Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Affeks

A good Ibuki replacement? Its more likely than you think!

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles

Ibuki is a relic of early beta days, why its still the tier 9 IJN ship despite having arguably worse stats than Myoko is beyond me. Its a remnant of a time the idea of ship balance and progression must have been different. I think its high time we replaced it with a worthy ship.

 

In comes Myoko preliminaries. 

myoko_class_heavy_cruiser_preliminary_va

These line drawings so elegantly illustrated by Tzoli are a great example.

 

Im mostly inclined to look at the 4x3 as it shares the most consistency with the rest of the IJN CA branch.

 

Theres no reason to be scared that this thing will outperform Zao. Remember Zao has improved HE alpha, fire chance and velocity compared to the older 203mm guns. Not to mention better AA and armor layout.

 

These preliminary Myoko designs were about the same weight as Myoko, but had a 13mm worse citadel plating. In return though it had 2 extra guns and was almost 6 meters shorter, meaning better turning circle and concealment(?).

 

Of course a fantasy refit that replaces the 127mm/40 DPs with 100mm/65 and adds a couple of 25mm and 40mm mounts would mean were set!

 

If you ask me, its time to get rid of Ibuki and replace it with a ship that can stand toe to toe with all the great tier 9 Cruisers we have gotten lately. Baltimore got considerably buffed while Neptune, Donskoi, Roon and Saint Louis are all great ships for their tier if played right. Not to mention the fact that removal of stealth fire hurt Ibuki.

 

The other tier 9 cruiser candidate would be b-65/Super A class, but since it doesnt really fit the progression of the CA branch then I cant see it be anything other than a premium or FXP premium. So thats a discussion for another time.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles

Sure. I mean they moved Baltimore down so may as well wipe out all semblance of T9 and T10 possibly maybe being able to accommodate a(n almost) real WWII cruiser. If their ideas of balance and progression have changed... they were much better before they power creeped T9 to such an extent that it makes you feel the need to suggest this change.

 

Not that those Myoko preliminaries aren't somewhat interesting in their own right. But I would always take the view that balancing a real ship should be the first solution if possible, started/incomplete "what-ifs" as plan B, and wacky preliminaries as a distant backup if all else really fails.

 

Having said that, I have not played Ibuki (I should very soon). But I have no problem performing in Atago in T10 games and Ibuki is on paper better than Atago in basically every way. So I really don't think it needs to be replaced with something more powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PKTZS]
Weekend Tester
2,546 posts
17,774 battles

I'm not sure Ibuki really needs a replacement.

 

But a Myoko with 12 guns in a 4x triple turret layout? Yes please :Smile_great:. Quad turrets look too much fantasy for my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,424 battles

Ibuki needs only higher shell speed, that's all. I don't really like that concept 2x3 front and 2x3 rear is boring for me ^^'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles
1 hour ago, VC381 said:

Having said that, I have not played Ibuki (I should very soon). But I have no problem performing in Atago in T10 games and Ibuki is on paper better than Atago in basically every way. So I really don't think it needs to be replaced with something more powerful.

Im sure Ibuki is still workable, but the issue is the lack of any progression from tier 7-9. The only real additions are 1, 3 mill credit upgrade slots and heal. Meanwhile other nations get progressingly powerfull radars/hydros, RoF figures, shell performance, tankyness etc. Mogami 155mm is a breath of fresh air, but makes going back again to a 5x2 8" layout draw your hairs out.

 

Edit: Atago has a much better armor layout than Ibuki and especially Mogami which makes it a little more comfortable.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,467 posts
19,648 battles

Ibuki is nothing more than a boring repeat of the Mogami, it offers nothing new or exciting but is instead just a better version of the latter.

Other lines have interesting ships on both tiers, while IJN is just same old. Removing the Ibuki and putting something more interesting would be the thing to do.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles
10 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Ibuki needs only higher shell speed, that's all.

I thought so too at first, but then I understood something.

 

Buffing shell speed (or effectiveness at range) only helps Ibuki perform at long ranges. We all know how boring long range HE spamming is.

 

Now thats why I suggest this 12 gun design, it gives Ibuki much higher alpha potential to play around with. It would put her on the playing field in aggressive positions with Roon, Donskoi and upcoming Buffalo. Remember IJN CAs have torpedoes and good concealment, but that part of the ship is too often more or less worthless on Mogami and Ibuki. Myoko can play aggressively in its tier, but Ibuki and Mogami (203mm) are severely crippled compared to its competition.

 

Thats why I never suggested Ibuki should get same shell performance as Zao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,424 battles
5 minutes ago, Affeks said:

I thought so too at first, but then I understood something.

 

Buffing shell speed (or effectiveness at range) only helps Ibuki perform at long ranges. We all know how boring long range HE spamming is.

 

Now thats why I suggest this 12 gun design, it gives Ibuki much higher alpha potential to play around with. It would put her on the playing field in aggressive positions with Roon, Donskoi and upcoming Buffalo. Remember IJN CAs have torpedoes and good concealment, but that part of the ship is too often more or less worthless on Mogami and Ibuki. Myoko can play aggressively in its tier, but Ibuki and Mogami (203mm) are severely crippled compared to its competition.

 

Thats why I never suggested Ibuki should get same shell performance as Zao.

 

The armor is too crap for aggressive playing, the only option is the shell speed. The shell speed of the ibuki is like the Mogami and Myoko has, but that's a tier, which is fighting in general on closer ranges. T9 and T10 is not meant for fighting on 12-15 km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles
6 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

T9 and T10 is not meant for fighting on 12-15 km

Then youre playing wrong. I fight most my top tier CA games well within 15km of enemy frontlines. If you play beyond that you give up any presence to turn away DDs or more effectively focus fire. You give up your WR that way.

 

Islands can help most cruisers play aggressively, but IJN CAs have sub 10km concealment ranges meaning you can disengage as long as you are on medium ranges or fire when a priority target gets too confident.

 

Lastly armor doesnt play a role for most cruisers this tier. Des Moines is the most aggressive CA in the game and good players play it as close to the enemy as possible to be a radar threat and use the AP to demolish targets. And what else is DM? The tier 10 cruiser with the by far worst armor layout outside of Minotaur...

 

So if you rely on armor or range in tier 8-10 cruisers outside of very few exceptions then I can guarentee you are playing wrong.

 

Again Im inclined to favour the 12 gun replacement instead of buffing long range performance to let the IJN sub tier 10 CAs be in the playing field when deciding games early on instead of promoting a half brainless long range HE spamming low impact playstyle.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,424 battles
20 minutes ago, Affeks said:

Then youre playing wrong. I fight most my top tier CA games well within 15km of enemy frontlines. If you play beyond that you give up any presence to turn away DDs or more effectively focus fire. You give up your WR that way.

 

Islands can help most cruisers play aggressively, but IJN CAs have sub 10km concealment ranges meaning you can disengage as long as you are on medium ranges or fire when a priority target gets too confident.

 

Lastly armor doesnt play a role for most cruisers this tier. Des Moines is the most aggressive CA in the game and good players play it as close to the enemy as possible to be a radar threat and use the AP to demolish targets. And what else is DM? The tier 10 cruiser with the by far worst armor layout outside of Minotaur...

 

So if you rely on armor or range in tier 8-10 cruisers outside of very few exceptions then I can guarentee you are playing wrong.

 

Again Im inclined to favour the 12 gun replacement instead of buffing long range performance to let the IJN sub tier 10 CAs be in the playing field when deciding games early on instead of promoting a half brainless long range HE spamming low impact playstyle.

 

We're not talking about DM or other cruisers. The Ibuki can be citadelled from any angle, going close will just rekt this ship. The high alpha strike is good for a surprise attack on the broadside of an enemy cruiser. In random battles, when you go to close with a IJN cruiser, you get rekt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles
9 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 

We're not talking about DM or other cruisers. The Ibuki can be citadelled from any angle, going close will just rekt this ship. The high alpha strike is good for a surprise attack on the broadside of an enemy cruiser. In random battles, when you go to close with a IJN cruiser, you get rekt

This is just not true if played right. Sure go straight into enemy fire you get blasted in about any cruiser. Ibuki does absoluetly not get citadelled from any angle, if anything is better against this than some of its competition. Ibuki has a 30mm upper plating and 32mm main weather deck. This should be enough to fend of anything short of a Republique or Yamato better than some of the other ships on the tier. On top of it Ibuki again has some of the best concealment and high torpedo alpha potential the latter being something the only a few other cruisers has. The main issue is Ibukis lack of DPM and/or alpha.

 

Show broadside you die, sure all cruisers do. You get focus fired without a plan B you die, sure again all cruisers do. It doesnt stop other cruisers from playing aggressively, so I think you have a major misconception of Ibuki and/or high tier cruisers. Cruisers are all about not getting hit to begin with, and Ibuki does this well.

 

And if you get citadelled from any angle it probably means you arent managing your flanks correctly, just a little salty protip for you there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,424 battles
14 minutes ago, Affeks said:

This is just not true if played right. Sure go straight into enemy fire you get blasted in about any cruiser. Ibuki does absoluetly not get citadelled from any angle, if anything is better against this than some of its competition. Ibuki has a 30mm upper plating and 32mm main weather deck. This should be enough to fend of anything short of a Republique or Yamato better than some of the other ships on the tier. On top of it Ibuki again has some of the best concealment and high torpedo alpha potential the latter being something the only a few other cruisers has. The main issue is Ibukis lack of DPM and/or alpha.

 

Show broadside you die, sure all cruisers do. You get focus fired without a plan B you die, sure again all cruisers do. It doesnt stop other cruisers from playing aggressively, so I think you have a major misconception of Ibuki and/or high tier cruisers.

 

And if you get citadelled from any angle it probably means you arent managing your flanks correctly, just a little salty protip for you there.

There is a Video from Flamu called "Ibuki - What armor?" ;) just citadelled a angled Ibuki an hour ago at 14 km

No idea what you mean with "you", I sold Ibuki a long time ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles
1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

There is a Video from Flamu called "Ibuki - What armor?" ;) just citadelled a angled Ibuki an hour ago at 14 km

No idea what you mean with "you", I sold Ibuki a long time ago

You are providing no context to the citadel on 14km and quote a video title which is clickbait at best.

 

This doesnt prove much at all. Citadelling any angled cruiser at 14km is possible with a myriad of ships.

 

Also who crowned Flamu the prophet of this game? Flamu once said Izumo was strong against HE spam, so if anything much of what he says or titles his videos is filled with bias, jokes, clickbait or just misconceptions.

 

Youre baiting me beyond imagination with that reply.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,424 battles
19 minutes ago, Affeks said:

You are providing no context to the citadel on 14km and quote a video title which is clickbait at best.

 

This doesnt prove much at all. Citadelling any angled cruiser at 14km is possible with a myriad of ships.

 

Also who crowned Flamu the prophet of this game? Flamu once said Izumo was strong against HE spam, so if anything much of what he says or titles his videos is filled with bias, jokes, clickbait or just misconceptions.

 

Youre baiting me beyond imagination with that reply.

I started a training room. I shot two salvos at an angled Ibuki, every salvo citadelled at 8 km. Baltimore at 4 km, no citadells.

Your kind of a discussion is really not convincing and somehow rude. Flamu is not a prohpet. He is a good player. Even good players can fail. But it seems like you want to be yourself a prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles
8 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I started a training room. I shot two salvos at an angled Ibuki, every salvo citadelled at 8 km. Baltimore at 4 km, no citadells.

Your kind of a discussion is really not convincing and somehow rude. Flamu is not a prohpet. He is a good player. Even good players can fail. But it seems like you want to be yourself a prophet

again provide context, what ship did you shoot with?

 

I dont want to be prophet, but when the constructive replies I get are "get citadelled from any angle" without any proof or explaination through ship stats or "CC said this so it must be true" I get thrown off. I know my delivery is way too aggressive and its something I need to work on, but when you say high tier cruisers cant fight at close range without bringing up the dozens of tools cruisers have outside armor then I cant do anything but disprove of your opinion till you provide something other than empty "ship gets rekt" statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,424 battles

 

 

 

You're argumentation is weak. It's all  about, "You have to proof it, or I'm right. Other good players opinions are not valid." Also you're quoting me wrong. We're talking about the Ibuki. I said, that she needs faster shells, because it's bad in close combat, because of the armor. That's a fact. "CC said this so it must be true" is also wrong quoted, I said, that I have an opinion, and another one as well. It's more likely that this is true, then you're saying is true. What me get thorwn off is, that you are demanding a lot, but don't give any proof. You questioning, that I just tested it. Why should I lie? That makes no sense.

Otherwise. Okay, Ibuki has good armor and a fine ship with the lowest winrate global. We don't need a replacement *rolls eyes*

 

Here the proof, even it's not worth:

 

Spoiler

20180513232521_1.thumb.jpg.d5367556d630f8b0b7a19d4ace9161ec.jpg

 

 

Spoiler

20180513232554_1.thumb.jpg.6528ca671f934004052fca247fd2f775.jpg

 

Spoiler

20180513232811_1.thumb.jpg.69a1fb83b8b15dfeb399b6c77641f131.jpg

 

Spoiler

20180513232845_1.thumb.jpg.52c1204da5545c9ecad41393d5f81e36.jpg

 

Spoiler

20180513232920_1.thumb.jpg.1b4b62199d7f8962ea7b2913db45200b.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles
14 hours ago, Affeks said:

Im sure Ibuki is still workable, but the issue is the lack of any progression from tier 7-9. The only real additions are 1, 3 mill credit upgrade slots and heal. Meanwhile other nations get progressingly powerfull radars/hydros, RoF figures, shell performance, tankyness etc.

There are other improvements though, like concealment, agility, turret traverse, turret angles, base firing range and of course torpedoes. I can see what you mean by some other lines having more obvious progression but it's also not universally the case. E.g. French T9 vs. T8 looks on paper like about the same upgrade as Ibuki from Mogami.

 

But I don't think this is really a problem. The IJN built and planned to build a lot of similar cruisers but in game, tier and balance can be decided by about half a dozen stats that WG just makes up. So I would rather have a progression of real (or almost real) ships that are similar at different tiers with small balance tweaks than going further into fantasy. If Ibuki is under-performing give her a small RoF buff like they did to Hipper and get rid of the pointless 0.6km detection range she has more than Mogami. But if she's not under-performing there's no need to replace her just to create a more forced feeling of progression or variety.

 

@Pikkozoikum I'm not sure where to start. If you can't make Ibuki work that's one thing but I've played Atago and Mogami a lot in T10 games and whatever strengths they have between them Ibuki shares on paper. So I can quite confidently say you can go aggressive in these ships and the ones getting "rekt" will be your enemies. That's why I doubt Ibuki needs replacing from a purely performance point of view.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,424 battles
1 hour ago, VC381 said:

There are other improvements though, like concealment, agility, turret traverse, turret angles, base firing range and of course torpedoes. I can see what you mean by some other lines having more obvious progression but it's also not universally the case. E.g. French T9 vs. T8 looks on paper like about the same upgrade as Ibuki from Mogami.

 

But I don't think this is really a problem. The IJN built and planned to build a lot of similar cruisers but in game, tier and balance can be decided by about half a dozen stats that WG just makes up. So I would rather have a progression of real (or almost real) ships that are similar at different tiers with small balance tweaks than going further into fantasy. If Ibuki is under-performing give her a small RoF buff like they did to Hipper and get rid of the pointless 0.6km detection range she has more than Mogami. But if she's not under-performing there's no need to replace her just to create a more forced feeling of progression or variety.

 

@Pikkozoikum I'm not sure where to start. If you can't make Ibuki work that's one thing but I've played Atago and Mogami a lot in T10 games and whatever strengths they have between them Ibuki shares on paper. So I can quite confidently say you can go aggressive in these ships and the ones getting "rekt" will be your enemies. That's why I doubt Ibuki needs replacing from a purely performance point of view.

You can go aggressive with every ship. In some situation it's worth. But in general you can get rekt in the Ibuki, because a BB salvo halfs your hp, that happens more often then any other cruiser. If it's not a citadell, it will be a normal pen, there will be always huge dmg, if you go too close. Guess some people think often on special cases, where it work. And of course you could go for a salvo close, but then you will have to hide, if any bb hit you hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles
14 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 

 

 

You're argumentation is weak. It's all  about, "You have to proof it, or I'm right. Other good players opinions are not valid." Also you're quoting me wrong. We're talking about the Ibuki. I said, that she needs faster shells, because it's bad in close combat, because of the armor. That's a fact. "CC said this so it must be true" is also wrong quoted, I said, that I have an opinion, and another one as well. It's more likely that this is true, then you're saying is true. What me get thorwn off is, that you are demanding a lot, but don't give any proof. You questioning, that I just tested it. Why should I lie? That makes no sense.

Otherwise. Okay, Ibuki has good armor and a fine ship with the lowest winrate global. We don't need a replacement *rolls eyes*

 

Here the proof, even it's not worth:

 

  Hide contents

20180513232521_1.thumb.jpg.d5367556d630f8b0b7a19d4ace9161ec.jpg

 

 

  Hide contents

20180513232554_1.thumb.jpg.6528ca671f934004052fca247fd2f775.jpg

 

  Hide contents

20180513232811_1.thumb.jpg.69a1fb83b8b15dfeb399b6c77641f131.jpg

 

  Hide contents

20180513232845_1.thumb.jpg.52c1204da5545c9ecad41393d5f81e36.jpg

 

  Hide contents

20180513232920_1.thumb.jpg.1b4b62199d7f8962ea7b2913db45200b.jpg

 

1: Youre not aiming for Baltimores citadel

2: Youre shooting at Ibuki at much more neutral angles while you shoot at an angled baltimore.

 

This is why you provide context, because it proves yet more bias in your posts.

 

Ill stop here as were probably only going to go in circles with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Beta Tester
1,591 posts
17 hours ago, Aragathor said:

Ibuki is nothing more than a boring repeat of the Mogami, it offers nothing new or exciting but is instead just a better version of the latter.

Other lines have interesting ships on both tiers, while IJN is just same old. Removing the Ibuki and putting something more interesting would be the thing to do.

There are a lot of repeats of "X but better". Just some top examples, but most of the tech tree is riddled with this sort of thing:

 

Fubuki → every subsequent IJN DD except Akizuki

North Carolina  → Iowa → Montana

Caledeon → Danae → Emerald

 

I'd rather keep Ibuki for actually existing, but how much of an argument that actually is depends how much WG care about that sort of thing, and I don't know that variable. As interesting (read: not another sensible superfiring turrets ship at high tier) replacements go Tone would work, has been modelled for WOWS already, and can even share Mogami's 155mm gun option. Has more armour than Zao, interestingly. Less guns but WG can do whatever they want to the hidden stats and make a 1 gun ship oneshot everything with a laser if they want so that doesn't matter. Would also match Izumo of the same tier by design style, for what that might be worth to anyone.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,424 battles
20 ore fa, Affeks ha scritto:

1: Youre not aiming for Baltimores citadel

2: Youre shooting at Ibuki at much more neutral angles while you shoot at an angled baltimore.

 

This is why you provide context, because it proves yet more bias in your posts.

 

Ill stop here as were probably only going to go in circles with this.

1. I aimed for the citadel

2. The angle was in the first case even steeper? Would be way harder to penetrate

 

Disagreeing and complaining is so easy, but what proof did you gave? Show me the citadells on the Balti and tell me how many tries you need and then the same with Ibuki. You're saying just "no", that is even more bias?

 

Btw the Ibuki armor is weaker than the Baltimore armor. 25 mm vs 27 mm. That's why. Just keep ignoring the facts *face palms*

 

19 ore fa, StringWitch ha scritto:

There are a lot of repeats of "X but better". Just some top examples, but most of the tech tree is riddled with this sort of thing:

 

Fubuki → every subsequent IJN DD except Akizuki

North Carolina  → Iowa → Montana

Caledeon → Danae → Emerald

 

I'd rather keep Ibuki for actually existing, but how much of an argument that actually is depends how much WG care about that sort of thing, and I don't know that variable. As interesting (read: not another sensible superfiring turrets ship at high tier) replacements go Tone would work, has been modelled for WOWS already, and can even share Mogami's 155mm gun option. Has more armour than Zao, interestingly. Less guns but WG can do whatever they want to the hidden stats and make a 1 gun ship oneshot everything with a laser if they want so that doesn't matter. Would also match Izumo of the same tier by design style, for what that might be worth to anyone.

Tone would be a nice ship, but I guess it wouldn't be a T9, would it? Also Ibuki and Mogami is still different for me sine I play Mogami as light cruiser and played the Ibuki as heavy

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,467 posts
19,648 battles
38 minutes ago, StringWitch said:

There are a lot of repeats of "X but better". Just some top examples, but most of the tech tree is riddled with this sort of thing:

 

Fubuki → every subsequent IJN DD except Akizuki

North Carolina  → Iowa → Montana

Caledeon → Danae → Emerald

 

The Ibuki-class was nothing more than a repeat of the Mogami-class with slight improvements. It isn't in the same category as the ships you mention, it is closer to royal navy class subgroups like the Fiji and Ceylon were for the Crown Colony-class. Every single class you listed differed in many ways from the preceding class, with some being just of the same type. Unless you want to claim that there is little difference between the North Carolina and the Montana.

 

The Ibuki has the distinction that it was laid down. But other T9 cruisers were pure paper projects, like the Donskoi or Neptune. So replacing it with a paper ship wouldn't hurt the line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,397 battles
2 hours ago, StringWitch said:

North Carolina  → Iowa → Montana

?

The range of speeds between these ships are 27-30-33 knots, the range of health is 66-79-96k, the range of gun number is 9-12, concealment 11.8-12.2-13.3km, the gun is different and as a result velocity is different, the armor layout is different, the accuracy is different, turning circles and rudder shifts are different... these are all differences between NC, Iowa and Montana have but Ibuki, Mogami, Myoko doesnt even come close. You cant really say USN BBs are a repeat in the same context as IJN CAs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RUFL]
Players
244 posts
4,497 battles

Are these actual Myoko design studies? I agree that Ibuki could use some attention (though the turret rotation buff was very welcome), somehow I feel more comfortable facing T10 in Atago. Maybe just giving her a few extra HP and increasing the upper deck armour to a consistent 32mm (25mm right now) would already do the trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×