Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
lady jailbait
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:51:00 -
[151] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41cJUliIuH0
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:55:00 -
[152] - Quote
Watching today's wardec bit and i'm impressed. From yesterday's reports it sounded like they were making DecShield official, now it sounds very much the opposite (which i like ^_^)
I liked the idea of not counting unsubscribed accounts towards the wardec cost, whoever asked that, i hope they bugged the devs all day about that =D
Also counting logistics into killmails is important. A lot of assholes refuse to fly logi simply because they dont get on killmails (FIT ECM DRONES NOOBS) "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1060
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:55:00 -
[153] - Quote
New war dec system is awesome as long the trial alt "shield" is cured from the code.
Good presentation and well researched stuff. This thing is hard to make perfect, but at least it will be much better now.
Get |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:40:00 -
[154] - Quote
Unlimited allies. And you can be an ally in an unlimited number of wars.
Just stop and think about that for a bit. What's gonna happen? |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
778
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:43:00 -
[155] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:(such as calculating using the CubeRoot() of the size My old suggestion lives on. Yay! ;)
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
778
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:48:00 -
[156] - Quote
Dirael Papier wrote:I dunno, I'd just prefer completely disabling a corp's ability to accept new members during a war. That would lead to an unbelievable amount of abuse. You could wardec the University continually and ensure that they could never recruit new members ever again. Whereas some of us might find that hilarious, it's not beneficial to the game overall.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Dirael Papier
Blackdust Citex Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:51:00 -
[157] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Dirael Papier wrote:I dunno, I'd just prefer completely disabling a corp's ability to accept new members during a war. That would lead to an unbelievable amount of abuse. You could wardec the University continually and ensure that they could never recruit new members ever again. Whereas some of us might find that hilarious, it's not beneficial to the game overall. Very true, hadn't really considered that.
Welp, no clue how one could deal with corp hopping then. vOv |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
200
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:28:00 -
[158] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Xorv wrote:Wardec fees should be based on the size of the attacker not the defender, or flat fees that are not prohibitively expensive should be used. Basing fees on the size of the attacker is too prone to abuse. [...]
Yes I suppose that's true. Although, if you put a 7 day wait timer to join a corp that had declared a wardec that would eliminate that problem.
Another way would be to have Wardecs of different sizes at the point of declaration with a set max number of players you can have in the wardecing corp/alliance. Exceed it and the deced corp/alliance can drop the war against them if they wish.
For example Corp A wishes to wardec Corp B. Corp A has 45 members and takes out a Wardec against Corp B which allows 50 max players. During the course of the war that week Corp A takes on 8 new members giving them a total of 53 which exceeds the limit of 50 players the Wardec they paid for, and now Corp B can end the War immediately if they choose at no cost to themselves and Corp A will have to wait to renew the war with a new Wardec that allows for more than 53 members.
The larger the max number of player a corp can have during the wardec the higher the cost obviously, with an added set fee for wardecing an Alliance.
A Corp/Alliance can choose whatever max number they wish to pay for, if a one man corp wants to pay for a Wardec that allows for 200 characters they may do so.
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:11:00 -
[159] - Quote
The size of the wardeccing corp should also be a factor so large corporations are less inclined to attack smaller ones.
500.000 ISK per playing character in wardeccing corp (no trial accounts, no lapsed accounts).
Prevent member-padding by wardecced corporations to artificially increase the cost of the wardec.
Characters of trial accounts don't count to the member count. But characters from lapsed accounts shouldn't either.
Declaring a war should have consequences for the wardeccing corp if they bite off more they can chew (lots of allies)
If the wardecced corporation declares the war mutual (can be done anytime), the wardeccing corporation can then only end the war by formally surrendering themselves.
Prevent the situation where its unclear about who can shoot who, which can be abused, when allies join the war.
If a ally joins a multiple wardecced corporation, they always join in ALL wars they are currently fighting. If additional corporations wardec, the mercenaries can choose to break the contract.
Lump sum fee is determined by amount of wars of the wardeccing corporations, not amount of wars of the wardecced corporations.
Wardeccing corporations should not be able to wardec a ton of small corporations at once. So this should multiply the lump sum. But they should be able to get help in a war with a lot of additional allies, by having another corporation declare war. This should NOT multiply the lump sum, otherwise the war becomes enormously unbalanced in favor of the wardecced corp because they can escalate with an endless amount of allies for no incrementing cost, which the wardeccing can not.
I also think the base lump sum should be 10M ISK for wardeccing a corporation and 50M for an alliance. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Miranda Bowie
The Paratwa Ka
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:12:00 -
[160] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Oh so powerful then they join a random corp and get told to stay docked for a week. The only corp that forces their membership to dock while wardecced is the University. Every other corp, big and small, they learn to adapt, they learn to play the game. The University doesn't teach people how to play the game, they farm votes for Kelduum. :) Wow, three blatantly false statements in a row. Nice. I see your understanding of the WSOP today is as poor as it was when you were in it...
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Those without it do what EvE Uni does, as it's the only way to make wardeccers get bored. Or you can create insta-undocks and learn how to use d-scan and local. You can still function as an industrialist under a wardec, and not go looking for fights. Run some clones out to the assends of highsec and jump between them every 24hrs, and do your stuff. Don't keep operating in your usual haunts. ADAPT. Mmm, yes. I recently joined a PvP corp, and we had a corp event where we all went out and were taught and practiced these skills. Of course, it was somewhat redundant for me, as I'd already been taught these skills... at EVE University. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:07:00 -
[161] - Quote
All this bull$hit is going to backfire.
They stated at Fanfest:
- Objective to make EvE the biggest MMO universe by the next year
- Streamlining the game (also seen in the last month with the items name changes and blogs about changing ships skills etc).
- Redoing POSes and greatly spreading their use so "everybody" will want one.
They will NOT achieve this by making more bizantine (and thus exploitable) rules, like "you can wardec this for Y paying Z but if K <> gamma then alpha = beta^2".
They got it for the new aggression mechanics why they can't get it for wardecs?
Why don't they GET IT that people won't get their personal-remade POS if they have to tear it down once a week? It's just basic common sense. No, a guy with 1 hour to play a day won't subject himself to the burden of finding a reliable and good merc corp (expensive and when I ask them: "no way, we don't do these menial boring things like protecting a POS"). They will just tear the POS down, do some pathetic PvE (EVE's PvE is possibly the worst in the industry), get bored and leave.
Why don't they GET IT that people in 2012 just won't bend down and suck prepotent bully d!cks "I pee in your face because that makes feel me good!" and will just choose another game? Don't get me wrong, it's OK to get a wardec by a competitor and whatever but allowing the above mentality people in a social paid experience? Don't make me laugh. A regular person will just think that CCP are nonsensical at allowing that behavior and will go play a game where punks "I do this (list here any obnoxious garbage not related with competitive game play) because I can" get banned.
The whole "corporation" concept is a farce and easily proven by the fact that people HAVE to form one in a million 1 man new corps just to put up a small POS (or any tangible industry feature) somewhere.
Is that a corp? No, it's a cumbersome outdated game mechanic that forces everybody to form a corp for anything.
If they want the "POS for everyone" concept to have any degree of success they have to implement a sub-corporation entity where people can do their crap without getting constantly focused by 100 times as stronger entities who won before even beginning "a match".
"LOL noob HTFUADAPT". Sure, then why did they create FW? To not force people in the tiresome 0.0 politics and general bull$ht. Why did they create WHs and why are they so damn successful? Again, to not force people in tiresome 0.0 blobfare and politics.
So, why typical low SP fresh people have to subject themselves to tiresome grief-decs, rackets, alt-wardec-while-mains-get-hired-to-protect, RR docking games? What's competitive about it? What's challenging about this? What's intellectually interesting about this? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Municherus
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:43:00 -
[162] - Quote
Well i think those are nice ideeas about the war but some of them are unbalanced like the war fee for small corps. Why increased fee when they can ally with others to help protect them? Anyways this could be nice begining for mercs or a verry bitter end. If the war deck fee increases the small merc corps will have to join the big aliances of mercs out there. As far as i know it has never been much rezistance even from the big aliances in game when you war deck them only small gangs roaming to catch a few gate gate or station campers so even if the new mecanics comes in place the targets will always run with they'r tail behind the legs or fly cloakie ships or stabbed or what else god knows. Lets sit back, relax and let CCP amaze us like always!(they helped suiciders in high sec with T3 BC like tornados) |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
263
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:08:00 -
[163] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All this bull$hit is going to backfire.
I really liked the part where they said they wanted wars to be more hardcore and after that everything just seemed right. Many of us were afraid they would cave in to the hisec bears and some even interpreted the crimewatch changes as a sign of that. But I think we can relax now. CCP have good intentions and they are sticking with their vision. EVE is real.
EVE has grown every year since launch, yes even the year of the summer rage 2011, by making a game that has consequences and meaning. Many leave in frustration but those who stay become loyal customers that stay in the game for years to come. That is the secret behind CCPs success. Caving in to the demands of hisec bears has a great chance of backfiring. Thankfully they seem to realize that and has chosen their path.
U mad? |
Rengerel en Distel
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:09:00 -
[164] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All this bull$hit is going to backfire.
They stated at Fanfest:
- Objective to make EvE the biggest MMO universe by the next year
Don't get hung up on that, as it includes the possible 60M ps3 subscribers playing Dust.
Don't assume bad intent, when stupidity is the much more likely cause. |
Nirnias Stirrum
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:10:00 -
[165] - Quote
In before 2k members mining corps costing 1bisk a week to dec! |
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:31:00 -
[166] - Quote
Nirnias Stirrum wrote:In before 2k members mining corps costing 1bisk a week to dec! One bisk is p cheap heh. |
Allendra Sormana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:42:00 -
[167] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Dirael Papier wrote:I dunno, I'd just prefer completely disabling a corp's ability to accept new members during a war. That would lead to an unbelievable amount of abuse. You could wardec the University continually and ensure that they could never recruit new members ever again. Whereas some of us might find that hilarious, it's not beneficial to the game overall. I also agree that a complete stop to join/leaving while in war is too much, just as 7 days is too much (as suggested by Xorv), but a 3 day wait might be acceptable. I think 1 or 2 days is probably not enough, and all this also doesn't solve the problem of aggressors just hopping into another corp to wardec the same target over and over... I'm not even sure if there is a solution to that though...
I'm firmly against not counting currently unsubbed accounts though, or actually only counting accounts (not characters). This gives too much (of what is essentially out-of-game) information about the corp you're about to wardec. I can just open the wardec-window on Corp X and can clearly see in the price how many accounts or unsubbed chars are in that corp. This information isn't even available to the corp themselves (the director would surely LOVE to kick unsubbed accounts). It's even worse with accounts (vs. characters), as that information should NEVER be available! EVER!
I'm on board with trials not counting though, that is a no-brainer. |
Kira Vanachura
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:07:00 -
[168] - Quote
Allendra Sormana wrote:I'm on board with trials not counting though, that is a no-brainer. I'm not convinced it's that obvious. There are good reasons why most games protect new players from griefers. Removing that protection would mean corporations with new players become the target of choice even more than they are now. The problem is abuse; people might create free accounts to make wardeccing more expensive. I hope CCP will find a better solution to solve that problem. Suggestions are welcomed. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:21:00 -
[169] - Quote
some cool stuff, some not so cool
i miss the option of "escalating" a war
a defender calling more than one ally should allow the agressor to also call one (allowing the defender to always have one more ally than the agressor)
also something like "hand over poco or pos X" to end war" would be really really cool |
Miranda Nebail
The Escort Service Iberians.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:22:00 -
[170] - Quote
Pricing is way unbalanced.
Basically is telling new players that want to pvp: "Go mining to make isk to start a war" |
|
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:26:00 -
[171] - Quote
Miranda Nebail wrote:Pricing is way unbalanced.
Basically is telling new players that want to pvp: "Go mining to make isk to start a war" It's saying: Get the fck out of hisec. |
Miranda Nebail
The Escort Service Iberians.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:28:00 -
[172] - Quote
Luba Cibre wrote:Miranda Nebail wrote:Pricing is way unbalanced.
Basically is telling new players that want to pvp: "Go mining to make isk to start a war" It's saying: Get the fck out of hisec.
Actually, is telling everyone to go to 0.0 and join the drones there pressing F1-F8.
Mining beats that. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5764
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:43:00 -
[173] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Wow, the pricing structure needs work I think. I'd be more in favor of some kind of logarithmic function surrounding member counts. At the roundtable, I brought up the idea of (essentially) maintaining the same pricing structure but having it rely on relative numbers or ratios instead of absolute numbers, and it was met with some general approval among the others. Basically, have whatever cost you like for each wartarget, but make it count per # characters difference between aggressor and defender.
This would have a couple of interesting consequences.
First, it would get rid of the GÇ£oh, let's just go after the small guy because they (still) cost fsck-all to decGÇ¥. It would instead ever so slightly encourage GÇ£oh, let's go after the same-sized guysGÇ¥.
Secondly, to actually achieve that GÇ£same-sizedGÇ¥ status, I can easily see a cottage industry of padding corps and alliances on both sides of the table. With the current system, alt-padding becomes the new dec shield. With a Gêå-system, both sides would have some interesting choices which open up for some new business for the entrepid entrepreneurs. A corp who thinks that it might be attacked a lot could sign up for membership in a padding-alliance to drive the cost up for those annoying tiny-number gank squads. This comes with the risk of some other gank squad coming along and picking a fight, but there's more of them than they're quite likely more dangerous than the tiny squad you first wanted to dissuade.
On the other side of the fence, the gank squad could essentially sign up for a similar service that some alliance provides, simply to get their numbers up to where they can now go after a very large group of juicy targets without paying bajillions for it. Sure, the padding alliance would now be embroiled in a war it has no intent in joining and/or fighting, just because those belligerent newcomers want to mass-pop haulers, but on the other hand, that alliance might spend all their time in w-space, so this just becomes a new way of passively making business on the side.
The whole idea the devs presented was that you paid for gaining access to targets. More targets = easier to find = moar ISKies!! Few targets = harder to find = less ISKGǪ the problem is, of course, that that's just nonsense. It's not difficult in the slightest to find a small group, and that this pricing structure just means large alliances get an extra layer of security for free that their sheer numbers alone should provide. Making it a relative-size or ratio scheme, it would rather (admittedly only ever so slightly, and with the aforementioned caveats) incentivise something that could GÇö at a distance GÇö be considered approaching a GÇ£fairGÇ¥ fight. The caveats also open up for some fun player-run cottage industries, and that's always a bonus in my view.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why don't they GET IT that people won't get their personal-remade POS if they have to tear it down once a week? It's just basic common sense. [GǪ]
The whole "corporation" concept is a farce and easily proven by the fact that people HAVE to form one in a million 1 man new corps just to put up a small POS (or any tangible industry feature) somewhere. The point is what was said at the very beginning at the presentation: new ground rule GÇö if you want the benefits of a corp, you get wardecs. Period.
If you want a POS, you get wardecs. If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs. If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.
If you don't want wardecs, then you will get none of those things and you have perfectly operational NPC corps and NPC facilities to take your mind off of things.
Oh, and as for that POS? It takes less than an hour to tear it down and put it up again with the new rules, and guess what? Even more business opportunities: hire a GÇ£moon valetGÇ¥ corp that plunks down a dummy POS at GÇ£yourGÇ¥ moon while you protect your assets from the wardec GÇö when the dust settles, they tear it down and you put yours back up at the same spot as before. You could probably also find various mission-crazy people who are willing to act as standings-padding, bumping your standings up for a few ISK so you don't have to kick and re-invite all the regulars every time you have to save that POS.
Quote:If they want the "POS for everyone" concept to have any degree of success They don't. They want the GÇ£POS for everyone who can stomach the prospect of a wardecGÇ¥ to have a degree of success. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
778
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:07:00 -
[174] - Quote
[quote=Poetic StanzielThat would lead to an unbelievable amount of abuse. You could wardec the University continually and ensure that they could never recruit new members ever again. Whereas some of us might find that hilarious, it's not beneficial to the game overall. [/quote]
Any "member locking" or "corp locking (to an alliance)" for the defending party is indeed simply open to pure grief-play as described. However, if the aggressor (initiator) of the wardec was placed under such restrictions - it would be justice, but still unbalanced.
The solution there is probably that: Attempting to join the aggressor alliance / corp as a member / corp will only take effect on the following downtime. So if you have outbound, non-mutual, wardecs, new member corps/players will have to wait until the daily downtime before they officially become a member. Which removes a lot of the meta-gaming that currently occurs. |
Azorean
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:13:00 -
[175] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All this bull$hit is going to backfire.
They stated at Fanfest:
- Objective to make EvE the biggest MMO universe by the next year
- Streamlining the game (also seen in the last month with the items name changes and blogs about changing ships skills etc).
- Redoing POSes and greatly spreading their use so "everybody" will want one.
They will NOT achieve this by making more bizantine (and thus exploitable) rules, like "you can wardec this for Y paying Z but if K <> gamma then alpha = beta^2".
They got it for the new aggression mechanics why they can't get it for wardecs?
Why don't they GET IT that people won't get their personal-remade POS if they have to tear it down once a week? It's just basic common sense. No, a guy with 1 hour to play a day won't subject himself to the burden of finding a reliable and good merc corp (expensive and when I ask them: "no way, we don't do these menial boring things like protecting a POS"). They will just tear the POS down, do some pathetic PvE (EVE's PvE is possibly the worst in the industry), get bored and leave.
Why don't they GET IT that people in 2012 just won't bend down and suck prepotent bully d!cks "I pee in your face because that makes feel me good!" and will just choose another game? Don't get me wrong, it's OK to get a wardec by a competitor and whatever but allowing the above mentality people in a social paid experience? Don't make me laugh. A regular person will just think that CCP are nonsensical at allowing that behavior and will go play a game where punks "I do this (list here any obnoxious garbage not related with competitive game play) because I can" get banned.
The whole "corporation" concept is a farce and easily proven by the fact that people HAVE to form one in a million 1 man new corps just to put up a small POS (or any tangible industry feature) somewhere.
Is that a corp? No, it's a cumbersome outdated game mechanic that forces everybody to form a corp for anything.
If they want the "POS for everyone" concept to have any degree of success they have to implement a sub-corporation entity where people can do their crap without getting constantly focused by 100 times as stronger entities who won before even beginning "a match".
"LOL noob HTFUADAPT". Sure, then why did they create FW? To not force people in the tiresome 0.0 politics and general bull$ht. Why did they create WHs and why are they so damn successful? Again, to not force people in tiresome 0.0 blobfare and politics.
So, why typical low SP fresh people have to subject themselves to tiresome grief-decs, rackets, alt-wardec-while-mains-get-hired-to-protect, RR docking games? What's competitive about it? What's challenging about this? What's intellectually interesting about this?
Agree on all counts! |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
403
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:18:00 -
[176] - Quote
Putting restrictions of the behavior of the aggressor but not the defender biases wars heavily in favor of the defender, which is unfair. Particularly considering that it is fairly common for defenders to have mercs hop in and out of their corps to help them fight war targets. |
Masral Kabo
Peregrine Guard
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:26:00 -
[177] - Quote
Agree 100% with Tippia.
And lol at Vahrokha for thinking everyone should be able to operate a POS with zero risk. If you cant defend corp assets you should lose them. |
Rikeka
The Escort Service Iberians.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:33:00 -
[178] - Quote
An increase of the wardecs cost was expected... but this new system is criminal.
What's funny is that this will increase the amount of high sec gankers/suicides Why pay 4b to wardec GoonSwarm, when I can just gank any freighter moving their logistic lines, and it's free.
Hell, this will also only make already big alliances even bigger.
Eventually, this will kill small alliances. Not only small ones, but new ones, and newbie-friendly ones that were not targetted before because they were not good targets.
But if declaring them is cheaper than declaring big 0.0 alliances, so ****'em, right?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DZUXQ.jpg[/IMG] |
Dutarro
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:38:00 -
[179] - Quote
Quote:In my opinion Corporations should choose to commit into the War system by gaining access to certain ISK faucets and facilities or stay in a neutral status by renouncing those goodies.
That's exactly my opinion. Member count will be gamed just as war dec count is already (a.k.a. "dec shielding"). An inverse member count scale is interesting, but can also be gamed. For example, 100-member corp breaks into five 20-member corps and opens a chat channel ... now you need five decs that are five times as costly to attack them all. Tying war cost to corp income potential imposes a risk/reward tradeoff that is much harder to game.
Also, I disagree with the premise that a war dec from a small aggressor is less damaging than a large aggressor. When a 2-man PvP corp decs a 100-man indy corp, all 100 defenders have to adjust their game play but the aggressor does not. It's sort of the high sec equivalent of the afk cloaker. At least when a larger corp decs you, there's an enemy online and possibly in space for you to go fight with. I'm not saying that the 2-man dec vs. 100 should be forbidden, but it shouldn't be cheap either.
|
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
195
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:57:00 -
[180] - Quote
Shouldn't the war cost shrink the closer you get to pairity in the corp sizes involved? The modifier should increase with disparity in corp sizes. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |