it. It's just a waste for normal teams, unless you make the subs at half-time [;)]

You're kidding, right? =p

No I'm not... I never use subs, cause I don't see the point of it. I allready had twice 2 injured players in a game, I don't want to finish a game with 10 players, and lose it this way...
A player with low stamina will play as long as a player with high stamina in my team... I'm successfull this way, so I don't see why I need to change [;)]
(edited)

I always have conditional orders where if one of my central defenders gets sent off for any reason, my wing back comes in to replace him so there is not a major gap.

I also sometimes have conditional orders set where if i'm kicking ass in my league match (during cup time) i'll sub my lesser trainees on to get training so i can play my stars in the cup match.

also if my winger isn't doing so well on the wing because of lack of technique, i switch across the field with my other midfielder who has more tech but less pace and hope he does better.

cond orders are beautiful things!
(edited)

same here

i use 2 conditional orders to put a defmid in my central defense in case of red card (1 for each central def spot)

and sometimes i swap midfielders, or replace him (when i use 1 winger) with a slower, but more accurate passing dude when i'm not winning

of course not, howcome you have the order 'losing by at most X goals' then? He wasn't winning so the order never should have taken place. Also, his other player wasn't substituted, how do you see that? I don't hear you about that...

i do believe you are confusing 'winning by at most 3 goals' with 'winning, by at most 3 goals'

English sucks as a language, but those two phrases are quite different.

There is nothing wrong with English, nor is Kasim confusing anything at all.

Either the order is badly worded or there is a bug.

Or,

The english is perfectly correct and there is no bug!

I'm not wrong, that's how it is. Got no idea why someone would use losing by at most, but maybe the scenario is this, if you are trailing by 1 goal with 10minutes to go or 1 goal infront you might want to throw on a striker to level the match or secure the match otherwise you might not bother if you were too far behind and would rather save the player for the next week.

The wording is quite clear if people think logically.

The problem is most get confused between at least and at most, both have separate logical meanings.
(edited)