Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 16:44:00 -
[1051] - Quote
So now we get CCP Rise trying to explain this away and trying to convince us that 40 second reload time is good and makes all the sense in the world.....
No a search for a game mechanic where one is NOT needed does not make any sense, nor does the actual suggested reload time in combat of 40 seconds.
Hey CCP this is where the saying (KISS)Keep It Simple Stupid comes from. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4827
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 16:50:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:How predictable is an arty Tornado? Very. How effective is it against its chosen targets? Very. Anything is easy to counter... if you know how and can execute. What makes a doctrine successful is leveraging your strengths, and not allowing the enemy to capitalize on your weaknesses. I can think of a dozen different ways to utilize the strengths of the system as it is currently proposed, and I am far from alone in this. While there are several knowledgeable FC's in this thread, there are a LARGE number of other FC's and small gang specialists having completely different conversations outside this thread about this proposed mechanic and how they plan to capitalize on it. I will agree that the numbers are going to need some fiddling with to get the balance where it needs to be, but the basic mechanic is very sound... and more than a bit clever. Nobody is arguing about the mechanic. People are 'mainly' complaining about the loss of switching damage types, the DPS loss, and the 40 second reload. Switching ammo types is a large problem. Retribution jumps into you, and you have explosive ammo loaded. You're screwed. You don't have time to change ammo, and because he can easily tank and tackle you, your only option is to run. DPS loss - This is a MAJOR change. 20% sustained DPS loss over a 90second period. Think about how long most fights are, and think about putting out 20% less DPS over the entire fight. If the burst damage was sustained for longer it would be fine, but it's terrible atm. The burst damage isn't even strong enough to kill a MWD'ing Interceptor (which will be highly prevalent after Rubicon). And you're dead after he tackles you. Also.. Cerb with LML is stronger than a Cerb with RLML? What other crusier weapon in the game has worse DPS than it's frigate variant? 40 second reload - Nobody wants to be useless in a fight. Think about how much frustration ECM causes. Now think of self-inflicted ECM that lasts 4x as long. Or in TiDi, think about sitting around for 7 minutes while you watch your reload timer. I'll go fire my missiles, then go eat a sandwhich, come back and I still won't be able to fire again.
They agree that changing ammo types is an issue that will be addressed.
A loss in DPS "is" going to happen one way or another for these launchers. Doing it this way you get a short period of heightened damage to work with instead of just a nerf to damage. Personally, I prefer the heightened short term damage as it gives me some very interesting options. If you prefer a straight up nerf instead that is your prerogative.
Also, using your logic, Arty would be a vastly inferior weapons system that nobody would ever use simply because it's DPS is inferior to other weapons systems. Obviously, used properly, this is not the case.
40 seconds is an interesting amount of time to work with actually. I sincerely doubt that most people are going to sit around waiting for 40 seconds waiting to do something to benefit their situation, no more than they sit around waiting for an ASB to reload. If you can't kite, warp out and reposition. 40 seconds is actually about right for that type of maneuvering in a cruiser or BS.
As I said, there is definitely some room for fiddling with the numbers (ROF, ammo capacity, reload timer). I personally don't have an objection either way if the decision were made to wait until the next point release. But most of the objections being raised are based in very 2 dimensional thinking and trying to shoe horn this into current gang comps and tactics... which is not playing to it's strengths very well. There are other methodologies, tried and true, that will compliment this weapons systems strengths quite nicely. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Aliastra Gallente Federation
101
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 16:53:00 -
[1053] - Quote
I don't know if I speak for a lot of people, but I would really like this change if I had the option with my RMLs to either use v1 (perhaps with a slight dps nerf) or v2. There are some situations in which going into a fight I would want v2 RMLs set, but there are far, far more situations in which I'd rather have v1 even with a DPS nerf. So, Rise, if the goal is to add tactical choices to differentiate weapon systems, then why not add options? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4827
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 16:57:00 -
[1054] - Quote
I'm not where I can check at the moment, but I believe a look should be given to the missile bonuses of a few ships to with these changes in mind. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:06:00 -
[1055] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.
I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.
I don't see where any feedback has been taken into consideration, show us the TQ metrics you based all this on and show us the feedback you're using. If you can't show internal feedback, then get them to come post here. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
356
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:11:00 -
[1056] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I'd like to have a conversation internally about missiles as a whole and figure out where we stand. Maybe there is some more changes needed and I'd like to look into that. Low/passive modules and mid/active script-able modules affecting missile damage application and/or projection (or add effect to TE/TC), new e-war module that will affect missiles same way TDs affect turrets (or just include that effect into TDs). This will give same tank-or-application and damage-or-application choice turret users currently have for missile users, missile dreads might become useful (heresy!) on par with tracking dreads, more rig choices for long and short range missile systems aside from rigor+rigor+flare or speed+speed+time. You promised these changes quite a long time ago.
While you are at it make TP a high-slot module as there are not enough "utilities" to use with utility slots you put everywhere and only then look for a way to balance missiles. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
10244
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:18:00 -
[1057] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:I don't know if I speak for a lot of people, but I would really like this change if I had the option with my RMLs to either use v1 (perhaps with a slight dps nerf) or v2. There are some situations in which going into a fight I would want v2 RMLs set, but there are far, far more situations in which I'd rather have v1 even with a DPS nerf. So, Rise, if the goal is to add tactical choices to differentiate weapon systems, then why not add options? Scripts... Could that be the answer? Go ahead... Get your-áWham on!!! |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
257
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:35:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Why even bother asking for feedback if you're just going to ignore it all?
Why exactly do RLMLs need to be changed? Currently they do less damage with better application than HAMs or HMLs. Seems to me that's how it should work...
Entirely unrelated: will "overloaded" RLMLs be usable in the next alliance tournament? |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
866
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:36:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote: Entirely unrelated: will "overloaded" RLMLs be usable in the next alliance tournament?
Presumably not, based on ASB precedent |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
701
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:41:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Qaidan Alenko wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:I don't know if I speak for a lot of people, but I would really like this change if I had the option with my RMLs to either use v1 (perhaps with a slight dps nerf) or v2. There are some situations in which going into a fight I would want v2 RMLs set, but there are far, far more situations in which I'd rather have v1 even with a DPS nerf. So, Rise, if the goal is to add tactical choices to differentiate weapon systems, then why not add options? Scripts... Could that be the answer?
Precisely !
People are disapproving the change because even if the burst mechanic is interesting, it also means almost certain death in other situations (Yes there is still an average dps, but missiles are already weak on paper dps and highly susceptible to speed and radius in terms of damage reduction).
The solution of a script would be more than reasonable, creating a new gameplay without affecting the current mechanic. If a nerf is needed concerning RLMLs in the way they work against other targets, it shall be done by other ways than giving the module a 40seconds reload time, because it greatly incapacitates a fleet that would need to wait 40seconds for one member reloading before unleashing the dps, and because it greatly impairs PvE with these modules, a point that is ignored currently. (no burst dps needed in pve, waiste of time if you have to reload for 40 seconds to kill one weak ship)
So what's bad ?
1- The proposed mechanic adresses the concerns about RLMLs and RHMLs the same way, whereas these concerns are actually entierly different. (You may take down a frigate without reloading, but not a battlecruiser...) Also, I don't think RLMLs needed a nerf in the first place. Neither RHMLs as demonstrated in TMCs post about the first iteration.
2- This is even more frustrating that it prevents BS missile platforms from finally finding a weapon against smaller targets.
3- The proposed mechanic helps killing things that were already killable, and prevents killing things that were already hard to kill with this weapon system, thus increasing the inbalance between the two situations, increasing frustration for frigate pilots and increasing frustration for cruiser pilots when they die because of the reload time. (BTW that's exactly why ECM is bad, because it is frustrating for both opponents)
4- The proposed mechanic further impairs caldaris that are limited in damage type (which is frustrating since they are the missile race) by giving them a longer reload time in the already rare situations when they must switch.
5- PvE almost impossible with these things.
6- Wasting time rebalancing tiny bits of missiles where the missile system as a whole needs to be redone, is pointless.
CCP RIse, I hope that this way the feedback is clearer because I can't find a best way to deliver it. G££ <= Me |
|
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:43:00 -
[1061] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:, but we spent weeks talking
Why didn't you made this thread weeks or months ago? How long were the CSM aware of this? |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:45:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:CCP Rise wrote: I'd like to have a conversation internally about missiles as a whole and figure out where we stand. Maybe there is some more changes needed and I'd like to look into that. Low/passive modules and mid/active script-able modules affecting missile damage application and/or projection (or add effect to TE/TC), new e-war module that will affect missiles same way TDs affect turrets (or just include that effect into TDs). This will give same tank-or-application and damage-or-application choice turret users currently have for missile users, missile dreads might become useful (heresy!) on par with tracking dreads, more rig choices for long and short range missile systems aside from rigor+rigor+flare or speed+speed+time. You promised these changes quite a long time ago. While you are at it make TP a high-slot module as there are not enough "utilities" to use with utility slots you put everywhere and only then look for a way to balance missiles.
A new module that counters missiles would be interesting and workable, adding it to the current TD's would simply make TD the overwhelming choice for ewar (that's another thread entirely and has been visited already last winter).
But seriously, nerf the old launchers some and put the new ones in as another weapons system.
As for why we're stuck with this load of crap going live is simply because it's already been submitted to the upcoming TQ build as a finished product and it can't be removed apparently.
It isn't going to get revisited and we know it, just like industrial implants were going to work (and still don't), Tech 3 battlecruisers and BS's were going to be released, POS's were going to get reworked and a whole crapload of SOONGäó projects that never happened and will not. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
435
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:55:00 -
[1063] - Quote
So nothing about fixing light missiles at all? It's pretty silly to be 'balancing' the launchers around an overpowered charge. If you fixed LMs, you'd be fixing about 5 overpowered kiting frigates, and then if RLMLs are still too good, you could take another look at them afterward. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
356
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:57:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:A new module that counters missiles would be interesting and workable, adding it to the current TD's would simply make TD the overwhelming choice for ewar (that's another thread entirely and has been visited already last winter). SD affects all ships, ECM affects all ships, TP while not really e-war but affects all ships, neuts, webs, scrams - all affect all ships. Only TD is a special snowflake. It wont be OP if changing mode/scripts from turrets to missiles will take some time. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 17:58:00 -
[1065] - Quote
And is this seriously a joke? Finally someone puts the V2 update onto sisi and all weapon ammo and skill infocards are blank on the server.
What is the coverup now?
Nevermind, not worth trying to give feedback since it doesn't matter if it's on a CCP sponsored venue. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:09:00 -
[1066] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:A new module that counters missiles would be interesting and workable, adding it to the current TD's would simply make TD the overwhelming choice for ewar (that's another thread entirely and has been visited already last winter). SD affects all ships, ECM affects all ships, TP while not really e-war but affects all ships, neuts, webs, scrams - all affect all ships. Only TD is a special snowflake. It wont be OP if changing mode/scripts from turrets to missiles will take some time.
Scripts have the same reload timer as lasers currently, I could agree with a short reload to change scripts. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
866
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:14:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:A new module that counters missiles would be interesting and workable, adding it to the current TD's would simply make TD the overwhelming choice for ewar (that's another thread entirely and has been visited already last winter). SD affects all ships, ECM affects all ships, TP while not really e-war but affects all ships, neuts, webs, scrams - all affect all ships. Only TD is a special snowflake. It wont be OP if changing mode/scripts from turrets to missiles will take some time. Scripts have the same reload timer as lasers currently, I could agree with a short reload to change scripts.
How about a 40s reload time to create tension? |
Platypus King
Doughboys Shadow Cartel
9
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:17:00 -
[1068] - Quote
The conversation about adding new modules like a TD for missiles is pretty absurd. Please consider that missile damage is hugely related to signature radius. That means there are implants and links readily available to counter missiles. Secondly missiles range is a flight time and velocity equation that is simply (flight time)(velocity)=distance traveled. That equation is also counter able however that is more difficult to do.
It is only fair to keep the idea of new modules that negatively affect missiles in the garbage bin until missiles are given modules to increase velocity/flight time. |
Ion Blacknight
EVE University Ivy League
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:19:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Really? How negative and how overwhelming does the feedback have to be? I am pretty new so I am seeing this with fresh eyes. Now I understand you old bros.
I can't believe my beloved RLM Caracal is gone. Wow.
This way of changing things is not good for the game. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
257
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:20:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Can we get a list of which CSM members supported this change, so I know who not to vote for? |
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
262
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:34:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Platypus King wrote:The conversation about adding new modules like a TD for missiles is pretty absurd. Please consider that missile damage is hugely related to signature radius. That means there are implants and links readily available to counter missiles. Secondly missiles range is a flight time and velocity equation that is simply (flight time)(velocity)=distance traveled. That equation is also counter able however that is more difficult to do.
It is only fair to keep the idea of new modules that negatively affect missiles in the garbage bin until missiles are given modules to increase velocity/flight time. There are rigs and implants for that so you're not left out completely. |
FightingMoose
Norse'Storm Battle Group
13
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:36:00 -
[1072] - Quote
I haven't said anything in this thread yet, and I've been thinking about it for a while. There are a couple issues that I see, and they're all related to timing.
- Rise, I agree with you when you say that a lot of the opposition is from the "we don't want to lose our overpowered system" camp, but I think you're failing to recognize that missiles as a whole need a rebalance, and that it might be smart to hold off on knocking RLMLs around until the point of that rebalance. We'd rather you take six months and get a comprehensive solution than rushing small fixes and breaking things.
- This was announced way too late in the dev cycle. This is a significant rebalance, and compared to things like the marauders changes, the community was given absolutely no time to respond to it. When the community did respond and pointed out serious problems with ammo types, something you agreed with, rather than holding off on the changes it was decided to push them through anyway, and look for a solution afterwards. This points to some seriously worrisome trends, and angers the player base. Again, take your time and get it right.
- Reload time as a dps nerf is something that's never really been done before with maybe bombs as an exception. I think it's a good idea, and I agree that it encourages tactical decision making, but maybe announcing it ten days before it is going to be introduced was a bad idea? Again, timing.
- Did I mention that missiles need a serious looking at?
When I was a kid and would screw things up, my dad would always say, "Slow it down, take your time, and do it right." I appreciate CCP's new methodology, lots of new little things every six months that build upon each other. I think it works really well as a whole, but for balancing things like missiles, it would make sense to do it in one fell swoop, with lots of time testing it on SISI. Proud owner of an Ibis. |
Kaeda Maxwell
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
249
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:47:00 -
[1073] - Quote
FightingMoose wrote:I haven't said anything in this thread yet, and I've been thinking about it for a while. There are a couple issues that I see, and they're all related to timing.
- Rise, I agree with you when you say that a lot of the opposition is from the "we don't want to lose our overpowered system" camp, but I think you're failing to recognize that missiles as a whole need a rebalance, and that it might be smart to hold off on knocking RLMLs around until the point of that rebalance. We'd rather you take six months and get a comprehensive solution than rushing small fixes and breaking things.
- This was announced way too late in the dev cycle. This is a significant rebalance, and compared to things like the marauders changes, the community was given absolutely no time to respond to it. When the community did respond and pointed out serious problems with ammo types, something you agreed with, rather than holding off on the changes it was decided to push them through anyway, and look for a solution afterwards. This points to some seriously worrisome trends, and angers the player base. Again, take your time and get it right.
- Reload time as a dps nerf is something that's never really been done before with maybe bombs as an exception. I think it's a good idea, and I agree that it encourages tactical decision making, but maybe announcing it ten days before it is going to be introduced was a bad idea? Again, timing.
- Did I mention that missiles need a serious looking at?
When I was a kid and would screw things up, my dad would always say, "Slow it down, take your time, and do it right." I appreciate CCP's new methodology, lots of new little things every six months that build upon each other. I think it works really well as a whole, but for balancing things like missiles, it would make sense to do it in one fell swoop, with lots of time testing it on SISI.
Yes they told us back when they announced the rocket and T2 ammo re-balance prior to incursions that they didn't want rush such changes without solid testing, then they told us again with hybrid weapons prior to crucible.
Guess they changed that policy.
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
418
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:52:00 -
[1074] - Quote
So, to sum up the last pages, since last Rise post, we have : - Hell noooooo ! - You noob listen to pro ! - Please take more time ! - It's too soon ! We haven't had time to convert you ! - Don't listen those who make positive feedback, they are big noob !
Did I miss anything ?
Do you seriously think that any of these comment will change his mind ?
All the real concerns have been answers already (if not adressed), and for the most part the concerns for the burst mode (aka 40s reload) is completely ignoring everything the functionality give and focus on the long reload.
Numbers have been brought and Rise have certainly seen them. Try now to guess why instead of being stubborn children from whom the toy have been taken. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
234
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 18:53:00 -
[1075] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I understand that the current RLML missiles are very strong and you guys like them and that many people would be very unhappy for them to get a significant change regardless of the method we chose. We definitely feel they need a change though. It's a weapon system designed to be best in a particular kind of situation rather than being the best choice for most situations and so one way or another it was going to get tweaked. However, if this change means the system isn't powerful in the situations it's meant for (dunking smaller ships), it will get adjusted until it is. The second part of this topic is whether or not the other medium weapon systems are actually viable. The way players are behaving says they are, but following this release I'd like to have a conversation internally about missiles as a whole and figure out where we stand. Maybe there is some more changes needed and I'd like to look into that. Well don't listen to the crap about HMLs being bad. They are presently number one on eve-kill for weapons used in kills. They need no buffing. Possibly your nerf didn't go far enough, or it's truly the residue of the Tengu needing it's nerf. Anyway, I'm sure you will have future headaches with potential op missiles once you finally introduce the missile TD/TC/TE modules.
Btw, if you are going to buff the burst damage of RLMLs and new RHMLs then we really need missile TDs in this game. Small ships will basically be flying perma- bent over waiting for the missiles to fly into their exhaust ports. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
866
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 19:00:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote: Well don't listen to the crap about HMLs being bad. They are presently number one on eve-kill for weapons used in kills.
Not only is that not true (they are way behind just 250mm rails), and considering an honest comparison would be HMLs vs medium autocanons, medium blasters, etc, and not HMLs vs 425mm autocannons or 720mm arty, etc, but that statistic has little to no bearing on the claim that HMLs are garbage for small gangs. That statistic is almost entirely nullsec fleets and rvb. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
69
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 19:06:00 -
[1077] - Quote
I'm with many others, missiles as a whole need looked at. I don't think any really need nerfed, but the rapids do need adjusted. But it should be held off a till ALL missiles are looked at. I think missiles deserve more options, and it be nice if they got a module to help with velocity and/or flight time. I do think they need need a better module for defense against them then defnders, smartbomber work too but then no high slots for weapons. I Don't think TDs should be used, but maybe make another module that would effect the missile in flight, like a med or low slot that act somewhat like flares act on planes today. It would give a good defense, and could be a cool effect also.
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
328
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 19:08:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Ion Blacknight wrote:Really? How negative and how overwhelming does the feedback have to be? I am pretty new so I am seeing this with fresh eyes. Now I understand you old bros.
I can't believe my beloved RLM Caracal is gone. Wow.
This way of changing things is not good for the game.
Now you know why anyone who plays eve long enough becomes a bitter vet hahahaha Boldly going forward, still can't find reverse - name that tune kids! |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
3309
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 19:22:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Hmmmm, seems like a good time to corner the market on small smart bombs that will keep frigs alive from the new RLMLs for 50s or so.... |
Klister Ethelred
Parallax Shift The Periphery
19
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 19:29:00 -
[1080] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.
There is NO problem. People don't just use RLML boats in combat. There is plenty of diversity out there in the game. Also, using one doesn't guarantee you'll win or live.
Also, even if they did, "if everyone is special, then no one is special." Having everything perfectly balanced would be BORING.
And again, why make fiddly little changes to ships and weapons when there are much larger problems with EVE?
"I'd rather be pissed off then pissed on""This is one of those times when it's important to know the difference between 'then' and 'than'." |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |