Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: [BUG] order mistake
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)
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)
With what does one have to hit you guys over the head with to get you to understand that at least and at most are perfectly clear but that the problem (bug or wording) lies with the 'winning' part?
If you're loosing you're clearly not winning. It's that simple.
The order implicates two requirements.
If you're loosing you're clearly not winning. It's that simple.
The order implicates two requirements.
yes,
thats what i thought winning is winning and i was losing so why the sub then???
thats what i thought winning is winning and i was losing so why the sub then???
sadly it's one requirement. For example given a number line with both positive and negative if you say at most +2 then you're referring to anything between 2 and negative infinity? Correct? The same applies here. Winning by at most 2 goals is the same as saying +2 and by definition it can be +1, 0 , -1 .... etc. Thus losing still gets classified in this condition.
It's not winning and then at most 2, otherwise it would be worded winning and winning by at most 2 goals.
I'm sorry if you can't see the distinction between the two as I'm actually trying to help people understand what logically it means.
It's not winning and then at most 2, otherwise it would be worded winning and winning by at most 2 goals.
I'm sorry if you can't see the distinction between the two as I'm actually trying to help people understand what logically it means.
@ Schepel
If you're loosing you're clearly not winning. It's that simple.
Yes that's correct, but if you are losing are you winning by more than X goals? No.
The condition is a true/false type answer. Since it's only checking to make sure the team is not in front by more than say X goals anything under it (including losing) gets passed as true and the condition activates.
Least this is the way I see it to work.
(edited)
If you're loosing you're clearly not winning. It's that simple.
Yes that's correct, but if you are losing are you winning by more than X goals? No.
The condition is a true/false type answer. Since it's only checking to make sure the team is not in front by more than say X goals anything under it (including losing) gets passed as true and the condition activates.
Least this is the way I see it to work.
(edited)
I don't mind whether it works one way or the other. If you're right, which very much seems to be the case, I think the order rather badly worded.
I agree. It makes sense logically, but not when applied to a sport.
It's not winning and then at most 2, otherwise it would be worded winning and winning by at most 2 goals.
forgive me, but the logic still lacks a bit of sense. i do understand your arguement. but the others are correct.
the substitution order has a criteria and a limiter. the definition of winning says you are ahead. that is the criteria. the limiter is "by no more than...". as defined, this means you must have a score greater than 0 to be winning, and less than "x" for the substitution. If your score is less than 0, you have not met the criteria of winning, so there should be no substitution.
forgive me, but the logic still lacks a bit of sense. i do understand your arguement. but the others are correct.
the substitution order has a criteria and a limiter. the definition of winning says you are ahead. that is the criteria. the limiter is "by no more than...". as defined, this means you must have a score greater than 0 to be winning, and less than "x" for the substitution. If your score is less than 0, you have not met the criteria of winning, so there should be no substitution.
You are right. I loose my last match because this bug. My two betters players went to the showers in the second minute. Developers must correct it.
should you not have asked around or even experimented in a friendly before trying it in your league match?
It reminds me of MGS3 in the Virtuous Mission where Ocelot tries to insert a bullet manually into his gun and then kill Snake with it, only to have it jam on him. He'd only seen this done before and not actually tried it.
There is also a good quote about 'assume' but i think it might be slightly offensive to you if i posted it =]
It reminds me of MGS3 in the Virtuous Mission where Ocelot tries to insert a bullet manually into his gun and then kill Snake with it, only to have it jam on him. He'd only seen this done before and not actually tried it.
There is also a good quote about 'assume' but i think it might be slightly offensive to you if i posted it =]
It reminds me of MGS3 in the Virtuous Mission where Ocelot tries to insert a bullet manually into his gun and then kill Snake with it, only to have it jam on him. He'd only seen this done before and not actually tried it.
Brilliant analogy :s
(edited)
Brilliant analogy :s
(edited)
but that's not what it does. All it does is work out the goal difference between your score and theirs and compares that to see if it's less than or equal to the highest score you want it to be. It's a single condition, with the range being between the highest value you set and everything under it.
Maybe it should be worded differently but what would you then say it as. Having a goal difference of at most X?
Maybe it should be worded differently but what would you then say it as. Having a goal difference of at most X?