2065/2066 Player age 30 and under save thread

[Bizkit]

I may use this later in the year, but since I have so many rookies, I'm waiting.

If nothing changes I'll be using it on 1b Brent Scott.


Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[dgfred]

I will go ahead and burn my save on Magneto. He lost 2 talent in control.

Thanks Leo.

[HollywoodLeo]

I will go ahead and burn my save on Magneto. He lost 2 talent in control.

Thanks Leo.

When did he lose it? I don't see anything on the player development page.

If it happened last year then he's no longer eligible because you have to make the decision before the rollover.

[dgfred]

Just noted here that Magneto dropped 2 earlier in Control.

This is when I noticed and posted it in this thread- 05-27-2016 which was between sim 5 and 6 of 2065. I thought it was a 2yr thing?

[HollywoodLeo]

This is when I noticed and posted it in this thread- 05-27-2016 which was between sim 5 and 6 of 2065. I thought it was a 2yr thing?

You get one within two years, but you still have to decide on a player before to the rollover.

You're still relatively new and that's not explicitly stated in the first post, I suppose, so I can let it slide this time but that's been the general practice.

[Mach]

I do kind of like the idea of the save working retroactively, but that sounds like it'd be a nightmare to manage.

[HollywoodLeo]

I'm sure you'd like the idea of randomly editing players to all 10s too, but there has to be limits on these kind of things.

[Mach]

one has nothing to do with the other, but thanks for being a cunt for no reason?

[HollywoodLeo]

Within the context of the discussion they have everything to do with each other, one's just a grand exaggeration.

Of course you like the idea of retroactive saves, who wouldn't? The point is, there has to be a line somewhere.

[Mach]

the fact one's a grand exaggeration takes it well out of the same realm though. The line on the retro saves is perhaps one step removed from the actual process whereas yours isn't in the same ballpark.

Not that it matters since it was a pure empty hypothetical musing anyway.

[HollywoodLeo]

The point of the exaggeration was simply a more over the top example of something that of course you'd like.

I suppose I could have left it at "who wouldn't?" or something like that, but that's neither here nor there.

[Kingdom]

Can I save Thurman Munson? He was all 10's back in 2055.

Asking for a friend.

[Mach]

The point of the exaggeration was simply a more over the top example of something that of course you'd like.

I suppose I could have left it at "who wouldn't?" or something like that, but that's neither here nor there.

Seemed more like a "never make any statements of preference or propose ideas" since having conversations is apparently forbidden here.

[HollywoodLeo]

Seemed more like a "never make any statements of preference or propose ideas" since having conversations is apparently forbidden here.

It'd seem counterproductive of me to tell you conversation is forbidden while having a conversation with you.

If I wanted to forbid conversation I have the power to A) delete posts and B) lock threads.

By not doing either that's painfully obviously not my intent.

[Kingdom]

And I have the power to ban Leo!