Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Substitution by goal difference
- 1
- 2
Dr.MOT to
All
Sometimes it's just about if the match is or isn't "virtually finished".
Example, if at 70' my team if winning or losing by 3 goals, I wanna give those 20' for my 5 trainees. Today, I would use 10 slot conditions to make that happen.
If we had an order to substitute by goal difference, winning or losing, it would be cut by half.
Example, if at 70' my team if winning or losing by 3 goals, I wanna give those 20' for my 5 trainees. Today, I would use 10 slot conditions to make that happen.
If we had an order to substitute by goal difference, winning or losing, it would be cut by half.
Even just increasing the amount of orders available would be great.
I fill up my existing spots in many league games already
I fill up my existing spots in many league games already
Yes
I think both would be great.. we need orders to reduce the number of spots needed, but we also need more spots because we can make 5 substitutions now.
I think both would be great.. we need orders to reduce the number of spots needed, but we also need more spots because we can make 5 substitutions now.
Also to allow conditions to be satisfied from X minute till the end, so we don't have to repeat the same thing for 60', 65', 70', 75' etc.
this solution would alleviate most of the need for more orders.
They already have the mechanic in place for red cards...this shouldn't be difficult.
They already have the mechanic in place for red cards...this shouldn't be difficult.
To Krcko Oraščić: It's already like that. The minute you specify is when your condition comes into force for the duration of the game. Even if it's not fulfilled right away, it gets reassessed during each subsequent stoppage in play.
Have you tested that with all Conditional Orderss?
I believe that only applies to "red card or no player" condition.
I believe that only applies to "red card or no player" condition.
What about the sub condition like "when winning by máx. 1 goal".
In some scenerios this order is usefull, but it's broken. Because if it's 0x0 or even 1x0 for the oponnent, Sokker reads that you are winning by 0 goals or -1 goals.
Don't know if someone noticed, but it's broken, should be fixed.
In some scenerios this order is usefull, but it's broken. Because if it's 0x0 or even 1x0 for the oponnent, Sokker reads that you are winning by 0 goals or -1 goals.
Don't know if someone noticed, but it's broken, should be fixed.
It’s not broken, it does exactly what you’d expect it to. Your logic and understanding of the condition is broken.
Consider a number line, anything to the right of 0 means you are ahead (winning), anything left of that means you’re losing. Winning by at most X is equivalent of saying anything less than or equal to+X and so therefore 0 or -X are both less than X. That’s how it works.
I’m not sure how you’d reword it to make that clearer. It’s pretty clear to me logically speaking.
Perhaps there should be other conditions added that say winning but not winning by more than X or something like to help people who want to use something like that. Alternatively allow combined conditional orders so you can use winning by at least x and winning by at most y in a single order.
(edited)
Consider a number line, anything to the right of 0 means you are ahead (winning), anything left of that means you’re losing. Winning by at most X is equivalent of saying anything less than or equal to+X and so therefore 0 or -X are both less than X. That’s how it works.
I’m not sure how you’d reword it to make that clearer. It’s pretty clear to me logically speaking.
Perhaps there should be other conditions added that say winning but not winning by more than X or something like to help people who want to use something like that. Alternatively allow combined conditional orders so you can use winning by at least x and winning by at most y in a single order.
(edited)
Wel...then the ''winning'' part should be replaced with goals ahead. THEN it's logical. But winning normally states that your team is in for 3 points. The programmation of it is wrong, OR, the representation of the condition is wrong. Either one of them needs adjustment.
The problem is the key word in the condition isn’t winning, it’s actually “AT MOST”. That’s the key part. Winning is just to work out the signage direction of the goal difference number and whether we’re using a greater or less than signage.
Winning by definition in football context is goals ahead. Mathematically they are the same thing. You often hear them interchangeably used. How’s your team going? Oh they’re winning or they’re ahead or they’re leading. It all refers to the same context so your suggestion doesn’t really improve the situation.
I’m open for a wording change, I’m also open for improvements to condition orders to allow more complex conditions but my point is the order itself is not broken, it’s just people continue to make assumptions that aren’t true.
I understand where people get confused, I’m just not sure of a clearer wording.
Edit: There are no conditional orders involving goals that I’m aware of currently in sokker that deal with ranges that check if a number is between 2 specified points. Not sure if that is an old limitation but in that basis everything is a check to see if it is above or less than a single number. If you look from that aspect you also see what this condition does. Perhaps that should be changed to be ranges and then that opens up conditions such as between x and y etc.
(edited)
Winning by definition in football context is goals ahead. Mathematically they are the same thing. You often hear them interchangeably used. How’s your team going? Oh they’re winning or they’re ahead or they’re leading. It all refers to the same context so your suggestion doesn’t really improve the situation.
I’m open for a wording change, I’m also open for improvements to condition orders to allow more complex conditions but my point is the order itself is not broken, it’s just people continue to make assumptions that aren’t true.
I understand where people get confused, I’m just not sure of a clearer wording.
Edit: There are no conditional orders involving goals that I’m aware of currently in sokker that deal with ranges that check if a number is between 2 specified points. Not sure if that is an old limitation but in that basis everything is a check to see if it is above or less than a single number. If you look from that aspect you also see what this condition does. Perhaps that should be changed to be ranges and then that opens up conditions such as between x and y etc.
(edited)
- 1
- 2