[thehef]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

It already is. No other game has anything close to the breadth and depth historical minors as included in OOTP! Don't miss seeing the trees for the forest here.

I believe you! I think it's actually both, though: No other game comes close to the breadth and depth... but it's also not extensively used by gamers (my impression is based only upon how little historical minors are discussed on the forums, and when they are, it's usually expressing a) confusion due to its complexity, or b) exasperation due to it's limitations).

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

I hope you know I say that not critically, but with a lot of love and appreciation for all your efforts and passion for the historical minors It's truly appreciated.

And I know maybe you get the feeling I'm always the one saying, no or later, to your (great) proposals. But honestly, that's not coming from a lack of appreciation of the historical game. In fact, just speaking personally, this is probably my favorite part of OOTP and I'm always pushing behind the scenes for us to do more here.

Well, that's good to know

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The difference is, that I know a little more about just how much is required to add some of these features, along with how much manpower we actually have available to deal with some of this (along with juggling all the other things we want/need to develop or fix up).

Some of what (I get the feeling) seems like it should be a trivial thing to work out, to you or the other folks who love historical play too, is really not trivial at all. Separating the minors and making it less rigid f.e. This would very likely be a difficult and time-consuming thing to code. It's not a matter of just deciding to do it, and taking an hour or two and then it would be done.

Yep, I DO get that many of the things I and others suggest are not as easy - programmatically - as they might seem.

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

To the larger question there, again, there's a reason playing historical minors with real transactions is not recommended. If it had been possible to make historical minors work satisfactorily with real transactions with just a few tweaks, we'd have done so already.

I suppose if someone presents us with a (reasonably) complete minor league transactions db, that could change the picture and make the extra effort needed to tweak things worth it.

Dude... you're tempting me. I'm actually giving this serious thought... The question is, would I really want to torture myself with something like this? I just might...

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

But failing that, I do not think we're likely to put much extra effort into making this one specific aspect of things more functional (historical minors with real transactions and lineups), since even if we fixed up some stuff, this would overall still not be properly functional without a much larger minor league transactions/lineups database than is presently available (at least to my knowledge).

I think we're actually talking about two different things here: The lack of a minor league historical transactions database is one thing, but the existence of "the Jackie Robinson issue" (or the issue of career minor leaguers not importing correctly, for that matter) would seem to be another in that it at least on the surface seems the Jackie thing as it relates to "hist txns not recommended w minors" goes a bit like this:

"The Jackie issue is weird & rare, we have no idea why it happens, and we don't have the time to troubleshoot it. Since it only happens when historical transactions are enabled with minors, let's just file it under "... not recommended..."

Don't get me wrong, I understand that approach, at least from a available resources perspective. But without an understanding of why it happens - and why either the combination of hist txns and minors, or the absence of a milb hist txns file, causes the problem - there's no reason to think that the enormous effort that would be involved to produce a milb hist txns file would be worth it. IOW, without that understanding of the issue, it would be nothing more than a crapshoot that the existence of a milb hist txns file would solve the issue.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that, while I understand it's not as simple as making a few tweaks to make hist txns work with hist minors, the specific Jackie issue should be investigated, identified, and fixed, even if that fix doesn't completely fix hist txns + hist minors. And I of course realize that "investigated, identified, and fixed" would require resources, and that it may not happen right away...

I mean, it really boils down to the fact that even with minors enabled, 99+% of historical transactions happen as they should, and other screwy things generally do not happen. So why is Jackie one of the very rare exceptions?

At any rate, Lukas, for a better understanding of the overall issue, could you please expand upon the following?

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

... this is just one (of many) reasons why we put it on the setup screen (in all caps for emphasis even!), that it's not recommended to use historical minors and real transactions together.

Other than the Jackie issue mentioned here, I have not read of any specific reasons for "not recommended." If there's a short - or long(?) - list of those that you could provide, that would be very helpful for those who, like me, seem to end up spending more time testing & tinkering vs actually playing...