Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Seishi Maru
M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:03:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Tarminic You guys know that adding a third turret would require the entire model to be remade right? Don't count on anything getting done if your solution hinges on that.
You can simply remove the citatels and make 2 large projectile bonuses. A 5% damage and a 7.5% rof combined on 2 projectiles only... would result in slightly higher damage than a revelation at level 5 and same dpos at level 4.
|
Xelios
Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:05:00 -
[32]
A base CPU increase to 770 will still fall short of what's needed to fit a shield tank without a co-pro. A named t1 shield tank (with COSMOS gyros) needs 997 CPU, with the new base CPU you'll only have 962. A t2 shield tank with 3 t2 weapon mods needs 1042 CPU.
It's a step up from having to fit a faction Co-pro, but it still seems a bit silly if versatility is what you're going for.
I'm not too optimistic about the meager bonus changes, but I guess I'll give it a shot when the changes reach SiSi.
Overall I was hoping for one of two things to happen. Either making shield tanking viable without having to waste a low slot on a co-pro or changing the split weapon situation so that a damage mod is actually worth taking a hit to your armor tank. Maybe I'm expecting too much?
|
Blazde
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:05:00 -
[33]
This is good stuff except the bonuses:
Originally by: CCP Chronotis * Swapping the projectile rate of fire bonus for a 10% projectile damage bonus per level. * Increasing the citadel launcher rate of fire bonus to 7.5% per level.
How about just going for the classic double bonused projectiles and no torp bonuses, like this:
7.5% bonus to Capital Projectile rate of fire 5% bonus to Capital Projectile damage
This'd leave it with a bit less base dps than the proposed changes (I think) but would scew it much more towards projectile dps (about 2 to 1), making it more viable to fit damage mods and somewhat satisfy people who dislike the citadel torps and having to pimp two weapon classes of skills.
I fly Revelations now so I'll declare no personal interest in these changes but I did spend several years flying Nags and it was a huge shock when I found out my torps had more dps than the arties (assuming full damage). The proposed changes will make that even more so. The split weapon system is fair enough but I really feel the torps should be secondary to the projectiles. It's a Minmatar ship after all. _
|
Professor Dumbledore
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:12:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis It is clear that the Naglfar is not up to scratch with the other dreadnoughts. Many of you have been rightfully vocal on the issue and we have been looking into the issue with a view to a more balanced role and performance for each of the dreadnoughts.
Most of you are acutely aware that the dreadnought's primary role is besieging starbases with a secondary role being fighting other capital ships to which they perform to a varying degree dependant on each scenario on who is being hotdropped and at what range for example.
What we hope to achieve here is a focused fix to the biggest specific issues with dreads in an upcoming patch with an acknowledgement that there are deeper issues and problems which we need to address in the long term in future releases which require more indepth changes.
So, what are we looking at changing with the Naglfar?
* Swapping the projectile rate of fire bonus for a 10% projectile damage bonus per level. * Increasing the citadel launcher rate of fire bonus to 7.5% per level. * Increasing the base CPU to 770 (+70) * Decreasing the base powergrid to 560,000 (-65,000)
And what about capital projectile turrets?
The Quad 3500mm Siege Artillery I will have some changes to base it of the 1400mm artillery:
* Damage multiplier increased to 12.075 (from 8.4) * Rate of Fire decreased to 35.438 secs (from 28.688) * Tracking Speed decreased to 0.0045 (from 0.005625) * Optimal Range increased to 80,000m (from 64,400) * Power need increased to 162,500mw (from 137,500)
The 6x2500mm Repeating Artillery I will have similar changes made to keep the original scaling inline:
* Damage Multiplier increased to 5.39 (from 3.85) * Rate of Fire decreased to 11.813 secs (from 8.438)
Citadel Torpedoes
We are looking at an increase to missile velocity and a proportional decrease to flight time.
* Citadel Torpedo velocity increased to 1,250 m/s (from 750) * Citadel Torpedo flight time decreased to 54 secs (from 90)
Summary
At this point, we are gathering feedback and nothing is set in stone at all. As mentioned at the start, we realize that there are more fundamental issues with dreadnoughts and specific focuses on their anti-capital ship abilities.
Feedback is most welcome!
Its like you didn't read anything anyone said and dont even ****ing understand what the issue is ****ing hell get a ****ing real dev here.
|
Tarminic
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:14:00 -
[35]
I don't think that going for an increased alpha strike will help very much, though it does have a good coolness factor. But to achieve that effect, you should apply that effective 50% increase in artillery alpha strike to the guns themselves and handle the Naglfar separately. After all, how much does alpha strike matter in a POS-busting operation or capital hotdrop? Generally speaking, it doesn't.
I haven't flown the ship myself, but what everyone has been saying about it: 1. Too SP-Intensive - Split weapons mean that this dread takes a lot of SP to get the best performance 1. DPS/Tank Ratio - The slot layout and bonuses of the Naglfar means that it has the most DPS and simultaneously the worst tank of all the dreadnaughts. That makes this ship instant-primary in almost any engagement.
What would I advise? The Naglfar needs a competitive tank at the expense of some of it's DPS. Personally, considering how SP-intense the ship is I think it's DPS would be fine if you removed the missile launcher bonus and replaced it with a tanking bonus. - 10% Shield HP or 7.5% to Shield Booster amount comes to mind. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
MicroWarpdrive II
Disorder. Shock Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:15:00 -
[36]
I like the idea of the current changes, but please give it phoon slots...I'd love you forever.
Phoon slots (on a naglmao)
5 highs 4 meds 7 lows
|
Zamolxiss
Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:17:00 -
[37]
Interesting move Chronotis.. but you keep ignoring one strange tradeoff that the Naglfar does and shouldn't.. that would be the low/med slot it trades for a high slot in comparison to other dreads, and yeah, it shouldn't.. alot of minmatar ships have more high slots than theyr Amarr/Caldari/Gallente counterparts without haveing less mids+lows.. Cyclone, Sleipnir, Huginn etc are all good examples.. You should seriously concider giving the Nag another mid slot, keeps it inline with the whole Minnie design philosophy, without giving it an unneeded and unwanted lolboost..
|
Areo Hotah
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:17:00 -
[38]
A step in the right direction, but still not enough.
The Nag has the weakest tank of all ships, and takes the most amount of training (dual capital weapons and dual tank, but most don't shield tank it anyhow). To compensate for this, the Nag should be the absolute king of DPS (and be called even more primary :S), or get a better tank.
The Rev has high DPS, can fit a very nice tank with the 8 low-slots, but pays for it with cap problems. The Moros has lower DPS potential than the Rev, but gains a mid slot, and has the awesome (excessive?) drone bonus. The Phoenix has the biggest burst tank, and can fit 2 or 3 dmg mods without any problem, however the usual problems with missiles. Btw, since "sniper-dreads" are not that uncommon, leave the flight time of the citadel torps where they are. It is unfair if the Phoenix and half of the Nag are completely incapable to hit anything at 200km.
Coming back to the Nag, it has the lowest amount of DPS, least amount of slots to fit a tank, and if it armor tanks, practically no room any more for damage mods.
Your suggestion for the Quad 3500mm is DPS x 1.1637 (+16%). As mentioned above, changing the bonus from RoF to +dmg (assuming Minmatar Dread lvl 4), is actually a decrease of about 2% more.
If you think this marginal increase in DPS (about half the effect of 1 damage mod!!) is enough to compensate for the weak tank, you are wrong. Also, nobody cares at all about high alpha in capital fights. DPS and EHP are the only things that really matter.
As mentioned so many times: the minmatar philosophy does not work at capital level ("versatility, speed, hit-and-run"). We just want a good tank, and good damage. The easiest solution is just to give it 3 turret hardpoints, 5 mids, 7 lows (identical to the Moros), and I don't think anybody will complain if you leave the DPS a tad lower than the Moros with rails + drones to compensate for the capless weapons, which means jumping out is faster, or less problems running the cap repper. Also the Minmatar armor resistance (+10% em) is the best. As you were able to give the Eagle a fifth turret, I assume it is no problem to modify the Naglfar as well.
Adding an additional midslot would give the option of a shield tank, and loads of damage mods in the lows. I am a bit unsure if this would work.
|
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:19:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Tarminic What would I advise? The Naglfar needs a competitive tank at the expense of some of it's DPS. Personally, considering how SP-intense the ship is I think it's DPS would be fine if you removed the missile launcher bonus and replaced it with a tanking bonus. - 10% Shield HP or 7.5% to Shield Booster amount comes to mind.
It already does the least DPS, realistic fit or not.
|
Stretchmeat Crotchquake
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:21:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Stretchmeat Crotchquake on 29/04/2009 19:22:14
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
It is very much open to further feedback though as it is understandable that many would prefer higher DPS over volley damage.
Even if you're trying to hypothetically alpha something down, the volley damage will be bad because half of its payload has a travel time attached. Sustained damage needs to be comparable or it will continue to be a terrible, substandard ship.
|
|
Seishi Maru
M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:21:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Tarminic I don't think that going for an increased alpha strike will help very much, though it does have a good coolness factor. But to achieve that effect, you should apply that effective 50% increase in artillery alpha strike to the guns themselves and handle the Naglfar separately. After all, how much does alpha strike matter in a POS-busting operation or capital hotdrop? Generally speaking, it doesn't.
I haven't flown the ship myself, but what everyone has been saying about it: 1. Too SP-Intensive - Split weapons mean that this dread takes a lot of SP to get the best performance 1. DPS/Tank Ratio - The slot layout and bonuses of the Naglfar means that it has the most DPS and simultaneously the worst tank of all the dreadnaughts. That makes this ship instant-primary in almost any engagement.
What would I advise? The Naglfar needs a competitive tank at the expense of some of it's DPS. Personally, considering how SP-intense the ship is I think it's DPS would be fine if you removed the missile launcher bonus and replaced it with a tanking bonus. - 10% Shield HP or 7.5% to Shield Booster amount comes to mind.
false.. naglfar has the LOWEST dps of all the dreads. Because all dreads on common combat situations use 2 sometimes 3 damage mods. Then compare how much the damage escalates on the naglfar agaisnt other dreads.
|
Xelios
Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:24:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Tarminic The slot layout and bonuses of the Naglfar means that it has the most DPS and simultaneously the worst tank of all the dreadnaughts. That makes this ship instant-primary in almost any engagement.
That's just it, it doesn't have the most DPS once you factor in damage mods (and every dread fits at least 1 damage mod). Factor in a single damage mod and its DPS is on par with a Moros. Nevermind that the other dreads can fit 2 damage mods and still get the same level of tank as a Naglfar with no damage mods, at that point the DPS drops to below a Phoenix, and is just laughable compared to the Rev.
|
Kiev Duran
Caldari Net 7 The Last Brigade
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:27:00 -
[43]
To me it seems there are two major problems with the larger missile types, missile velocity and explosion velocity. Missiles at range suffer from being useless against targets as the bigger and more powerful ones may not make it to the target before fire from the rest of the fleet pops it (it can, obviously, literally take just under a minute to reach the intended target after changes and can currently take up to a minute and a half). This effectively means that a pilot has just wasted money by shooting at the primary. Secondly, explosion velocity seems to be implemented in a strange way, and it is far too easy for ships of the same size class to mitigate damage by simply switching on an AB or MWD. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if it only worked when the target was close to the missile boat (thereby more closely resembling tracking) but it also works when the ship is moving with no transversal to the missile ship, making it so any guns he may have can still connect. The bigger the missile the more obvious these problems become. Third, explosion velocity. Lol? The missile explodes slower than it can fly, something's wrong there; if only the name assigned to the mechanic.
Increasing the citadel torp velocity is a change in the right direction, but they (citadel torps) seem like they need to have their velocity either doubled or tripled, and all other long range missiles seem like they would need the 50% increase that is proposed to citadel torps. Additionally, citadel torps probably need their explosion velocity increased pretty heavily, unless they are only intended as anti-siege dread and anti-POS weapons. In which case the Phoenix deserves to have a second look too.
On second thought, the Phoenix probably deserves that second look regardless of how citadels are designed to be used.
|
Tyby
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:27:00 -
[44]
why don't just remake him into a big freighter?
Quote: It is clear that the Naglfar is not up to scratch with the other dreadnoughts. Many of you have been rightfully vocal on the issue and we have been looking into the issue with a view to a more balanced role and performance for each of the dreadnoughts.
from where do you come up with the +70 CPU(lol) and the -60k powergrid? and at the same time increasing siege arty powergrid???! what is the concept of those modifications? at least there is somthing like that? what type of ship you think nag should be? a shield tanked one? an armor tanked one? a hull tanked one? a mining ship? trying again to do things half way, and do the rest "soon"....maibe i'm too dumb but i can't understand that concept; why not fix this ship right now?
|
Anahid Brutus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:30:00 -
[45]
you are an idiot, or at least ignorant on capital engagements.
ok imagine you siege a pos with 100 naglfars. Shooting a pos is something every dread can do, sure the nag does it worse than any other, but in any case, it's not the problem with the current nag. now imagine someone dropping 20 revelations at 240km out, sniping fit and bubble your nags. the torps wont reach them and if you shield tank a nag, which it seems is what you want us to do, then you wont be able to get enough range out of it to hit to that range with any power, simply because you're wasting most of your lows on 2 kinds of damage mods. and if you do try to fully sniping fit your nags, ignoring the torps entirely, then you'll still be lucky to out-damage 2 apocs.
ie. your 100 man nag fleet will probably die to 20 revelations for 0 kills. is that the balance you were aiming for?
just keep it simple, remove the useless torp slots and make it a 3 gun dread, yeah it means you might have to do some actual work and change the model, but trying to polish a turd like you're suggesting is just a waste of time for everyone.
hth!
|
Odhinn Vinlandii
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:30:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Tarminic
What would I advise? The Naglfar needs a competitive tank at the expense of some of it's DPS.
Nag is the worst dps, worst tank, and twice as much SP of any dread.
|
Seishi Maru
M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:31:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Seishi Maru on 29/04/2009 19:34:08 Edited by: Seishi Maru on 29/04/2009 19:31:17 Also CCP must put in mind that capital fights at long range make citatel torps useless. Taking one and half minute to reach your target is ludicrous. There is no logical reason why larger missiles must be slower than the smaller ones (for the ones that like RL comparisson an ICBM is about 12 times faster than a close range air to air missile).
Make citatels go like 3 km/s base speed and we are a HUGE step onto makign citatels useful.
BUT even so a 2 guns ONLY with double projectiles bonus is stil what SHOUDL be done and what every matar pilot wants.
|
Beyond Horizon
Caldari Solar Dragons SOLAR FLEET
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:32:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Beyond Horizon on 29/04/2009 19:35:45 [ Originally by: Tyby why not fix this ship right now?
obviously you're not acquainted enough with the ways of CCP...
Dear Mr Chronotis,
Could you please adress the additional turret hardpoint issue, as it is the most bothering one amongst capsuleer pilots, as you can see from this thread.
Thank you. -
BH |
Anahid Brutus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:37:00 -
[49]
by the way, to anyone reading this thread, ccp wont actually fix the nag for at least 12 months after trying every easy solution first, so just train into a revelation instead. or dual boxing apocs, they'll be more effective than a nag at least.
|
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:41:00 -
[50]
Its a fact that the only way to brign naglfar up to moros and revelation standards is to forget about TORPS! Be it with 2 weapons and large bonuses or 3 weapons and normal bonuses ( 3 weapons with ROF bonus AND a falloff bonus would be fancy and border making XL AC usefull on hotdrops).
Even so CCp shoudl enjoy this change to solve the phoenix problem related to the citatel torps. Citatel torps have near zero usefulness in long range combat. If the missiles take more than 25 secodns to reach their target they are useless!
|
|
Ragel Tropxe
The Older Gamers Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:43:00 -
[51]
the changes as proposed would not address the major problem(s) with the ship.
they are
1. Split weapon system = less real world dps as other can max out damage mods 2. Weak tank - rooted in the failed "versatility" idiom for Minmatar ships 3 not enough cpu to fit a capital shield tank - thereby creating yet another armour tanking dread (note Minmatar carrier armour tanks when its mothership shield tanks!!)
solutions
1. remove a high point, add a midpoint 2. make it 2/2 layout if you cant do 3 turrets (max 3 weapons) and increase bonuses to compensate for lower dps 3. add cpu to make a shield tank viable without a co-pro
seriously though guys, just changing the weapon dps without looking at the structural issues causing the problems (slot layout and fitting) will just make it worse.
make it a Shield tanking dread.
|
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:47:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Ragel Tropxe the changes as proposed would not address the major problem(s) with the ship.
they are
1. Split weapon system = less real world dps as other can max out damage mods 2. Weak tank - rooted in the failed "versatility" idiom for Minmatar ships 3 not enough cpu to fit a capital shield tank - thereby creating yet another armour tanking dread (note Minmatar carrier armour tanks when its mothership shield tanks!!)
solutions
1. remove a high point, add a midpoint 2. make it 2/2 layout if you cant do 3 turrets (max 3 weapons) and increase bonuses to compensate for lower dps 3. add cpu to make a shield tank viable without a co-pro
seriously though guys, just changing the weapon dps without looking at the structural issues causing the problems (slot layout and fitting) will just make it worse.
make it a Shield tanking dread.
traditional tempest bonuses would be enough with this configuration.... would in fact make hard to choose between revelation and naglfar.
|
Great Artista
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:49:00 -
[53]
Okay, why is it set in stone that dreads NEED to have 3 guns? Let nag have 2 turrets, remove missiles, compensate with ridiculous damage bonus.
Epic. _______
◕◡◕
|
Zamolxiss
Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:55:00 -
[54]
Stop bashing Chronotis ppl, this is not about him and the 'CCP way of doing things'.. the Nag is what it is.. a split weapon sistem dread, try tackling that and come with some input if you can, if not STFU.. The Dreads we have ingame atm will never be onpar with eachother.. missiles will never be onpar with turrets(best on pos sieges, lol in dread fights), and that's very little anyone can do about it.. Untill Tier2 Dreads are introduced, witch will be turret only(hopefully) you'll just have to deal with what you've got, so help up or GTFO of this thread!
|
Lumy
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:55:00 -
[55]
Imho idea 7.5% ROF and 5% DMG bonus to capital projectiles is good one. This will put Naglrofl to 4 effective turrets at level 5. Remove one high sloth with missile bay and move it low slot, or move it with another low to mid. Getting a) 4 highs (2 hardpoint + 1 bay), 5 mids, 7 lows b) 4 highs (2 hardpoint + 1 bay), 7 mids, 5 lows
PS: what would Caldari pilots say about 4 highs (3 bays + 1 hardpoint), 8 mids, 4 lows configuration? Assuming b) would be put to life, Phoenix wouldn't have same distribution of mids/lows.
Ok, no more theorycrafting from me since I don't actually fly a dread.
Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS. |
Charles Kuralt
Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:56:00 -
[56]
Three words: Speed Tanking Titans.
Please look at citadel expl velocity again. Citadel in siege = 3.25m/s = a 11.7 km/h "explosion"= I could speed tank at a brisk walk. An 84' Chevette would be completely immune to gargantuan space torpedoes.
Excellent thread on the issue: Citadel Torps
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:59:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Lumy Imho idea 7.5% ROF and 5% DMG bonus to capital projectiles is good one. This will put Naglrofl to 4 effective turrets at level 5. Remove one high sloth with missile bay and move it low slot, or move it with another low to mid. Getting a) 4 highs (2 hardpoint + 1 bay), 5 mids, 7 lows b) 4 highs (2 hardpoint + 1 bay), 7 mids, 5 lows
PS: what would Caldari pilots say about 4 highs (3 bays + 1 hardpoint), 8 mids, 4 lows configuration? Assuming b) would be put to life, Phoenix wouldn't have same distribution of mids/lows.
Ok, no more theorycrafting from me since I don't actually fly a dread.
Those bonuses ALOGNSIDE a citatel launcher would be overpowered. With those bonuses it shoudl have only 2 turrets.. nothing more.... ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Incantare
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 20:00:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Incantare on 29/04/2009 20:01:55
You're completly missing the single biggest issue with citadels. Explosion velocity.
That said I'm glad the Nag is finally getting a boost even if it's not as significant as many were expecting.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 20:02:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Zamolxiss Stop bashing Chronotis ppl, this is not about him and the 'CCP way of doing things'.. the Nag is what it is.. a split weapon sistem dread, try tackling that and come with some input if you can, if not STFU.. The Dreads we have ingame atm will never be onpar with eachother.. missiles will never be onpar with turrets(best on pos sieges, lol in dread fights), and that's very little anyone can do about it.. Untill Tier2 Dreads are introduced, witch will be turret only(hopefully) you'll just have to deal with what you've got, so help up or GTFO of this thread!
Its nto bashing, its simply the fact that we feel that CCP does not grasp the problem we see, like the same in the ECM drones thread. CCP started this askign for what balance issues we had in game. And they post asking feedback. What we are doign is exaclty what they asked, we hit HARD to be sure they grasp that they are NOT seeign the problems we are pointing. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 20:04:00 -
[60]
So basically a damage boost. How disappointing.
This doesn't make the Naglfar any better than it makes the Phoenix better. Both are constricted by the speed of citadels and little else.
Changes like this **** me off because they don't actually fix the problem, they just appease people who always have one thing on their mind: damage boost.
Why don't you differentiate the capitals through capital stats? Jump range and fuel costs for instance, or ship bay and corporate hangars on the Carriers. Why is it that all of the races developed massive siege platforms with wildly different hull designs and the only differences are racial in nature?
You could increase siege mode duration to 20 minutes but keep it at 10 for the Naglfar, while boosting jump range and cutting fuel consumption.
To fix the missile flight time issue, you give all missiles a logarithmic speed curve where they start out slow and build up velocity to a max. Going the first 50km would take as long as going the next 100km. The same change to all missiles would make heavies and cruise viable at long range.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |