| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Viribus
Autistic Sharks
Test Alliance Please Ignore
   |
Posted - 2011.04.20 04:36:00 -
[61]
Simple summary for the dribblers:
This isn't an NC thing, it's a simple case of low risk having high reward, and high risk having low reward. High sec, for the average ratter, is better money than null sec. This should just not be the case.
If CCP's as worried about inflation as they are, it seems braindead-simple to replace nullsec bounties in full or in part with LP earned from completing anoms. Either that or buff the hell out of the plex spawn/drop rate, because even doing those isn't very good or reliable ISK per hour, and that's if you have excellent truesec and upgrades.
I went through all of Chimera constellation after DT and scanned down all the systems in it, and all I found were drone plexes (lol), mag sites, and radar sites. And that's in a constellation that has 5 upgraded systems.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 04:45:00 -
[62]
That would be good if the only target was ISK faucets... It wasn't.
Null-sec had become a boring monotone field, and that is now changed.
|
MadamGlump
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 04:45:00 -
[63]
Note sure how much of this is relevant to this topic. Yes, I know this is a bit lengthy as well.
Well, the changes HAVE altered what my corp and alliance mates and I are doing in null-sec.
For me, I make approx. 2-4 mil a Tick less since the nerf.
So far, we have have a number of people of corp and alliance say "screw this" and left corp and moved to high-sec. Another group has left null-sec.
The whole "nerfing" of null-sec definately has made carriers ratting havens and sanctums obsolete. You can use a Mach, Domi, Abadons, etc; and do hubs and such faster than what ya could in a carrier.
Another aspect of the whole nerf, is people won't upgrade systems as much. Leaving more money in corps and alliances. Or if people still upgrade systems, they won't be able to as much because of a lack of isk.
As for the whole concept of "will make people fight more for better systems"; is an utter joke. It will jsut allow the high end alliances charge more for mediocre systems. They will still keep the top systems for themselves.
There is plenty of ways to balance out PVE, PVP, High-sec, low-sec, null-sec, ISK, Moons, etc. To say CCP is not biased in their desicions, I and about 99% of the people out there would highly disagree with that.
As for the concept of "it will make it so small corps easier access to null-sec". Someone must have been smoking some funny stuff, to think that up. Let's look at that reolistically. Small corps have few people, and the ammount of plexes they can do per hour is small. Thus low amounts of bounties, and small amounts of taxes for their corp. Thus they can't afford what the big alliances would charge for "rent". That being the case, WHY would they come to null-sec to begin with?
I do beleive that these nerfs are going to cause people to leave the game and play something else. It's not like there isn't 100's of other games to play.
Some simple possible "solution" to fix the nerf is this:
1)Make all null-sec back to a 0.0 rating.
2) Create a Constellation Ihub (what upgrades installed there would affect ALL the systems in THAT constellation.
3)Then make the sites based on the Ihub upgrades of what is installed or not installed. (with the current system, makes the Ihub a less functional item in the game)
4)Then create differant upgrades that would create (example) drones or blood raiders plexes in the system; even if it isn't a drone region or blood raider area. Also, you could have upgrades that boosts pvp op boosts.
5) Make those Ihub upgrades so you can remove them and not be destroyed. But only a set number and or types can be installed at a time. The effects of installed upgrades go in to effect after DT. When the eventual no-DT comes in effect, would be 1 hour after it is installed (or some set time period)
6) Give accurate details on what an Ihub upgrade does. (not the current "this upgrade increases stuff in your system"). Example "This Upgrase increases chances of Drone plexes spawning by 7%"
With these solutions, would create multiple positive effects.
1) Makes the Ihub a major functional aspect of any system.
2) Makes an Amarr pilot in Angel space more prosperous or effective, or similar things
3) Makes corps and alliances "think" strategically on what or how to upgrade systems.
4) Makes the Constalttion Ihub upgrades a tactical item in the game.
5) It gives CEOs and directors better details on what they can/want/need for upgrades and such.
6) Increases mining sites or combat sites or PVP boosts; based on the corp and or alliance's needs
|
Viribus
Autistic Sharks
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 04:48:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Viribus on 20/04/2011 04:51:46
 Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
That would be good if the only target was ISK faucets... It wasn't.
Null-sec had become a boring monotone field, and that is now changed.
Right, before this, nullsec had a perfectly homogenous distribution of moons~
Seriously if you believe that anoms that the average grunt runs is any part of an alliance's decision to invade a given region you are deluded
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 05:19:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 20/04/2011 05:23:25
Originally by: Viribus
Right, before this, nullsec had a perfectly homogenous distribution of moons~
Seriously if you believe that anoms that the average grunt runs is any part of an alliance's decision to invade a given region you are deluded
Of course the average grunt hasn't matter, we've had homogenous anomaly distribution for over a year. But in the times before that I do have vivid recollection of alliances invading our space for some good tru-sec.
However I'm getting some mixed messages here from the pro-anomaly crowd; on one hand it won't change alliances at all since they got moon goo, on the other it will ruin alliances cause the members can't get ISK.
Basically what I find rather confusing regarding that position is, if alliances are willing to fight for moon goo why would they not be willing to fight for good tru-sec? No alliance I have ever been in has ever considered grunt income a thing to ignore.
Actually grunt income has always been one of the most important considerations, to the point that they tell people to take breaks during wars to rat some ISK. Why are alliances / corps leaving space now if grunt income isn't important?
|
Estimated Prophet
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 05:47:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Estimated Prophet on 20/04/2011 05:47:23
I seem to remember CCP being disappointed with the slow take up of T3 cruisers, and only more recently becoming happy with the number in game. I'd like to see a graph showing the number of T3s in game vs the number of systems with PDA 5s installed. Can you ask CCP's stats dept. for that?
|
Viribus
Autistic Sharks
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 05:59:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 20/04/2011 05:23:25
Originally by: Viribus
Right, before this, nullsec had a perfectly homogenous distribution of moons~
Seriously if you believe that anoms that the average grunt runs is any part of an alliance's decision to invade a given region you are deluded
Of course the average grunt hasn't matter, we've had homogenous anomaly distribution for over a year. But in the times before that I do have vivid recollection of alliances invading our space for some good tru-sec.
However I'm getting some mixed messages here from the pro-anomaly crowd; on one hand it won't change alliances at all since they got moon goo, on the other it will ruin alliances cause the members can't get ISK.
Basically what I find rather confusing regarding that position is, if alliances are willing to fight for moon goo why would they not be willing to fight for good tru-sec? No alliance I have ever been in has ever considered grunt income a thing to ignore.
Actually grunt income has always been one of the most important considerations, to the point that they tell people to take breaks during wars to rat some ISK. Why are alliances / corps leaving space now if grunt income isn't important?
Here's the thing, alliances aren't moving at all. Regions aren't changing hands because of this and I doubt they will, because as good as the truesec in a region may be, it still isn't really that good. Even -1.0 systems don't have reliable sanctums, and when you factor in that they're gonna be full 23/7 and the fact that they can literally be shut down by parking a cyno buzzard in the good systems, it's hardly an incentive.
No, alliances aren't switching regions, alliancemembers are just going from nullsec to highsec.
Of course homogenous space isn't good, but what they had before was better than this, because even the best truesec 0.0 is still worse than highsec for making money. It's just CCP's own special brand of shortsighted stupidity.
|
Doug Drafto
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 06:14:00 -
[68]
I think the changes have been awesome. It should be difficult and dangerous to live in 0.0. As another mentioned the risks are high as are the rewards. Even with out sanctums there is plenty reward in 0.0 and tons of reasons to live out there. People SHOULD be ratting in belts where there is danger of being scanned and the like. Its 0.0 not empire. The changes have been great, keep up the good work!
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 06:15:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Viribus
BAAAAWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!
Is what I heard.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 06:15:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Viribus
Here's the thing, alliances aren't moving at all. Regions aren't changing hands because of this and I doubt they will, because as good as the truesec in a region may be, it still isn't really that good. Even -1.0 systems don't have reliable sanctums, and when you factor in that they're gonna be full 23/7 and the fact that they can literally be shut down by parking a cyno buzzard in the good systems, it's hardly an incentive.
A cyno buzzard isn't going to cyno anything into a cyno-jammed system... And heavens are still good for blitzing while waiting for the sanctum.
Originally by: Viribus
No, alliances aren't switching regions, alliancemembers are just going from nullsec to highsec.
Of course homogenous space isn't good, but what they had before was better than this, because even the best truesec 0.0 is still worse than highsec for making money. It's just CCP's own special brand of shortsighted stupidity.
A new equilibrium has yet to be found, same as with Dominion it will take months for the effects to play out. And considering the campaign by many of the new CSM members it is not entirely unreasonable to think they're holding out hoping for a change that will restore their systems.
So all those anomaly runners ditching their 80m isk/h capital ships to run L4's aren't going to be risking their income any more during wars. Actually I have a hard time imagining any significant number making more than 3-40m isk/h doing L4's. In any case only time will tell how this change really affects 0.0, and currently it is too early to say anything for certain just as with Dominion.
|
|
|
Viribus
Autistic Sharks
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 07:17:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Viribus
Here's the thing, alliances aren't moving at all. Regions aren't changing hands because of this and I doubt they will, because as good as the truesec in a region may be, it still isn't really that good. Even -1.0 systems don't have reliable sanctums, and when you factor in that they're gonna be full 23/7 and the fact that they can literally be shut down by parking a cyno buzzard in the good systems, it's hardly an incentive.
A cyno buzzard isn't going to cyno anything into a cyno-jammed system... And heavens are still good for blitzing while waiting for the sanctum.
Originally by: Viribus
No, alliances aren't switching regions, alliancemembers are just going from nullsec to highsec.
Of course homogenous space isn't good, but what they had before was better than this, because even the best truesec 0.0 is still worse than highsec for making money. It's just CCP's own special brand of shortsighted stupidity.
A new equilibrium has yet to be found, same as with Dominion it will take months for the effects to play out. And considering the campaign by many of the new CSM members it is not entirely unreasonable to think they're holding out hoping for a change that will restore their systems.
So all those anomaly runners ditching their 80m isk/h capital ships to run L4's aren't going to be risking their income any more during wars. Actually I have a hard time imagining any significant number making more than 3-40m isk/h doing L4's. In any case only time will tell how this change really affects 0.0, and currently it is too early to say anything for certain just as with Dominion.
People in my corp are reporting over 100m an hour in a solo tengu blitzing L4s for 5-run BPCs.
If you remember longer than 6 months ago, you might recall that everyone who had half a clue how the game works predicted that Dominion would result in huge blobs of scaps being the driving force behind nullsec warfare and that whoever dogpiles more bodies into a contested system before the node crashes wins the fight.
I'll give you one guess as to what happened.
|
Blast Radius1
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 07:57:00 -
[72]
The greatest satisfaction I get from all these changes to null sec is the knowledge that they will almost certainly blow up in the faces of those who brought them about.
History tells us that when greedy people discomfort the majority for their own gain, it inevitably ends up going awry. They certainly end up with the majority looking for a chance to give them a swift kick to the wedding tackle.
I cannot wait for the inevitable that is sure to follow.....
|
Rika Jones
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 08:19:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Viribus
People in my corp are reporting over 100m an hour in a solo tengu blitzing L4s for 5-run BPCs.
They should have been there all along, then. A Carrier running sanctums pulls, on average, 25mil per bounty cycle (~20-25 minutes). That's 75mil per hour in the best non-hidden type of anomaly in nullsec. I think your numbers are highly exaggerated, but I digress. If your people can make that kind of money in high sec, they should have been there a long time ago.
|
CommmanderInChief
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 10:04:00 -
[74]
Its not a bad change at all...Thank god is what I say. Now you cant fleece your renters for billions!
You nullsec alliances have got it super easy after Dominion, stop crying and actually work for your space!!
|
St34mPuNked
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 10:34:00 -
[75]
After having Gimped So many systems, my main staple of income wasn't so much the anomalies but the salvage and rig production from it, fighting for choice anoms in the better systems that are now crowded just isn't the option, my enjoyment of eve comes from destroying the site and then salvaging not just the salvaging. Eve for me isn't just about 1 facet in the game its about mixing it up with combat, and industry combined.
With over inflated lower sec system now being crowded for the choice anoms. CCP's idea to spread people through null sec has failed its just pushed people into the choice -1 true sec systems and left normal 0.0 a barren wasteland as no-one wants it.
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 11:01:00 -
[76]
Originally by: P0le Dancer
"Every country has the government it deserves."
JOSEPH MARIE DE MAISTRE
I guess it applies to the Eve Community as well.
We get it already. NC and friends (CSM 6) should be able to dictate terms to the rest of null sec and the anom nerf erodes at their ability to build a zillion gajillion member alliance.
It's unfortunate that you're using your CSM status as a passive agressive means of forwarding the NC agenda, but I guess it's to be expected.
Originally by: Marconus Orion
Originally by: Viribus
BAAAAWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!
Is what I heard.
Keep up this kind of infantile behavior, going directly against the rules of the thread and I will ask the board moderators to give you a forced vacation from the forums. Stay on topic, stop mud-slinging.
_______________________________________
|
Ophelia Ursus
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 11:46:00 -
[77]
What exactly is the point of this thread? Of course people who are adversely affected by the nerf are going to be unhappy - that's kind of what nerfs do. Individual/anecdotal data is useless for judging the success of changes aimed at macro-level phenomena and would (I'd hope) be dismissed out of hand by anyone in a position to make changes.
And phrasing your OP in such a way as to automatically exclude anyone who doesn't share your opinion and then throwing tantrums when people go ahead and express their disapproval anyway is just sad.
Signature removed. |
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 11:46:00 -
[78]
Originally by: White Tree
Keep up this kind of infantile behavior, going directly against the rules of the thread and I will ask the board moderators to give you a forced vacation from the forums. Stay on topic, stop mud-slinging.
LOL!!!
Not only is this pole of yours going to completely exaggerated depending on if its PvPers or null bears but it is insanely too early to see the results of this change.
I will harvest all tears and enjoy them to the fullest. So fly away with your want to be moderator self.
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 12:19:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Marconus Orion
MY ENTITLEMENTS!!!! ;_;
No.
_______________________________________
|
Johnny spacy
Knights of the Old Code
Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 13:07:00 -
[80]
Its getting quite annoying that you can't roam around looking for a target in 0.0 much anymore or is that -0.1 to -0.9 I'm confuse already.
The 0.0 nerf should be review because its going to cost CCP, customers in the long run, even that they got Dust on the roll atm.
Eve Online has been a game base on players for a longtime now...
My personal experience from eve online is that CCP team are quite good in their handling with the players and the CSM's should do the same to look after the players of Eve Online 
|
|
|
Mewley
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 15:42:00 -
[81]
"We request your feedback, unless its positive, in which case we will ask for you to be banned from the forums."
|
Dodgy Past
Amarr
Zor Industries
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 15:43:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Dodgy Past on 20/04/2011 15:46:20
Edited by: Dodgy Past on 20/04/2011 15:45:15
Originally by: White Tree
Keep up this kind of infantile behavior, going directly against the rules of the thread and I will ask the board moderators to give you a forced vacation from the forums. Stay on topic, stop mud-slinging.
I think you need to climb down off your high horse, AFAIK being a CSM member doesn't entitle you to threaten other players with forum bans.
Originally by: Draco Llasa
Just to reiterate.. we know its a bad change and we have similar concerns.. we are really looking for constructive feedback please. if you want to rant and rage use the other thread :)
Your opinion stated as fact rather ruins the point of this thread since you're stating that the only acceptable responses are those that validate your opinion.
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 15:46:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Mewley
"We request your feedback, unless its positive, in which case we will ask for you to be banned from the forums."
Originally by: Dodgy Past
Originally by: White Tree
Keep up this kind of infantile behavior, going directly against the rules of the thread and I will ask the board moderators to give you a forced vacation from the forums. Stay on topic, stop mud-slinging.
I think you need to climb down off your high horse, AFAIK being a CSM member doesn't entitle you to threaten other players with forum bans.
Is the feedback being constructive so much to ask? There are people in the thread saying 'It's good that this happened, I don't think it was right for reason X', and their feedback is helpful. They're not mud-flinging and no one is jumping down their throats. I'm asking you to please be constructive, thats all. :)
_______________________________________
|
Dodgy Past
Amarr
Zor Industries
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 15:50:00 -
[84]
In answer to your question, one of CCP's stated desires was to destabilize the larger power blocks.
Good evidence of this tension has appeared on some of NC alliance forums where they have been complaining that they aren't being given access to the better truesec systems and as a result have less interest in fighting for the block as an entirety.
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 15:52:00 -
[85]
Edited by: White Tree on 20/04/2011 15:54:49
So anyway, the feedback is about 50:50.
Some people are finding more creative ways to make ISK, others are venturing back to hisec to do L4s, some people are happy with Havens.
It's my personal experience that mowing down Havens isn't so bad, have you guys who can easily do Havens tried to do them and see how you fancy them? There seems to be a reasonable amount of those knocking about after the change.
Originally by: Dodgy Past
In answer to your question, one of CCP's stated desires was to destabilize the larger power blocks.
Good evidence of this tension has appeared on some of NC alliance forums where they have been complaining that they aren't being given access to the better truesec systems and as a result have less interest in fighting for the block as an entirety.
I'm not sure if it will realistically significantly disrupt the bloc's ability to co-exist, that being said- I'm not sure how it will pan out in the long run. There may be a slow rolling tension that will eventually erupt into an all-out riot. I don't think I or anyone else can truthfully forecast the real impact this will have on Alliance level interaction and when we do see those effects we'll probably source those opinions too.
_______________________________________
|
Ogogov
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 16:08:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Ogogov on 20/04/2011 16:09:38
I'm all for some changes to null sec to make things more interesting.
Pre-nerf, you could mine rocks or mine NPC's and more or less be self-sufficient with a little bit left over for comedy exploding on the side. Post-nerf...it's not really possible. I knew people were angry about this nerf but I wasn't really prepared for how bad it actually is.
The upshot is it's now more profitable in terms of how much my time is worth to just buy GTC's and sell plexes, because the adjusted $1.70 an hour upper limit on what I can rat out just isn't worth it. For CCP, that means less players on the cluster and more people buying GTC's... good for them.
Ultimately it smacks of a rather lazy fix on the part of CCP to avoid working on more PVE content by trying to get inter-alliance conflicts to do their job of making the game interesting for them.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 16:27:00 -
[87]
It had to be done as it injected way too much ISK into Eve, what irks me most is that we haven't heard a peep about what else they are planning to make null worth ones time (if one is not a robotic sheep).
CSM needs to bang on some doors and get a dialogue going, it will be NDA'ed but it is the only way to get any sort of influence on the final outcome.
Repeatedly making Pro/Con threads will merely result in CCP devs becoming scared of leaving their intra-net and push half baked solutions out that no one are happy with (lol-Dominion  ).
Originally by: Blast Radius1
History tells us...
Then why has most European countries and the US in particular not seen massive protests and revolutions?
People are sheep, give them some bright lights to dazzle them and they'll gladly stand by while you ransack their lives .. that is what history tells us 
|
Merrik Talorra
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 18:27:00 -
[88]
Originally by: White Tree
I want to hear your personal experience with this system and if you feel it has impacted on your gameplay. If the change to the nature of the way Anomalies work in 0.0 has altered your income, what steps have you taken to seek alternative cash flow, and are you satisfied with it? We're generally interested in how this has changed the way you play EVE, if at all.
I moved back out to 0.0 space solely to experience the PvP, fleet engagements and Sovereignty games that the big alliances are involved in. I had the understanding that I wasn't going to get rich (I don't rat in a carrier) and that when I lost ships I'd be able to set aside some time to run some Havens or Sanctums and build back up.
It worked out great before the anomaly changes. If I needed something different, or had to replace a ship, I'd take a few hours, scan some anoms and run up some ISK. Then I'd be back into gangs and fleets, and back into having fun.
Now, the reward for running hubs is hardly worth the risk. I'm hesitant to take out PvP ships that would be hard to replace. I'm not willing to pay more money (PLEX) to keep combat ships around, or pick up an alt for mission running in Empire.
So, in short, I am not satisfied with it. I have a limited amount of time to play EVE to begin with, and now more of that time will be eaten up with running lower grade anomalies to recoup losses or purchase new ships/modules. That means less time in fleets and gangs, less time doing what I moved out to 0.0 to do. If I wanted PvE, I'd go back to Empire and do it 'risk free.'
|
Viribus
Autistic Sharks
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 18:46:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Rika Jones
Originally by: Viribus
People in my corp are reporting over 100m an hour in a solo tengu blitzing L4s for 5-run BPCs.
They should have been there all along, then. A Carrier running sanctums pulls, on average, 25mil per bounty cycle (~20-25 minutes). That's 75mil per hour in the best non-hidden type of anomaly in nullsec. I think your numbers are highly exaggerated, but I digress. If your people can make that kind of money in high sec, they should have been there a long time ago.
A lot of them have had mission running alts. Highsec has been better money than nullsec for a long time.
However, until the patch, sanctums were at least easy and reliable, despite being worse isk/hr than missions. Now it's finally bad enough that it's worth the rigmarole of keeping an alt in highsec and selling LP items over staying in nullsec and making terrible money.
As an aside, I gave up running sanctums ages ago, now I triple-box plexes. I can run any tier of plex for any race, and even then, working out the time it takes me to travel, scan, and run plexes, I'm not making more than 75m an hour, because nullsec is a desert as far as plexes are concerned.
|
Lykouleon
Bad Kitty Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.04.20 19:11:00 -
[90]
When the new sanctum system was introduced, I was extremely ~butt hurt~ as my old playing style of "jump into system, spam d-scan on belts, find helpless ratter, pew-pew" was essentially thrown out the window. I'm certainly glad that CCP has made running plexes less lucrative and brought people back into belts for ratting.
However, I don't like the blanket nerf to the spawning of sites. The issue here, as far generating ludicrous amounts of ISK with a fully upgraded system, is that site spawn and despawn (effectively) immediately after completion. Instead of a nerf to the actual spawning of the sites, I think a better choice would have been a change to the mechanic of how fast the sites spawn in the system. The lower truesec systems should be spawning sites at a faster rate, thus keeping up the benefits of owning and developing space thats harder to access and more dangerous to live in. Higher truesec systems should still maintain their ability to generate ISK out of anomalies, but the respawn rate should be slower than the more coveted low truesec system and to get players to move to more dangerous environments for greater rewards.
Don't click on this.
No, really, don't, it'll make your eyes bleed. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |