Subject: [BUG] order mistake

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?

the goal differential explanation makes a little more sense for what happened. if that is the way it actually works, yes it is horribly worded. as it stands right now, winning, or losing on the other side of the coin, appear to be criteria for the condition. perhaps something like what you describe would be better. it would at least be more accurate.

I'm glad I have an understanding of that now. I would have been just as hacked as these guys. I know I won't be using it. As you describe it, it has no value for my purposes.

can it be changed to correct english wording,

cause this is actually nonsence

but then come to think of it, we get issues on the conditional order for losing by at most condition if we use my previous explanation, but the current way is worded correctly, and it does what it's supposed to do.

it is correct English wording as it stands. Just might not be what other's expect but it's still correct. Winning is by definition where you have scored more then your opposition. So if a condition says if you have scored at most 2 more goals than your opposition execute the condition. Thus if you are losing by definition again you have scored less than your opposition and therefore have obviously satisfied the first statement and so the instruction executes.
(edited)

losing by at most 3 goals:
your score - opponent score = smaller -4

winning by at most 3 goals:
your score - opponent score = smaller 4

this is the mathematical interpretation of those events.
so loosing together with most can trigger even if you win
and winning together with most can trigger even if you lose
(edited)

loosing by at most 3 goals:
your score - opponent score = smaller -4

Loosing is a real requirement. You won't see your player substituted with a 5-0 lead, even though it perfectly meets the requirement 'smaller then -4'. Which makes it officially a bug.

loosing is never "winning".
It can be solved by using other word order and/or other words. For instance something like
"bader than I have two scores more"
although I'm sure someone with better English knowledge than me ;-) can find the perfect wiords.

the perfect words are already used for this event.
I showed you the mathematical representation.
the rest is up to you.
if you want the event to only trigger if you lose, you have to use

losing by at least 1 goal:
your score - opponent score = greater 0

that's what you want.

yes it will trigger

But language ISN'T mathematics ;-)
and "winning" is NEVER "loosing".
And obviously it isn't perfect, because it was misunderstood.

???

anyway i am not the only one who misunderstood this order,
so i thinck this order is just bad worded,

i will metaphorically compare it to your last sentence..

The order isn't 'bad worded', as it does what it says, but can be worded better for better understanding.

Your sentence is also 'bad worded', it gets the point across and can be classified as correct, but can be worded better for greater grammatical efficiency! =]
(edited)

Nothing is perfect, people can misunderstand the simplest words.
You cannot write it any better than it is.
If you would use:
Leading by at most 3 goals
(thats how its translated into german)

It would also be wrong in your thinking, because it triggers even if you are behind.
thats the nature of this event and thats what it does :)

it gets the point across

Unlike the order, then.

Edit: To confuse matters further, there is the order: "drawing or winning". 'Winning' IS a requirement here. So, we have a set of orders where 'winning' doesn't mean a thing but two orders where it does. Confusing, wouldn't you say?
(edited)

/But YOUR example make the SAME error as the one we have, so not odd it got the same understanding problem as the excisting text ;-)
/although my example is DIFFERENT built (although I guess it can be improoved).