bm-31-12 BM-31-12 needs improvements to be workable

[pamww@psn 17]

Who needs hulldown vehicle, when you have hullup?

 

Right ivan?

 

That's BM-31-12 for you.

 

Let's make this thing incapable of direct fire, check.

 

But let's also make it incapable of killing indirectly

 

But also let's put it to 4.0 where there are even less vehicles with exposed crew making our odds of scoring an indirect kill even less.

 

Then let's give it the biggest and most exposed ammorack in the game even exceeding Bkan and Sturmtiger.

 

But who needs ammorack when 7.62mm Machinegun can penetrate and kill crew members from 500m away?

 

Let's give it suspension that can only decline enough to move minimum direct fire distance from 900 to 600 on flat ground.

 

But also make it immobilize the vehicle, with terrible horizontal traverse limitations.

 

Bombs with similar payloads have 2m destruction radius, but this thing? It can hit barrel and only take out barrel.

 

This is the most useless vehicle in the game, before anyone even mentions, MLRS, 15cm or BM-8-24.

 

MLRS can direct fire, has 30 rockets with 6kg explosive and 700m/s.

 

15cm has also direct fire, 20 rockets with 300m/s and 2kg explosive at 2.3

 

BM-8-24 has 24 rockets, with 600 grams and 9mm penetration, but at 1.7

 

You'd think that's bad, but it can oneshot overpressure vehicles with thin armor or exposed crew such as kfz221, 15cm, Jager I, kfz251, flak 38, flak I, kfz 6, kfz222, M8, M3, M10, M13 M15, M16, AA MK I, Sarc 2pdr and pdr6, Archer, Staghound, M8 LAC, Daimler, HoRo, Type 94, TaSe, HoNi, SoKi, RoGo,  Su76, AB41, 3Ro, L40, L3 As47, As42, CM52, M42, P7T, AMR35, AMD35, 353AA, M31, IKV72, SPj42, BT42, FM42, m40.

 

Also has way better armor, 3x faster turret traverse and better Power to Weight ratio, it's also tracked meaning faster hull traverse, it's also smaller.

 

Back to BM-31-12, To get enough inclination you need to reverse into a pile of whatever, car wrecks, small dirt pile.

 

Problem is, not only does that expose you so much, as it's literally the opposite of hulldown, to change directions you'd have to drive forward left/right, then back up to said hill again.

 

This gives you even less INITIATIVE than a CASEMATE.

 

It puts you at a severe disadvantage.

 

Another thing is, unless you're closer to targets, you:

 

A) Have many things obstructing not only your view but also your rocket.

 

B) needs to account alot of lead for moving targets

 

C) bigger rangefinder margin error

 

But if you're close well then:

 

A) Reacts very slowly as it must change directions on said inclination

 

B) Easily overwhelmed and Very fragile

 

C) 80% of Artillery calls mean death unless you move, which depending on the circumstances conceding your position is as good as death.

 

 

 

 

Solutions?

 

Either:

 

A) make suspension decline enough so it can direct fire at 200/100m 

 

AND/OR can move with suspension active

 

B) Give rockets 2m destruction radius and higher shrapnel radius

 

C) Make rockets slower so minimum direct fire distance is reduced to 100/200m at 10° elevation it has.

 

AND/OR let rockets drop back so with it's 85° it can fire from high trajectory/arc like WoT artillery.

 

D) Lower it to 1.0/1.3

 

F) Reduce ammo replenishing time at capture points 

 

Multiple of these provided suggestions can exist.

 

 

[Tubby_Vermin 2,161]

It’s a meme vehicle

[Rafala 100]

Its a meme vehicle

[_Zekken 714]

Its an area of effect rocket vehicle designed to be used at long range against infantry, being shoehorned into a game where its just tanks fighting. 

 

It was literally never going to be anything other than completely useless. You could put it at 1.0 and it'd still be useless

Edited May 21, 2023 by _Zekken

[Ranger_NCR 3]

All the "Its a meme vehicle" replies are funny and all, but for a vehicle you had to grind for it ought to have SOME usability and be atleast competitive on its BR. 

 

As of now this is quite literally THE most useless vehicle, at least in my opinion. 

Katyusha resides at 2.7, so this thing can't realistically be moved lower than that, but I can see it sharing the same BR or slightly highter (3.0) since it has obvious drawbacks (angle etc). 

Other "meme" vehicles in the game can be used competitively and have some strong side to them. 

Sturmtiger, for example, has superb armor and so much smoke you can smoke an entire town. 

Katyusha has pretty small minimal distance of engagement so it can fire at things close.

 

This thing as of now cannot do much, even for a "meme" vehicle.

I get it that they shoehorned it in, but cmon, we all know "muh realism" is not an argument anymore and things can get tweked to levels developers are comfortable with (post-pen damage, penetration, etc), so why not buff it a notch? Its incredibly niche, but just adding slight buffs will increase it usability drastically. 

 

As it is right now it CAN NOT engage at all on some maps because they are either:

  a) too flat

  b) too many trees

  c) too small.

 

I tried my luck with it and on most of the maps you would be like to even get a "Hit" on an enemy, let alone kill anyone. 

I laughed a bit when I noticed that on some maps the distance from spawn to a cap point is smaller than this thing minimum range, and there are no hills for you to circumvent that.

At 4.0 there aren't many targets for you to engage at the distance this thing is comfortable with, mostly you see t-34s and pz4s of different calibers which usually brawl at closer ranges.

Aforementioned Katyusha fares much better in any said conditions, so why cant this thing?

It can totally do SOME damage at big, open maps, but how many of those will you get at 4.0? 

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Ranger_NCR

[Tubby_Vermin 2,161]

1 hour ago, Ranger_NCR said:

All the "Its a meme vehicle" replies are funny and all, but for a vehicle you had to grind for it ought to have SOME usability and be atleast competitive on its BR. 

 

As of now this is quite literally THE most useless vehicle, at least in my opinion. 

Katyusha resides at 2.7, so this thing can't realistically be moved lower than that, but I can see it sharing the same BR or slightly highter (3.0) since it has obvious drawbacks (angle etc). 

Other "meme" vehicles in the game can be used competitively and have some strong side to them. 

Sturmtiger, for example, has superb armor and so much smoke you can smoke an entire town. 

Katyusha has pretty small minimal distance of engagement so it can fire at things close.

 

This thing as of now cannot do much, even for a "meme" vehicle.

I get it that they shoehorned it in, but cmon, we all know "muh realism" is not an argument anymore and things can get tweked to levels developers are comfortable with (post-pen damage, penetration, etc), so why not buff it a notch? Its incredibly niche, but just adding slight buffs will increase it usability drastically. 

 

As it is right now it CAN NOT engage at all on some maps because they are either:

  a) too flat

  b) too many trees

  c) too small.

 

I tried my luck with it and on most of the maps you would be like to even get a "Hit" on an enemy, let alone kill anyone. 

I laughed a bit when I noticed that on some maps the distance from spawn to a cap point is smaller than this thing minimum range, and there are no hills for you to circumvent that.

At 4.0 there aren't many targets for you to engage at the distance this thing is comfortable with, mostly you see t-34s and pz4s of different calibers which usually brawl at closer ranges.

Aforementioned Katyusha fares much better in any said conditions, so why cant this thing?

It can totally do SOME damage at big, open maps, but how many of those will you get at 4.0? 

 

yes but it’s a meme vehicle 

[_Zekken 714]

3 hours ago, Ranger_NCR said:

All the "Its a meme vehicle" replies are funny and all, but for a vehicle you had to grind for it ought to have SOME usability and be atleast competitive on its BR. 

Im honestly not sure what you expect, you could look at it when it was announced, and test drive it before bothering to grind for it. 

 

I felt it was extremely obvious from gaijins initial reveal post and video that it'd be completely useless. Im not sure why any one else would think that it would or even should not be as useless as it is

[Ronin7245@live 13]

3 hours ago, Ranger_NCR said:

All the "Its a meme vehicle" replies are funny and all, but for a vehicle you had to grind for it ought to have SOME usability and be atleast competitive on its BR. 

 

As of now this is quite literally THE most useless vehicle, at least in my opinion. 

Katyusha resides at 2.7, so this thing can't realistically be moved lower than that, but I can see it sharing the same BR or slightly highter (3.0) since it has obvious drawbacks (angle etc). 

Other "meme" vehicles in the game can be used competitively and have some strong side to them. 

Sturmtiger, for example, has superb armor and so much smoke you can smoke an entire town. 

Katyusha has pretty small minimal distance of engagement so it can fire at things close.

 

This thing as of now cannot do much, even for a "meme" vehicle.

I get it that they shoehorned it in, but cmon, we all know "muh realism" is not an argument anymore and things can get tweked to levels developers are comfortable with (post-pen damage, penetration, etc), so why not buff it a notch? Its incredibly niche, but just adding slight buffs will increase it usability drastically. 

 

As it is right now it CAN NOT engage at all on some maps because they are either:

  a) too flat

  b) too many trees

  c) too small.

 

I tried my luck with it and on most of the maps you would be like to even get a "Hit" on an enemy, let alone kill anyone. 

I laughed a bit when I noticed that on some maps the distance from spawn to a cap point is smaller than this thing minimum range, and there are no hills for you to circumvent that.

At 4.0 there aren't many targets for you to engage at the distance this thing is comfortable with, mostly you see t-34s and pz4s of different calibers which usually brawl at closer ranges.

Aforementioned Katyusha fares much better in any said conditions, so why cant this thing?

It can totally do SOME damage at big, open maps, but how many of those will you get at 4.0? 

 

You forgot, it's a meme vehicle

[pamww@psn 17]

7 hours ago, Tubby_Vermin said:

It’s a meme vehicle

Doesn't matter.

 

You cannot name a vehicle more useless than this.

 

There are many slight improvements that can be made which alone will put it way ahead of the trash it is right now.

 

Firstly it literally has no place being 4.0 at all

25 minutes ago, Ronin7245@live said:

You forgot, it's a meme vehicle

Invalid argument, move on.

[TABACCA@psn 2]

2 minutes ago, pamww@psn said:

Doesn't matter.

 

You cannot name a vehicle more useless than this.

 

There are many slight improvements that can be made which alone will put it way ahead of the trash it is right now.

 

Firstly it literally has no place being 4.0 at all

Invalid argument, move on.

The point of the vehicle is to be funny, not good. you should of known that.

[Cepeleon 96]

My only issue with it, is that I can't range the sights to use it as arty because the distance meter is unviewable.

[pamww@psn 17]

1 hour ago, _Zekken said:

Im honestly not sure what you expect, you could look at it when it was announced, and test drive it before bothering to grind for it. 

 

I felt it was extremely obvious from gaijins initial reveal post and video that it'd be completely useless. Im not sure why any one else would think that it would or even should not be as useless as it is

I don't get the people's desperation that they'd so rather argue for the sake of arguing, to prevent a vehicle from recieving even the slightest corrections and improvements that would put it way ahead of what it is right now.

 

For one, ordnance of similar Payload had a destruction radius of atleast 2 meters. Which means hitting the barrel shouldn't only take out the barrel.

 

Second, it has literally no place at 4.0, where it would be much more suited at 1.3 which is a bracket composed of much more of exposed crew and thinner armor.

 

Third, even slightest adjustments to velocity will lower minimum direct firing distance.

 

Fourth, slightest adjustments to suspension will also allow better minimum firing distance

Just now, Cepeleon said:

My only issue with it, is that I can't range the sights to use it as arty because the distance meter is unviewable.

It's not the only issue with it, also for your problem, use sight distance control, zero it at 100/200/300 meters and you'll have better FOV

4 minutes ago, TABACCA@psn said:

The point of the vehicle is to be funny, not good. you should of known that.

That's not an argument, for one, a vehicle THIS situational and useless, is not fun.

 

Therefore the "fun", "meme" is not valid, if it cannot even get a kill, then it's ditched away and none likes it.

 

There is not a single vehicle more useless than it, there's no place for such vehicles in this game.

 

It requires improvements, and your petty and invalid arguments will mean nothing.

[_Zekken 714]

2 minutes ago, pamww@psn said:

I don't get the people's desperation that they'd so rather argue for the sake of arguing, to prevent a vehicle from recieving even the slightest corrections and improvements that would put it way ahead of what it is right now.

 

For one, ordnance of similar Payload had a destruction radius of atleast 2 meters. Which means hitting the barrel shouldn't only take out the barrel.

 

Second, it has literally no place at 4.0, where it would be much more suited at 1.3 which is a bracket composed of much more of exposed crew and thinner armor.

 

Third, even slightest adjustments to velocity will lower minimum direct firing distance.

 

Fourth, slightest adjustments to suspension will also allow better minimum firing distance

It's not the only issue with it, also for your problem, use sight distance control, zero it at 100/200/300 meters and you'll have better FOV

Im not arguing for the sake of arguing. Im stating a basic fact, a fact that anyone who looked at the thing before grinding it should have been easily able to figure out. 

 

If its historically accurate to the real life one as it is currently implemented, then no they cant and wont change or improve it. For better or worse war thunders entire thing is being historically accurate. If you can find official documents that the current ingame specs are wrong then you are welcome to submit them to get it changed. 

 

Id argue its actually better at 4.0 than 1.0, heck Id argue that it'd probably be most effective around 5.0. engagement ranges are longer, maps get larger, and vehicles become slower and spend more time stationary than the close range high speed light tanks that inhabit 1.0. thus you'll be more likely to actually get an angle to shoot at someone with it. Plus reloads are longer which gives you more time to line up and aim if they miss their first shot. 

 

 

The fact of the matter is, its a meme vehicle. Gaijin probably added it as a joke which is why they gave a super simple mission to unlock it. Or maybe they are planning on adding infantry at some point who knows. But it will never be good or remotely usable against tanks unless they go full fantasy land on it. 

[pamww@psn 17]

4 hours ago, _Zekken said:

Its an area of effect rocket vehicle designed to be used at long range against infantry, being shoehorned into a game where its just tanks fighting. 

 

It was literally never going to be anything other than completely useless. You could put it at 1.0 and it'd still be useless

Incorrect, at 1.0 there are way thinner armor, and way more vehicle with exposed crew than compared to 4.0

 

Also at 1.0 vehicles are way more sluggish which soothes the initiative disadvantage of the Truck.

 

Second, it's the same case for MLRS, 15cm and BM-8-24, they are rocket artillery aswell.

 

Merely the historical context and it's actual role does not draw any limitations of the vehicle gameplay wise.

 

Just like games aren't completely realistic because they need to account for gameplay.

 

Realism/historical accuracy =/= gameplay 

 

Sturmpanzer is Artillery, but can fight tanks in this game.

 

Sturmtiger and KV-2 are bunker busters/assault guns who provide breakthrough against heavy fortifications, yet they fight tanks in this game.

 

IFVs are meant to carry troops and provide suppresion and cover for them mainly against other infantry and light armor such as other IFVs and APCs, altough they posses Anti-Tank capability against MBTs, but they are fighting MBTs in this game.

 

These arguments are as valid as "muh historicaly!! Realistically!!".

[pamww@psn 17]

Just now, _Zekken said:

Im not arguing for the sake of arguing. Im stating a basic fact, a fact that anyone who looked at the thing before grinding it should have been easily able to figure out. 

 

If its historically accurate to the real life one as it is currently implemented, then no they cant and wont change or improve it. For better or worse war thunders entire thing is being historically accurate. If you can find official documents that the current ingame specs are wrong then you are welcome to submit them to get it changed. 

 

Id argue its actually better at 4.0 than 1.0, heck Id argue that it'd probably be most effective around 5.0. engagement ranges are longer, maps get larger, and vehicles become slower and spend more time stationary than the close range high speed light tanks that inhabit 1.0. thus you'll be more likely to actually get an angle to shoot at someone with it. Plus reloads are longer which gives you more time to line up and aim if they miss their first shot. 

 

The fact of the matter is, its a meme vehicle. Gaijin probably added it as a joke which is why they gave a super simple mission to unlock it.

 

Or maybe they are planning on adding infantry at some point who knows. But it will never be good or remotely usable against tanks unless they go full fantasy land on it. 

"Im not arguing for the sake of arguing. Im stating a basic fact, a fact that anyone who looked at the thing before grinding it should have been easily able to figure out. "

 

I don't get what point you are still even trying to make with this.

 

"If its historically accurate to the real life one as it is currently implemented, then no they cant and wont change or improve it."

 

Artificial MBT armor:

 

Missing context and specifications:

 

BR adjustments:

 

Artificial buffs and nerfs:

 

"Id argue its actually better at 4.0 than 1.0, heck Id argue that it'd probably be most effective around 5.0. engagement ranges are longer, maps get larger, and vehicles"

 

Maps and your odds of getting of remain nearly unchanged.

 

"the close range high speed light tanks that inhabit 1.0"

 

Even more of them remajn sluggish, also paper and exposed.

 

"The fact of the matter is, its a meme vehicle. Gaijin probably added it as a joke which is why they gave a super simple mission to unlock it."

 

It's the same mission as Sturmtiger, that is no argument.

 

Also "meme vehicle" is invalid, you keep making a circular argument.

 

There's nothing even workable about it in the slightest, what is even more impeding is, desperate people like you withholding any suggestions in regard of it's improvement "just because", because of literally no reason and for the sake of arguing.

 

"Or maybe they are planning on adding infantry at some point who knows. But it will never be good or remotely usable against tanks unless they go full fantasy land on it. "

 

It easily can

[TABACCA@psn 2]

38 minutes ago, pamww@psn said:

I don't get the people's desperation that they'd so rather argue for the sake of arguing, to prevent a vehicle from recieving even the slightest corrections and improvements that would put it way ahead of what it is right now.

 

For one, ordnance of similar Payload had a destruction radius of atleast 2 meters. Which means hitting the barrel shouldn't only take out the barrel.

 

Second, it has literally no place at 4.0, where it would be much more suited at 1.3 which is a bracket composed of much more of exposed crew and thinner armor.

 

Third, even slightest adjustments to velocity will lower minimum direct firing distance.

 

Fourth, slightest adjustments to suspension will also allow better minimum firing distance

It's not the only issue with it, also for your problem, use sight distance control, zero it at 100/200/300 meters and you'll have better FOV

That's not an argument, for one, a vehicle THIS situational and useless, is not fun.

 

Therefore the "fun", "meme" is not valid, if it cannot even get a kill, then it's ditched away and none likes it.

 

There is not a single vehicle more useless than it, there's no place for such vehicles in this game.

 

It requires improvements, and your petty and invalid arguments will mean nothing.

You fail to understand how its fun, its the challenge of killing someone with it, if you are trying to argue that a vehicle that is supposed to be trash because its a meme should be buffed, then you don't get the joke.

[pamww@psn 17]

2 minutes ago, TABACCA@psn said:

You fail to understand how its fun, its the challenge of killing someone with it, if you are trying to argue that a vehicle that is supposed to be trash because its a meme should be buffed, then you don't get the joke.

If you have a fetish for that kind of thing, that doesn't mean anything.

 

It's the same argument like,

 

Just because I can 1 Tap planes and get kills with M42/M16A1 DOESN'T mean they are good,

 

The baseline of players determine that, and by that case it's bad.

 

There is no fun in going for matches without a single kill, performing a tedious setup with high risk no reward, i see in every killfeed how none of them score a kill, in fact I've never even SEEN one get a kill for the entire 2 days I've been playing.

 

There's no meme to it, none is enjoying it.

 

and it'd be alot more enjoyable with corrections and improvements.

 

You seem to have the idea it's a joke, but I've yet to see anyone laughing.

[TABACCA@psn 2]

1 minute ago, pamww@psn said:

If you have a fetish for that kind of thing, that doesn't mean anything.

 

It's the same argument like,

 

Just because I can 1 Tap planes and get kills with M42/M16A1 DOESN'T mean they are good,

 

The baseline of players determine that, and by that case it's bad.

 

There is no fun in going for matches without a single kill, performing a tedious setup with high risk no reward, i see in every killfeed how none of them score a kill, in fact I've never even SEEN one get a kill for the entire 2 days I've been playing.

 

There's no meme to it, none is enjoying it.

 

and it'd be alot more enjoyable with corrections and improvements.

 

You seem to have the idea it's a joke, but I've yet to see anyone laughing.

I enjoyed it, and who said its a fetish? even my friends enjoyed it when i brought it in to a custom and killed a 2A6 twice.

5 minutes ago, pamww@psn said:

If you have a fetish for that kind of thing, that doesn't mean anything.

 

It's the same argument like,

 

Just because I can 1 Tap planes and get kills with M42/M16A1 DOESN'T mean they are good,

 

The baseline of players determine that, and by that case it's bad.

 

There is no fun in going for matches without a single kill, performing a tedious setup with high risk no reward, i see in every killfeed how none of them score a kill, in fact I've never even SEEN one get a kill for the entire 2 days I've been playing.

 

There's no meme to it, none is enjoying it.

 

and it'd be alot more enjoyable with corrections and improvements.

 

You seem to have the idea it's a joke, but I've yet to see anyone laughing.

And once again, i actually did well with the M19A1, when i played Japan.

Edited May 22, 2023 by TABACCA@psn
Grammar.

[pamww@psn 17]

5 minutes ago, TABACCA@psn said:

I enjoyed it, and who said its a fetish? even my friends enjoyed it when i brought it in to a custom and killed a 2A6 twice.

And once again, i actually did well with the M19A1, when i played Japan.

You not only missed the example hut repeated the argument.

 

I might be good with M19A1, but it doesn't make it good SPAA because it has way higher skill floor, meaning it's not as workable with the player baseline as other SPAA.

 

Just because few players can't do it doesn't make it the performance of it, just like how exceptions don't make the rule

[TABACCA@psn 2]

8 minutes ago, pamww@psn said:

You not only missed the example hut repeated the argument.

 

I might be good with M19A1, but it doesn't make it good SPAA because it has way higher skill floor, meaning it's not as workable with the player baseline as other SPAA.

 

Just because few players can't do it doesn't make it the performance of it, just like how exceptions don't make the rule

You grinded the BM-31-12 full well knowing that it would be bad, so i don't see why you are complaining.

[pamww@psn 17]

4 minutes ago, TABACCA@psn said:

You grinded the BM-31-12 full well knowing that it would be bad, so i don't see why you are complaining.

youre the one who has been arguing for literally no reason.

 

You are so desperate not wanting it to receive improvements for literally no reason.

 

I've met so many people who argued for the sake of an argument but you exceed them all my mate.

 

All you kept throwing is invalid arguments then when they are discarded you move your goal.

Edited May 22, 2023 by pamww@psn

[TABACCA@psn 2]

Just now, pamww@psn said:

youre the one who has been arguing for literally no reason.

 

You are so desperate that it does not receive improvements for literally no reason.

 

I've met so many people who argued for the sake of an argument but you exceed them all my mate.

 

All you kept throwing is invalid arguments then when they are discarded you move your goal.

I literally have the vehicle, i main the USSR, you cannot claim i have goals to see it suffer, because i like the thing as it is, and it's literally a meme vehicle, its not meant to be taken seriously, it's meant to be a challenging vehicle, so you can have fun with it.

[_Zekken 714]

49 minutes ago, pamww@psn said:

"Im not arguing for the sake of arguing. Im stating a basic fact, a fact that anyone who looked at the thing before grinding it should have been easily able to figure out. "

 

I don't get what point you are still even trying to make with this.

 

"If its historically accurate to the real life one as it is currently implemented, then no they cant and wont change or improve it."

 

Artificial MBT armor:

 

Missing context and specifications:

 

BR adjustments:

 

Artificial buffs and nerfs:

 

"Id argue its actually better at 4.0 than 1.0, heck Id argue that it'd probably be most effective around 5.0. engagement ranges are longer, maps get larger, and vehicles"

 

Maps and your odds of getting of remain nearly unchanged.

 

"the close range high speed light tanks that inhabit 1.0"

 

Even more of them remajn sluggish, also paper and exposed.

 

"The fact of the matter is, its a meme vehicle. Gaijin probably added it as a joke which is why they gave a super simple mission to unlock it."

 

It's the same mission as Sturmtiger, that is no argument.

 

Also "meme vehicle" is invalid, you keep making a circular argument.

 

There's nothing even workable about it in the slightest, what is even more impeding is, desperate people like you withholding any suggestions in regard of it's improvement "just because", because of literally no reason and for the sake of arguing.

 

"Or maybe they are planning on adding infantry at some point who knows. But it will never be good or remotely usable against tanks unless they go full fantasy land on it. "

 

It easily can

See, here you are the one arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

You got your answer, just because you refuse to accept it doesnt change what the answer is. 

[MOBB 1,354]

It’s just another example of poor planning, regarding the big picture of this game development by gaijin.  
 

Letting people grind this just to be “punished “ with a useless vehicle is business as usual.  Why not add an extra minute to the punish timer when the player quits the round after one death? Equally stupid and self defeating…

Edited May 22, 2023 by MOBB

[pamww@psn 17]

Just now, _Zekken said:

See, here you are the one arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

You got your answer, just because you refuse to accept it doesnt change what the answer is. 

Quote me what exactly the "answer" is also im literally suggesting corrections and improvements to a vehicles that reserves much luxury of having them, yet you people for no reason are desperate and literally don't want it to have improvements.

 

But that is somehow arguing for the sake of argument? How?? Elaborate?