Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dex Nederland
Lai Dai Infinity Systems The Fourth District
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 16:57:00 -
[361] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:On the tech moons, I know they will nerf them but frankly why bother. Goonswarm will just come up with another way to make money (while cancelling hulkagedon as the profit will be gone) and then in a few months people will be asking for something else to be nerfed, Just because the Goonswarm management knows how to make money. Also lets face it these ideas are not miracles someone or multiple people are researching and reading, it seems a bit of a rip off to nerf all their hard work every time.
A change to the utility of the R64 moons due to changes in demand for T2 Components resulted in the emergence of Tech moons as being so valuable.
CCP has stated a desire to shift TechTwo Industry to null-sec. Redistributing the R8 & R32 moons to have similar distributions as R16 & R64 moons makes this more feasible. At present, even the mighty Goonswarm is unable to domestically produce Nanotransistors end-to-end, they have to import Mercury.
What is the vision for 0.0? Should players be able to develop their space to the point where their imports consist of the newest blueprints and fresh blood and they export excess rare materials back to high-sec?
Changing gears - 0.0 PI, open it up to anyone. This makes planets (& local blues) potentially more valuable to the holding alliance.
Lai Dai Infinity Systems |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 19:16:00 -
[362] - Quote
Dex Nederland wrote:Changing gears - 0.0 PI, open it up to anyone. This makes planets (& local blues) potentially more valuable to the holding alliance. Isn't this done already? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 20:22:00 -
[363] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:On the tech moons, I know they will nerf them but frankly why bother. Goonswarm will just come up with another way to make money (while cancelling hulkagedon as the profit will be gone) and then in a few months people will be asking for something else to be nerfed, Just because the Goonswarm management knows how to make money. Also lets face it these ideas are not miracles someone or multiple people are researching and reading, it seems a bit of a rip off to nerf all their hard work every time.
We'll probably be in good financial shape by virtue of having 1-2k active members and holding numerous moons of various types, but we won't be anywhere near the state we are now. There is no post-nerf scenario where we'd be pulling more income than we are now. eh |
Dex Nederland
Lai Dai Infinity Systems The Fourth District
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 21:25:00 -
[364] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Dex Nederland wrote:Changing gears - 0.0 PI, open it up to anyone. This makes planets (& local blues) potentially more valuable to the holding alliance. Isn't this done already? It has not been implemented to my knowledge. If it has it was done without being put into the Inferno patch notes.
The ability to adjust taxation on POCOs in 0.0 based on standings is useless since no one but sov holding alliance members can setup Command Centers. Lai Dai Infinity Systems |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 07:50:00 -
[365] - Quote
Dex Nederland wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Dex Nederland wrote:Changing gears - 0.0 PI, open it up to anyone. This makes planets (& local blues) potentially more valuable to the holding alliance. Isn't this done already? It has not been implemented to my knowledge. If it has it was done without being put into the Inferno patch notes. The ability to adjust taxation on POCOs in 0.0 based on standings is useless since no one but sov holding alliance members can setup Command Centers. Its either an error or they are trying to get rid of alt corps. With the new wardec system you are now better off to have most of your alts in your primary corp. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 07:54:00 -
[366] - Quote
On the Null sec indusrty can anyone tell me what they believe the downsides would be to A POCO based Sov system with a Jump range nerf, say 50% of current and the adding of bonuses to a defender in their own capital and fort systems?
Oh and better industry with a refined risk vs reward and the moon nerf. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 12:18:00 -
[367] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:On the Null sec indusrty can anyone tell me what they believe the downsides would be to A POCO based Sov system with a Jump range nerf, say 50% of current and the adding of bonuses to a defender in their own capital and fort systems?
Oh and better industry with a refined risk vs reward and the moon nerf.
As much as the current sov system sucks, it doesn't create a disparity between systems like POCO sov would.
Halving the jump range on capitals would be interesting but let's not mislead ourselves into believing that it'd be any significant nerf to force projection.
Defenders already have inherent advantages - if it's their home territory (like Goonswarm in Deklein) they have a logistical advantage, for example.
Industry needs a massive revamp in nullsec because the only worthwhile activity is building supercaps, and that's because it's the only place where you can build them.
As far as moons go, my opinion is that you should need racial moon minerals from Serpentis regions to produce Gallente/ORE T2, minerals from Guristas regions to produce Caldari T2, minerals from Angels regions to produce Minmatar T2 and minerals from Sansha/Blood Raiders regions to produce Amarr T2. Note that I'm not saying that the moons should only be in regions where those factions have sovereignty, but where the NPCs spawn in belts. eh |
Lord Zim
748
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 12:40:00 -
[368] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:As much as the current sov system sucks, it doesn't create a disparity between systems like POCO sov would. Is this necessarily a big problem, though? You'd get a more interesting strategic map to conquer, and it'd be much more dynamic than today's system, without the horrendous potential grind of the POS system.
Richard Desturned wrote:Halving the jump range on capitals would be interesting but let's not mislead ourselves into believing that it'd be any significant nerf to force projection. Actually, one of the things which has to be taken into consideration is the fact that places such as delve/querious/period basis would become even more of a fortress if caps were more limited than they are now. This may or may not be a good thing, though.
That (and the force projection problem) could be mitigated by taking away the jumpdrive capabilities in its entirety from combat ships, though. :v: |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 12:59:00 -
[369] - Quote
I believe the disparity would be a good think for instance in Deklein, the 2 best areas actually have the lowest number of planets. The lowest being -1.00 with 3 planets. So with this as a Sov system the systems Map UJY-HE and RG9-7U would probably turn over a lot. The highest number of planets in Deklein is 13 in CCP-US a -0.94 system.
Using this system would give the sov system variety rather than just having to kill 1 thing with a massive number of HP. Perrigen Falls for another example goes from 5 planets up to 13 planets so this would once again add variety as well as introduce tactics instead of just brute force into the game.
The idea on the moon materials is not bad at all except the whole tree would have to be redone to accommodate it.
On Jump drives I will admit I am torn between the ideas of a distance reduction or a delay for movement after warp.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
748
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 13:09:00 -
[370] - Quote
I'm pretty certain you're putting entirely too much weight into what the system's security is. Those systems are well outside of reach from any capital ship, so those systems would actually be pretty easy to defend. |
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 16:46:00 -
[371] - Quote
The trouble with Null, is that people just don't want to BE there GǪ it's got nothing to do with ISK or SAFETY.
People forget that the most important commodity of the game, what makes new players stay or leave, isn't monetary or territorial capital GǪ but rather, SOCIAL CAPITAL GǪ. And Nullsec completely SUCKS at this.
In Hisec & Wormholes (Losec is irrelvant evidently) you can build tight knit corps with pilots who know and care about each other. In Null, you generally become nothing more than a member of a faceless blob. Even if you try to take your small corp into Null as a renter, you're still basically living at the whim of some wanna-be ****** (either on your side or the other, probably both) who doesn't know or care that you even exist, and who can destroy anything your small corp might build up in a nanosecond.
If Nullsec could be made to provide significant amounts of missing SOCIAL CAPITAL, not offered by Hisec or Losec, maybe THEN people would want to move there.
When it comes down to it, Nullsec today is just not a game most people care to play GǪ.
|
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
152
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 16:48:00 -
[372] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:the problem I have with them is that there's no manual timing mechanism, so it's still just a matter of setting a timer and it's +-3 hours from that time. But apart from the fact I like the idea of being able to outwit the other guy if I'm good at timing or reading the other guy's bluff etc, then yes, POCOs could definitely have been used.
Actually now you just pick a time of day in a 2 hour window. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Customs_Office
So in there example if you set the reinforcement exit to 13:00-15:00 Then when the PoCo gets shot it starts the timer a day ahead + however many hours to get into the reinforcement window. The idea was that small groups living in lowsec who are all in one timezone could set their PoCos to always come out of reinforce when they are online no matter when it gets shot.
It's a way more convenient system than stront loading. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
153
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 17:24:00 -
[373] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:with a Jump range nerf, say 50% of current So on the subject of power projection.
Every cap fleet I have ever been in in null usually consisted of 50+ carriers and dreads. And every one of us had a cyno alt, just to move our own crap around on our own. And whenever the FC wanted to get everyone across the universe he'd pull up dotlan, scout a route, and tell a few of us to get our cyno alts at the midpoints.
All cutting the jump range in half would do is take a trip that would have normally taken 4 cyno alts then take 8 cyno alts. This isn't a very big deal when you have 50+ caps on field who have 50+ cyno alts.
Titan bridging is the one area where I could see a jump range nerf having any effect. This would help end the process of a titan sitting at a POS, bridging a fleet, and then scooting back into the POS. An attacker would have to set up more POSes along the route, or actually jump his titan with the fleet to keep the bridging chain going, but without the safety of a POS shield.
If you really want to **** off cap pilots and make deployments costly. Then double the size of all fuel bays, and double all fuel consumption. Their costs would double right away, and ice prices would go up with the added consumption. Make it a major investment to move a blob across the galaxy. |
Lord Zim
752
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 17:42:00 -
[374] - Quote
Two things.
1) If CCP did change the sov system (which I doubt they will, but it's not like that's going to stop us from pipedreaming) into a POCO (or some other planet-anchored structure, to not get a repeat of the old POS system where they were shoehorned into a role they really weren't made for in the first place), then the system could still be lost in 2 days. 2) The main thing which I believe will actually work as a force projection reducer, isn't isk, but time. Time is probably the most limited resource in EVE. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
153
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 17:58:00 -
[375] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:1) If CCP did change the sov system (which I doubt they will, but it's not like that's going to stop us from pipedreaming) into a POCO (or some other planet-anchored structure, to not get a repeat of the old POS system where they were shoehorned into a role they really weren't made for in the first place), then the system could still be lost in 2 days. So the formula for a PoCo reinforcement timer is:
(X number of days) + (H amount of hours to hit the set reinforcement window)
Right now X is 1. We'd just need to slide that value up a bit until people feel comfortable.
Right now in theory if you had an entirely US timezone alliance that all took off a three day weekend over Thanksgiving or something. Then all their space could be quietly taken over by a handful of Russian dread pilots who don't care about your deep fried turkeys.
Maybe 2 days is a bit brutal. If we set X to 2 or 3 days then you'd have half a week to get things sorted out. Granted we'd want to keep it fairly low, otherwise we'd get the same power projection / safety problems we have now.
Lord Zim wrote:2) The main thing which I believe will actually work as a force projection reducer, isn't isk, but time. Time is probably the most limited resource in EVE. That's true. There is always a bit of an isk disparity between different alliances. A 10 bil purchase means different things to people with tech moons than people without tech moons.
But 2 hours of your life always costs the same no matter who you are. |
Lord Zim
755
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 18:03:00 -
[376] - Quote
It's a tradeoff between making uncontested systems fall quickly, and contested systems take a bit more time to grind through. I think 1 day would suffice in most cases though.
Actually, if it hadn't been for timezones and the fact that it's a game, I would've just said "reinforcements? heh no. what's blown up, is blown up, and ships disappearing from space? heh no." etc. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
153
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 18:43:00 -
[377] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:pipedreaming And now the pipe dream has it's own thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=117189&find=unread |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
281
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 23:55:00 -
[378] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I'm pretty certain you're putting entirely too much weight into what the system's security is. Those systems are well outside of reach from any capital ship, so those systems would actually be pretty easy to defend. I was pointing out the systems security as an example of risk vs reward. The basis of who currently owns what is of little interest to me. The future of the game which cannot be easily determined is what interests me, lets face it the current CFC might get wiped out by a group of newbies no even playing at this point.
I was merely pointing out that a planet based sov would add some tactical uses of the POCO idea. It would make it easier for people to attack multiple systems at the same time causing the defender to choose where to defend or whether to split their defenders. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Theodoric Darkwind
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
161
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 05:56:00 -
[379] - Quote
Tarkelan wrote:Just to mention a few things that are wrong with Null from my point of view.
- distribution of tech moons
- distribution of security levels
- sov warfare system with all it's structure related grind
- blob warfare
- to many blue standings and NAPs
- sphere of influence of super alliances is to huge -> limit the power projection capabilities of super alliances to give smaller alliances and even corps the chance to get a piece of Null without being forced into a renter system
1. could be tweaked a bit, but uneven distribution does create a conflict driver, perfectly balanced tech distribution would remove a conflict driver.
2. could be tweaked a tad, but you still need good space and bad space to encourage conflict over the good space.
3. agree, needs to be adjusted, taking sov should still be a major undertaking, but needs less boring structure shoots.
4. disagree completely, huge fleet fights are a selling point of EVE (and thanks to tidi you can actually pull them off now), its something you simply dont get in any other game, and nullsec is where they happen.
5. there is absolutely nothing you can do to change this, "deal with it", there is no way you can stop one alliance from befriending another if they have common interests.
6. If you cant defend it, you dont deserve it. Nullsec is the sandbox at its largest scale, the logistics of running a large sov empire is a game in and of iteself. There needs to be a different system for smaller corps to have some type of holding (either through a lowsec improvement or a major improvement to wormholes)
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
173
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 14:06:00 -
[380] - Quote
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:4. disagree completely, huge fleet fights are a selling point of EVE (and thanks to tidi you can actually pull them off now), its something you simply dont get in any other game, and nullsec is where they happen. Quite true, null slug fests do indeed make up ninety odd percent of all Eve related propaganda, but does that mean that all of null gameplay has to be designed around blobbity-blob and nothing else? There should be mechanics that cater to/benefit guerilla fighting and skirmishing, if only to give the sheep something to do while waiting for the next reinforcement timer/TiDi event.
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:5. there is absolutely nothing you can do to change this, "deal with it", there is no way you can stop one alliance from befriending another if they have common interests. Sure there is. Example: Make stuff such as super-/capitals behave differently when in foreign space .. suggested previously that something like immunity should be tied to sovereignty. You would still be able to use all the hardware you wanted but doing it to aid the infinite nap-list exposes said hardware. Problem that we are suffering from now is that it is sheer stupidity not nap up everything within 100 jumps simply because one needs "critical mass" to get anything done (see above).
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:6. If you cant defend it, you dont deserve it. ... But does being able to blob the most 2 times a week really constitute ability to defend anything? What about the remaining five days of the week when "defenders" are jumpcloned out or docked waiting for the blobbo-rama while the enemy controls the surrounding space? (again, see above)..
In short: Were we to come up with mechanics for the smaller scale, supplemental to current EHP grind/Blob ditto, then all bets are off .. being able to drop 1-2k people with a few days notice would no longer equate 'iWin', NAP lists would be shortened simply due to not being needed in the same way and most importantly (to me at least) - bloat entities would die in a fire as they find the infrequent blob they so rely on to be insufficient when it comes to holding space.
|
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 18:33:00 -
[381] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: Quite true, null slug fests do indeed make up ninety odd percent of all Eve related propaganda, but does that mean that all of null gameplay has to be designed around blobbity-blob and nothing else? There should be mechanics that cater to/benefit guerilla fighting and skirmishing, if only to give the sheep something to do while waiting for the next reinforcement timer/TiDi event.
There are plenty of things to do beside POS shooting blobs. If your alliance can't come up with anything, that isn't CCP's problem. This is supposed to be player driven content, and I don't know about you, but my alliance is constantly running roams, camps, and harassment ops for small groups in small ships.
You want CCP to come up with content? That is what missions are.
You want to be in a small band of guerrillas, running around enemy territory, disrupting shipping and ratting tax revenue, then go for it. Nothing is stopping you except your own laziness and ignorance. |
Hrothgar Nilsson
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 19:29:00 -
[382] - Quote
In the six or so weeks since I started playing, I've come away with the distinct impression that null-sec is effectively blockaded from high-sec via low-sec.
I'm currently in null-sec, but didn't make the move out there until there was a wormhole from high-sec that brought me to where I'm currently based in null-sec. I didn't bother to even consider moving through low-sec to get out there.
If the corps in null-sec would map routes through low-sec that bridge their holdings in null-sec to high sec, and have groups of their corp holding all the gates along that route so contracted miners and haulers could pass through, it might improve things. And make null-sec less boring. Hulk Insurance Services: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115786 --Gap coverage to help cover the difference between SCC maximum payout and the market price of your Hulk. -á --All policies refundable upon request. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
384
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 19:41:00 -
[383] - Quote
If only there was a class of ship that could bypass stargates and carry cargo. IF ONLY. |
Hrothgar Nilsson
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 19:56:00 -
[384] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:If only there was a class of ship that could bypass stargates and carry cargo. IF ONLY. Were you replying to me?
If you were, I was talking about people, not stuff. Hulk Insurance Services: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115786 --Gap coverage to help cover the difference between SCC maximum payout and the market price of your Hulk. -á --All policies refundable upon request. |
Dex Nederland
Lai Dai Infinity Systems The Fourth District
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 20:49:00 -
[385] - Quote
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:In the six or so weeks since I started playing, I've come away with the distinct impression that null-sec is effectively blockaded from high-sec via low-sec.
I'm currently in null-sec, but didn't make the move out there until there was a wormhole from high-sec that brought me to where I'm currently based in null-sec. I didn't bother to even consider moving through low-sec to get out there.
If the corps in null-sec would map routes through low-sec that bridge their holdings in null-sec to high sec, and have groups of their corp holding all the gates along that route so contracted miners and haulers could pass through, it might improve things. And make null-sec less boring.
Null-Sec alliances tend to have diplomatic contact information for those wanting to gain standings and access to low-end null sec resources. The alliance may or may not want you there.
That is not something for CCP to fix, rather it is a choice made by player organization leadership on how they operate. Most sov holding alliances operate Not-Blue-Shoot-It. This means if they don't know you, they are going to shoot you.
You have to give a reason why those alliances should favor an outsider over their own miners & traders (if they have any). Lai Dai Infinity Systems |
Hrothgar Nilsson
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:03:00 -
[386] - Quote
I wasn't referring to holding gates in low-sec so any random person could pass through.
I also made absolutely no reference to changing game mechanics.
Simply that low-sec effectively blockades null-sec from high-sec for the majority of players. Hulk Insurance Services: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115786 --Gap coverage to help cover the difference between SCC maximum payout and the market price of your Hulk. -á --All policies refundable upon request. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
445
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:10:00 -
[387] - Quote
There are a few stargates that bypass lowsec entirely and got straight from highsec to 0.0 Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
384
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:11:00 -
[388] - Quote
Your complaint makes no sense. If stuff isn't an issue, either (a) podjump or (b) get in something small and fast and cheap and fly out yourself. I really don't get why having to fly in lowsec is a problem, especially since you're going to null.
Also, planned corp routes would be a disaster as it'd ensure that the "route" is camped solid by pirates. The fact that there can be multiple routes to a destination system is in your favor. |
Hrothgar Nilsson
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:33:00 -
[389] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Your complaint makes no sense. If stuff isn't an issue, either (a) podjump or (b) get in something small and fast and cheap and fly out yourself. I really don't get why having to fly in lowsec is a problem, especially since you're going to null.
Also, planned corp routes would be a disaster as it'd ensure that the "route" is camped solid by pirates. The fact that there can be multiple routes to a destination system is in your favor. I wasn't complaining. Merely commenting that it seems like null-sec is effectively blockaded from high-sec.
The solution to what I've seen commented as "broken-ass null-sec" is in the hands of the players. Players have failed to devise solutions to "fix" null-sec. Hulk Insurance Services: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115786 --Gap coverage to help cover the difference between SCC maximum payout and the market price of your Hulk. -á --All policies refundable upon request. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:55:00 -
[390] - Quote
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Your complaint makes no sense. If stuff isn't an issue, either (a) podjump or (b) get in something small and fast and cheap and fly out yourself. I really don't get why having to fly in lowsec is a problem, especially since you're going to null.
Also, planned corp routes would be a disaster as it'd ensure that the "route" is camped solid by pirates. The fact that there can be multiple routes to a destination system is in your favor. I wasn't complaining. Merely commenting that it seems like null-sec is effectively blockaded from high-sec. The solution to what I've seen commented as "broken-ass null-sec" is in the hands of the players. Players have failed to devise solutions to "fix" null-sec.
First off, nullsec isn't completely blockaded. People set up ambushes on the most common routes (like what auto-pilot creates) but there are other routes. And as you noted yourself, wormholes are another way to get in. There are also several types of ships that have abilities to get you around most gate camps, and people do it everyday.
Also, lowsec isn't that bad. So long as you warp gate to gate in a reasonably quick and not too flashy ship, most people won't bother you.
Many complaints from nullsec dwellers have to do with the sov mechanics, and with limits placed on sov null (structure grinding, jump bridges, station services). Moving large fleets of large ships and grinding down sov structures is time consuming, and if the enemy just gives up, then there really isn't any action.
Aside from actual sov warfare, the rest of the fun is left up to the players, and not all sov holding alliances are the same. Many of these people should be crying at their alliance leadership and not at CCP for ways to have fun. Other alliances have no problem with the fun factor, and spend there efforts pestering CCP for balancing titans, materials and fixing other nullsec features.
The "nullsec is boring" argument is pretty dumb. Part of it is poor leadership not coming up with things to do. Part of it is outsiders looking in, highsec dwellers who don't know what to do on day-trips to nullsec. Only the part about structure grinding is really CCP's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |