Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
677
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 18:53:00 -
[931] - Quote
Everything sounds great to me save one potential issue that muddies it (I see some here share my general concern if not this one specifically) and that is the potential of aggressed corps to contract corps of "padding" alts to increase the war maintenance cost. Essentially wouldn't it be possible to have corps stacked with inactive alts to offer themselves to alliances or on a character basis to drive up the apparent number of corp/alliance members, thus increasing the aggressors cost of maintaining the war? I saw in this FF talk that CCP expressed opposition to the idea of alt padding, but it was a brief mention in passing, and this specific behavior was not addressed.
Anyone know
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
623
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:28:00 -
[932] - Quote
I like the scaling of cost with member number.
Why should it be more expensive to dec two 50 member corps over one 100 member corp? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Mindseamstress
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:38:00 -
[933] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Severian Carnifex wrote:You did not give any love to indy players, you just make their lives harder. Bad carebear corps will indeed be driven out of business (corps, not players!). That means bigger market shares for those that survive. I would be really carefull as a smallish griefer corp to declare war on somebody who trucks around with cargo worth billions in his freighter. That fellow can afford wardecs that the avg. small griefer corp can't. As a result it's very well possible that those small griefer corps are being driven out of business because being stuck in station for one week sucks, even for alts. You don't pay for an alt account to have it docked, do you? Instead of focusing on whining you may want to use your brain to figure out how you can take advantage of the upcoming changes. There where plenty of corps that could handle wardecs before all the wardec nerfs. If you can't you may want to look for proper leadership.
And you as a griefer should be able to dec with nothing of real value at stake? makes a lot of sense. Why not just remove highsec? |
Mindseamstress
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:43:00 -
[934] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:bornaa wrote:So... all in all... CCP is going to **** up this game for majority of its players. I hope they've changed their minds by now on some of the changes in the Dev blog. Those ideas are based around the concept of making avoiding war more difficult, when any change to war mechanics that is going to actually resonate with the players will involve making engaging in war more enticing. They clearly haven't changed their minds because Soniclover still talks about the cost scaling formula as if cost scaling is something that should exist even though everyone pretty much universally agrees shouldn't. Seeing as e-uni officially announced their new anti-wardec policy this week it should be even more apparent that it is completely unacceptable for players to have any means under their control to affect the cost of declaring war against them and that cost scaling unfairly protects people who do not need protection. The strong should be fair game, not just the weak.
I agree that cost scaling is silly, but I like the isk deficit idea proposed on the first page of this blog. Any deccing entities should put something on the line to balance this right. Initiating war should arguably not cost a bunch, but the penalty of loosing should be high, even if you are weak. I.e you get a fair shot at a high stakes game, but if you fail you pay a high price |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
134
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 00:31:00 -
[935] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I like the scaling of cost with member number.
Why should it be more expensive to dec two 50 member corps over one 100 member corp? Administrative costs. Your wardec needs to be distributed to all CONCORD ships in space, you know. |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 08:21:00 -
[936] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I like the scaling of cost with member number.
Why should it be more expensive to dec two 50 member corps over one 100 member corp?
There's a flat fee of 20mil to wardec a corp.
So to war dec 2 x 50 member corps it will cost 90 Million - to war dec 1 corp of 100 members would cost 70 Million
tl;dr: It's still more expensive to war dec two 50 member corps over one 100 member corp.
Even so, the ISK costs for corps with low numbers make the entire system unattractive. These changes don't actually look as though they're trying to reinvirgorate Empire wars or kickstart the Mercenary Business, which is a shame. These were enjoyable aspects of Eve that can no longer be enjoyed by New players.
I do hope Goonswarm repeat Jitageddon when this mechanic comes into play. The only way people could repel them is to shoot them before they suicide gank. To do that you would want to be in a state of war with the alliance. I'm interested to see who's willing to pay up the 4.2billion a week that will be needed to defend the gentle carebears of Jita Highsec. |
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:01:00 -
[937] - Quote
Cost should include an imbalance factor, something based on ABS (aggressors total SP - defenders total SP) . This would penalise extremely imbalanced wars, which are either done to get killmails off noobs or disrupt the economics of large corps with minimal force projection.
The cheapest war should be an even fight.
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:39:00 -
[938] - Quote
betoli wrote:Cost should include an imbalance factor, something based on ABS (aggressors total SP - defenders total SP) . This would penalise extremely imbalanced wars, which are either done to get killmails off noobs or disrupt the economics of large corps with minimal force projection.
The cheapest war should be an even fight.
No-ones going to pay 70mil a week to fight a 100 man corp.
Rule of thumb is that about 10% of the corp will be active during the corps primetime, this of course will be less during a war. So you're looking at 70mil a week for the right to shoot less than 10 people.
Trust me, absolutely no-one will use this war dec system other than to clear high sec pos's as and when required. If you wish to protect your pos, just make sure you have more members in corp than the other corps that have pos's in that system. |
betoli
Morior Invictus.
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 03:39:00 -
[939] - Quote
Captain Thunk wrote:betoli wrote:Cost should include an imbalance factor, something based on ABS (aggressors total SP - defenders total SP) . This would penalise extremely imbalanced wars, which are either done to get killmails off noobs or disrupt the economics of large corps with minimal force projection.
The cheapest war should be an even fight.
No-ones going to pay 70mil a week to fight a 100 man corp. Rule of thumb is that about 10% of the corp will be active during the corps primetime, this of course will be less during a war. So you're looking at 70mil a week for the right to shoot less than 10 people.
Are you replying to me, or just replying - I never mentioned figures.
|
Avila Cracko
347
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 12:16:00 -
[940] - Quote
How i "LOVE" this CCPs new way of IGNORING PAYING CUSTOMERS. 47 pages of concerns and complaints and DEVs are not even bothering to explain us. They are like blinded horses. Running into the same direction even if there is 1000 snakes or fire.
Same thing i saw on FanFest presentation. Every question was concern but DEV didn't even bother with them.
That's the spirit. Boldly run into the fire ignoring every sign of danger. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
496
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 13:46:00 -
[941] - Quote
That's how CCP does game design. They take a sideways glance what is going on in the game, decide it needs to change without even trying to determine why the state of the game is the way it is then jam in a pile of badly conceived game mechanics, then they leave them like that for a decade in spite of constant complaints from the userbase.
I mean, we all loved dominion sov right? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:03:00 -
[942] - Quote
So the wardec changes are up on singularity. Guess what the new "formula" for wardec cost scaling is? That's right it's the same flat 500k per member that was announced at fanfest.
Glad to know that CCP is listening to the players!
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:11:00 -
[943] - Quote
The new formula is not on Sisi, it's still the old formula, we're still working on implementing the new stuff. |
|
Blade M Howser
0........0 -Silicon Heaven-
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:35:00 -
[944] - Quote
what this means is a noob corp full of new players who decide to form a corp and help each other learn the game and have fun playing as a group of friends can get griefed forever forcing them to get bored and cancel their subscription to eve. ccp needs to implement a way for broke noob player corp to end a war . when a merc corp that has members with 10 milsp - 100 mil sp per member war dec a group of noobs that only have a combined sp of 20 million sp they have a unfair advantage that ccp prides themselves on not letting other players have over you
make the fight fair that both corps need to have a even amount of sp within a certain margin |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:47:00 -
[945] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: we're still working on implementing the new stuff. Pull the other one. |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:08:00 -
[946] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:The new formula is not on Sisi, it's still the old formula, we're still working on implementing the new stuff.
There is no viable formula for escalating costs.
Consider a 100 man corp. Currently 20mil + 500k per member = 70mil (yes I know you said you're working on a new formula, but bear with me). 70mil is *not* a good figure. For a 100 man corp you're looking at 10-20% actually active during peaktime - that's normal when no wardec is in play, if under war conditions many members will simply take time off and do other things. So for 70mil a week you're looking at being able to shoot 5-10 characters, this isn't something you will find players chomping at the bit to pay up and do.
Now consider an 8,400 man Alliance 50mil +500k per member = 4.2bil (barring any caps once it reaches a certain figure). This means player events such as "Burn Jita" leave the sandbox and become an activity that ordinary high sec dwellers are powerless to prevent. This time round it was at least an option to wardec goons and make an attempt to 'defend' Jita. Some did although they failed to make an impact, next time there won't be an option as no-one in their right mind is going to pay that kind of ISK.
I appreciate you must have some reason for wanting escalating costs, though I am unsure what it is. There's certainly a tremendous amount of effort that has gone into this revamp, a lot of which deserves to be applauded. But I don't think you understand what it is that have caused War Declarations to fall out of favour over the years to end up in the great dumpster that is "grief war decs". I would assume the reasoning behind it is the spurious "grief decs" we're all familiar with, a corp with no more than a handful of members aggressing an entity with far superior numbers. While escalating costs may do well in preventing this, it has the unfortunate side effect of disuading everyone else from using the war dec system as well. I would anticipate in future that it will only be used by those wishing to remove and replace high sec pos's with ones of their own. I do not think this is a good trade off, the people who suffer "grief decs" are invariable large alliances that usually have 0.0 interests and stakes, the real question is 'why do these people need protecting from "grief decs"?' and is it really worth making an already unattractive system unusable for the purpose it is intended? These alliances already have logistical steps to immunise themselves from the effects anyway and frequently use alt corps to do the trips to Jita.
War decs currently only catch the afk, because of the plethora of warnings, helpful hints and information that goes into warning either side of the others presence. It takes minimal effort to skirt around the aggressors and people are naturally drawn to the path of least resistance. Aggressors too are drawn to this path which is why you find 99% of them in or on the route to Jita. If you take the time to look at how Eve wars ended up in this position you will find the reasons behind why war decs aren't currently used as intended. A long time ago, when such things were more popular, fighting could occur all over high sec, as a noob in 2006 I would frequently be flying around in my punisher gasping in awe as fighting errupted at a gate, lasors zapping and missiles zooming everywhere. This was because at the time, being in a war and knowing who and where you enemy was took a certain amount of effort. Both sides had to peruse killboards and build a memberlist of the corp(s) oppossing them and add them to their addressbook. This took time and effort, the reasoning was because back then you didn't see standings or war target symbols in the local list. You literally wouldn't know a war target was in your system unless you show info'd everyone in local, had them in your addressbook or they suddenly appeared on your overview. This made the whole scenario more dangerous and exciting, even when you didn't see the green light of your addressbook warning you then there was still the possibility of one of the corps members lurking in your system that you hadn't found on a killboard and added to your list.
This major element of engaging in high sec war was wiped in one fell swoop with the introduction of standings in local, it did work for the combatants, made it simple and was 100% accurate. It's at this point that things changed, with the ease of identifying opponents and giving ample warning of their approach the driving force behind declaring war became spreading the net across as many targets as possible, the larger the entity dec'd the better in an effort to increase the liklihood of finding a target in space. One relatively unheard of alliance at the time understood this and set in motion events that would kill off the practicality of declaring war as a gamestyle once and for all, they were called 'Privateers'. Armed with standings in local, they could set standings quickly and easy on alts to build a web of information on potential targets and move accordingly, easily evading 'blobs' and bringing fights to almost every system in Eve. Despite favouring the 0.0 alliances for targets, people got upset, fighting in high sec is not the same as Nullsec. Sovereignty holding power blocks basically got their faces stoved in, so changes were brought in to reduce the feasibility of war deccing. These changes shrank the net of potential targets to something that can be relatively easily evaded for a week and led to the Jita hugging we know today. You have to bear in mind these people actually want to shoot stuff, you could avoid Jita and go for days without seeing a war target or you can go to the one place people go to relatively regularly and at least get to fire your guns. (cont...) |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:10:00 -
[947] - Quote
At its peak, in privateers you could login every night with a reasonable chance of getting two or more 'good fights' - a small gang of targets looking for privateers and happy to engage. This is actually a playstyle that some people prefer and largely does not exist today. The border between "Nullsec for PvP - Highsec for PvE" was nicely blurred. This meant you could PvP when you felt like it, not because a sovereignty timer expected it. You could go on an op and dockup and go afk if needed, instead of see it through to the end no matter how many hours that would take. It is a shame this gamestyle has left the game because of the "sovereignty holding" alliances that were so incapable of defending themselves outside of a call to arms.
This is where we are today and as I say, I don't think the formula matters. If you wish to resurrect the war mechanics and make the mercenary corporation a viable playstyle in the sandbox of Eve then you need to take a closer look at what went wrong in the firstplace. The state we know today is more about lack of any other option than any particular desire to go "griefing" 0.0 alliances logistically.
My personal preference would be to look at bringing back the harshness of Eve. Unleash the Privateers and allow them to wardec at least sovereignty holding alliances without the crippling financial constraints. Afterall why is it these alliances need so much protection? Why can't these alliances just defend themselves? What's wrong with encouraging the Highsec/Nullsec animosity? It is afterall perfectly possible to live entirely in their owned space without the need to make trips to Highsec. This allows people to play in a manner that may suit their lifestyle more and isn't a thinly disguised second job. It would also make the next "Burn Jita" infinitely more exciting. |
Blade M Howser
0........0 -Silicon Heaven-
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:57:00 -
[948] - Quote
why not make it more expensive to war dec small corps/alliances and cheaper to war dec large corps/alliances will keep the griefers from disrupting the casual group carebear players who only log on a few hours every other day and keep the war focus on large corps/alliances such as goons,test and others that pride themselves on being pvp ass kickers with flawless kill boards as it is it cost 50 million to war dec alliance deduct 2.5 million per corp and a additional 100k for each member in that corp from the 50 million with a min war dec fee being 2 million per week to war dec a large alliance. make war dec a small corp or alliance with fewer than 20-30 members combined in all corps 100 million per week witch would make griefing less popular and fighting larger groups more productive having more targets im sure someone with better math skills could work out a better formula for this ideal |
Avila Cracko
348
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:15:00 -
[949] - Quote
So... you didn't listen players at all... So... why do we have blogs, fanfest, and response threads at all... truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
630
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 13:44:00 -
[950] - Quote
To all those who do not like escalating costs: Why should I have to pay more to dec two 50 member corps compared to one 100 member corp?
All the arguments against escalating costs seem to be based on two assumptions: Im only going to dec one other corp, and just because an alliance is large its better at defending itself than one that is small. Neither of these is true.
With escalating costs I got the option to spend my money attacking one big entity, or many small ones. Options are good. The Privateers had like 200 wars going at one time.
Big alliance tend to be hard to control. Members go out and do silly things. A small group of pilots who know each other well are much more organized and disciplined. The result is if you dec someone large you will get more to shoot, and as thats worth more, it should cost more. And the cost really is not that much, if you follow the rule large decs large. It does not even have to be that large.
Consider an alliance with 100 members. If each contributes 10 million a week to the war cost, that is sufficient to dec a 2000 member opponent. Surely you can come up with 10 mil a week? If you could come up with 10 mil a day (one L4 mission a day) a 2000 member alliance could dec every corp in high sec all at the same time! http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
630
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:18:00 -
[951] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:The new formula is not on Sisi, it's still the old formula, we're still working on implementing the new stuff.
How about letting the membership vote on the options? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
None ofthe Above
178
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:36:00 -
[952] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:The new formula is not on Sisi, it's still the old formula, we're still working on implementing the new stuff. How about letting the membership vote on the options?
Or at least tell us what you are currently thinking so it can be discussed.
Some of the biggest concerns:
- Survival of RvB (mutual wars)
- Can we Defend Jita the next time around?
- Viability of small corps
- Corp hopping (cooldowns for rejoining corps)
There is barely any time for feedback to have any substantial effect NOW before Inferno goes live. If you hold something back until the last minute, there will be no real chance to help you figure out if there is something wrong.
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:13:00 -
[953] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:...
All the arguments against escalating costs seem to be based on two assumptions: Im only going to dec one other corp, and just because an alliance is large its better at defending itself than one that is small. Neither of these is true. .....!
And all the arguments for escalating cost are built on the exact two opposite assumptions.
But frankly if the defending alliance is larger, and can not defend itself that is it's own fault. Larger entities already have in game advantages from more manpower to greater resources to a larger brain trust. Yet somehow they are always the victims in some arguments? |
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
139
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 19:05:00 -
[954] - Quote
You know..I've been browsing this thread...and looking back at: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=88487
Which is the discussion thread for what was presented in the devblog and at fanfest.
And what shows up on SiSi? Exactly what was discussed at fanfest.
I am disappointed. (And in need of at least two more accounts to test the limits of this stuff) But we'll see what shakes out before Inferno drops.
But just my two cents:
I provide content. In small scale, easy to digest chunks. That people like to read, that have encouraged people to join. My ability to do this will be severely crippled because of this change if it stays in its current state. Once you announce that you've put up a different formula..I'll go and look. In the meantime I'm figuring out how to best work this. You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
512
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 19:23:00 -
[955] - Quote
My prediction is that they will withhold information about the cost scaling formula changes until the absolute last second so that there is no time to change it before inferno is launched. After all the goal isn't to give the players the mechanics that they want, it's to push out what was announced at fanfest with as little change as possible regardless of what nonsensical crap it is, because groupthink dictates what we get, rather than people actually thinking about their product and releasing content that makes sense. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
239
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 19:37:00 -
[956] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:My prediction is that they will withhold information about the cost scaling formula changes until the absolute last second so that there is no time to change it before inferno is launched. After all the goal isn't to give the players the mechanics that they want, it's to push out what was announced at fanfest with as little change as possible regardless of what nonsensical crap it is, because groupthink dictates what we get, rather than people actually thinking about their product and releasing content that makes sense.
I've always wondered why CCP never gave out any information on upcoming patches apart from saying we're changing this and adding this without actually explaining what they're going to do.
I guess they don't wanna have to actually have a reason to look at the forums and find valid and good changes to a patch they plan to release.
It's almost like they are just like the high sec gankers and love to **** players off. |
Gort Thud
Wandering Spartans
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:19:00 -
[957] - Quote
Perhaps it would be better to delay the changes to the WarDec mechanics until after the upcoming release to take on board all of the comments and deliver a polished solution.
After all the cost of delivering something that is broken and disruptive will be felt as both a loss of reputation and an increase in player frustration ; the cost of delaying in comparison is minimal
Gort. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
512
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 03:03:00 -
[958] - Quote
Gort Thud wrote:Perhaps it would be better to delay the changes to the WarDec mechanics until after the upcoming release to take on board all of the comments and deliver a polished solution.
After all the cost of delivering something that is broken and disruptive will be felt as both a loss of reputation and an increase in player frustration ; the cost of delaying in comparison is minimal
Gort. Don't forget that whatever system gets released is going to be the system that we have to live with for the next five years, because god knows CCP don't ever iterate on anything they do. |
Belona Force
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 04:32:00 -
[959] - Quote
Ok, the reason starting a war doesnGÇÖt work or has fallen out of favor with most eve players is easy fix and make it work like it was intended to be. And the answer is concord all neutrals helping. ItGÇÖs that easy. And now that there will be a way for people to enter into a war by contract everyone gets what they wanted. When you go to fight someone you know who your fighting and how many. As it is now you go out to fight a 2vs2 only to find out you are fighting 2vs10, 8 others you didnGÇÖt intend on fighting. Or take the flashy red out of local and let people find there target with out the warning. Sounds like fun to me. |
Pugwa Ikwakin
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 07:08:00 -
[960] - Quote
I've tried to enjoy nullsec on two separate occasions, both of which I spent more time docked up due to lack of anything to do than actually partaking in any activities. Currently, I am planning to set up a PoS to make hulks, mackinaws, and such. On my alt, I gank them, as well as other things. I prefer low-sec pvp, though sometimes gateguns cause too much blue balls for what it's worth.
Now, when ferrying goods from hub-hub, I am frequently cargoscanned. I don't mind this, I'm fine with ganking as a game mechanic. What I'm not fine with, is the prospect of having to avoid talking in local, sell hulks/macks on an alt, and such like that, just to avoid being noticed. The game has too much dependency on alts as it is, and I honestly had more fun being a newb flying t1 frigs and destroyers(because everyone else was at the time!).
I think inflation, in many different areas killed some parts of the game. A lot of posters use UO as an example, but I'm not sure how many remember the Age of Shadows expansion that brought in Artifacts, and all the old gear made worthless. These artifacts became 'required' to pvp competitively(people RMT'd before, but this was slightly different). Trammel did not kill UO. People were bored and rich and became more destructive than the game was meant to be.
I think this is the point we're at, we have (had) shiny things for years, some people have stupid amounts of currency and ways to obtain it, and are bored. I do like the idea of a war dec system, it fits in the game. The implementation needs to be looked at, hi-sec warfare isn't exactly what needs fixing. When I was in Null not a week ago, I saw more 'carebears', whiners, and mouthbreathing slugs than most of the posters from null alliances would let on.
Honestly, I'm more curious what CCP is doing to stir up null warfare and changing the maps. A lot of people have mentioned they're merc alliances that wardec null alliances to camp them at hubs/supply routes. This is the kind of thing that should be focused on. Supply interdiction? Stupid FW missions aside, that actually sounds like an objective.
Highsec wars will continue to be griefing/petty competition between industrialists. Inferno? Get null alliances shelling out isk to merc corps to show up at fleet engagements, defense, or PoS takedowns. It's great and all, but this war dec system isn't going to heat things up if there's still no reason to fight beyond "i'm bored, let's shoot stuff."
I'm Pugwa Ikwakin and I'm an alt of an Industrialist/terrible PvPer. Inferno is sounding like a lot of talk and not a lot of action, just my two cents. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |