Search results

Aren't all the textbook shots already added into the game for PC users?

It's all going to be okay friend.

I don't doubt that. But before even seeing your comment questioning why he sounds pissed off, I thought the same thing and asked if he was okay. When someone is in that state, there's no point responding.

The manner in which he's replying to you doesn't deserve a response, @cricket_online . My suggesting is to ignore him and let him vent by himself.

I premeditate almost 100% of my shots (and most of them are basically slogs) in all formats and have a lot of success on Veteran mode.

Sorry your hope was not fulfilled.

The availability of many different bowling actions and batting styles that you can attach to different players. Improved ball physics (for bowling). I say this keeping in mind events such as spinners and medium pacers bowling good length deliveries that are already on its way down before...

I too wouldn't have wanted co-op unfinished and understand that it was an either or situation.

I was not implying ever that they should have given us a broken co-op, rather they could have got co-op completely ready and not addressed some of the smaller bugs for patch 2.5. Ross has addressed this and I now reluctantly understand that it really was an 'either or' situation. Setting aside...

5-6 people either understand my logic or agree with me.

Are you implying that if you did not work on any of the problems in patch 2, you'd have been able to release co-op in place of patch 2.5? Why not address some of the bugs while working on co-op? In any case, if that was the situation, fair enough. Even if I concede the current outcome is the...

Why is there always an either or argument? In this case, either co-op with no glitches attended to or no co-op and all glitches attended to. That should not be the choice. In light of the promise they made, a compromise should have been made.

I thought that I would buy the PS4 version and simulate co-op through swapping controllers until co-op arrived, which you agree I was right to assume that it would have arrived earlier. No one would have even considered the possibility that co-op would take 15 months to arrive. So to say that...

That question is somewhat irrelevant because I'm not saying they should have rushed through a glitch ridden co-op mode. I'm saying they didn't prioritise co-op enough. But just to answer anyways, I would point out the relevant glitches like I have done with any other glitch that exists in the game.

It wasn't a mistake to presume co-op would have been released sooner than this, that is without question. The "no timescale for delivery" comment is a cop out, something even Big Ant does not use as an excuse. It didn't 'obviously' need significant work. When they say it needed more "testing...

I'm sorry I'm going on and on but I genuinely believe my feeling of frustration is not unwarranted.

It clearly wasn't. A patch 2.5 was released a couple of months later. Why is it that co-op had to be in patch 3, a patch that has taken so incredibly long to release because of all these extra improvements, when they could have worked on it ( or prioritised it as I have been repeating so many...

Okay, you promised co-op, then released patch 2 without co-op because it wasn't ready yet. Didn't you then release a patch 2.5 a couple of months later? For a feature that was already in patch 2, but ended up needing more "testing and refinement", you could have easily prioritised co-op a bit...

I'd rather have you be aware that I'm talking about you then risk saying anything 'behind your back', so to speak (in case you couldn't be bothered with this thread anymore).

Also I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the manner in which @Biggs especially dealt with my comments were uncalled for. I've come to accept the manner in which Biggs deals with others he disagrees with because calling him out on it (like I did in another thread) results in comments like these: