| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
115
   |
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
We invited Two Step for a private discussion on our Mumble some time ago. Over two hours we had a very productive and constructive discussion on nPOSes and Wormholes. One thing that came out of it was that it was very helpful to have a clear statement of "this is what we want" from individual corps, so that Two Step can point CCP to it and they can have a clear, concise reference of what the players want.
One of the other important things to come out of that discussion was that CCP doesn't like specific mechanic ideas from players as much as they like general goals. After all, they are game designers, they don't want us doing all the design work for them.
The following post is Adhocracy's statement. It is not meant to represent the opinion of anyone other than Adhocracy. I encourage other corps to construct similar statements. |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
115
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adhocracy's position on new POSes (based on the information available to us)
General statement (Cliff notes for you busy CCP devs): We have a lot of concerns about the proposed ideas for new POSes under current mechanics. However, there are many other mechanics that are on the table for improvement that would interact with the proposed design of new POSes. The order in which these mechanics are addressed relative to the design and implementation of new POSes may resolve many of our concerns and yield an ultimately better system.
1. Regarding docking, mooring, and force fields:
We recognize that CCP has valid reasons, however mysterious, for wanting to get rid of force fields. We are not inherently opposed to this, provided whatever replaces them maintains certain key features:
A) Transparency, both from the outside looking in and the inside looking out
B) Unambiguous and visible division between "safe" and "not safe"
C) Allows for all of our actively piloted ships to be safe if need be
D) Allows for people to log in safely
E) Allows us to at least temporarily keep safe ships we do not have room to store long-term, so that in w-space our capital pilots are not enslaved to their capitals the way k-space supercapital pilots are.
We feel it is worth noting that, under current mechanics, fighting on a POS is a distinctly different environment than fighting on a station. We would like this distinction to be preserved in some form, as it adds more variety to the game and allows for new forms of emergent gameplay, both of which are part of what makes EVE great.
1a. About docking specifically
We feel that docking in its current form would be disastrous if implemented in w-space. However, based on conversations with Two Step, we recognize that there are great benefits to having all of EVE using the same interface for docking-like activities. To that end, we feel that if docking is going to be an integral part of the new POSes, then docking needs to be fixed before the new POSes are implemented. A docking radius that is visible to EVERYONE (even if it's just part of the Tactical Overlay), docking timers that are likewise visible to everyone, and ideally some kind of two-way "station windows" would make it possible to introduce docking to w-space without having a catastrophic effect on the way w-space works now.
To that end, if docking is a key part of the new POSes, we would rather the new POSes and all of their other important benefits be delayed until the docking system is fixed. While the new POSes will introduce a host of benefits for everyone, a broken docking system could have a disastrous effect on w-space life, particularly w-space pvp. While we expect that docking would eventually be fixed, we feel that w-space would suffer greatly in the interim. We are willing to wait longer to have other mechanics that will interact with new POSes refined before new POSes themselves come in to W-space
1b. Alternatives to docking
Alternately, a new system that simply allowed us to open the same windows as we currently get while docking and interact with them the same way while still being in space would be acceptable as well. Obviously we can't say whether this or a redesign of docking mechanics would be more challenging to implement, but that's CCP's job to figure out.
2. Defensibility and POS gunning
In general, the new POSes need to be defensible to more or less the same degree as the current ones. Systems that encourage fighting on the POS are also good, but timers that can drag on longer than a couple of days are impractical, especially in w-space. There are many good ideas for how to improve reinforcement etc. available on the forums, here is just one example: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1892082#post1892082
2a. Big things in small holes
Now that your mind is out of the gutter, there are good arguments on both sides about the size allowances of towers in small holes. Managing how these towers can be defended is going to be ultimately more important than the size of the tower itself. However, there is definitely a huge difference between a hole you can bring a capital ship to siege and one you cannot. Refinements to ewar mechanics (hinted at by CCP Fozzie and Ytterbium) may help address this problem without any special work on the part of the new POS design team.
2b. POS gunning
While not an essential feature, in w-space POS gunning is a very useful mechanic. Because of the limited fleet size and lack of supercaptials the w-space environment imposes, a POS gunner can have real impact on the outcome of a battle. Having both used it defensively and fought against it offensively, we can say that it can make both sides of a POS fight much more interesting and engaging. Defensively, coordinating POS guns with fleet action can lead to novel, emergent tactics that can generate unexpected outcomes and fend off vastly superior forces. Offensively, fighting a manned POS is a far more interesting and challenging experience than an unmanned one. Even one pilot in a hauler that can man four guns can make what would otherwise be an extremely boring POS siege into a white-knuckle slugfest.
The current interface is honestly crap and it's not something we would want new POSes as a whole delayed in order to implement, but we feel some continuation of the concept of "manning the guns" would add real gameplay value to the new POSes in w-space.
3. Property management and theft protection
In short, fixing the corp roles system will do more for this than any new POS mechanic alone ever could. Personal storage space is good, but ultimately directors and people responsible for POS logistics will need to have access to everyone's things so they can be moved in the event of needing to reorganize or relocate a POS. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
K162
2199
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks for the great feedback, I have passed this on to the appropriate folks.
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
Godfrey Silvarna
Stargates and Smuggler Barons
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Best take on this issue so far. _b |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 RETURN MINING INC.
Illusion of Solitude
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
I pretty much agree with all the points in jonnykefka's post. Living out of a POS and all the challenges it brings is part of the attraction of living in wormhole space.
- Any changes to POSs should be across the whole of New Eden. Creating arbitrary rules which say a large POS can't be anchored in a wormhole makes no sense when I can anchor a large POS in hisec. Unless we cannot any anchor POSs in W-space at all and have to scrounge an existence in abandoned sleeper structures I can't see any sane way to put rules on POS sizes into a sandbox.
- I don't want others to be invisible while tending to their industry, reactions, or other administrivia. W-space life is all about intel so if someone is at a POS this should be determinable.
- Please, please, please can I assemble T3s in W-space. Their components all come from W-space, I could build all the subsystems in W-space, yet I have to go to K-space to make something I can actually fly...
- I don't want massively improved security - the trust issues are a large part of the W-space experience. Some improved security through increased granularity would be nice. e.g. roles on a per-POS basis would be more than enough.
- Assembling modules into bespoke POS designs would be pretty cool. Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't. There should be some benefit to building a well designed POS but these benefits should not be huge.
Ultimately, change is good. It can shake up the status quo for some and reinvigorate interest for others. As long as the changes aren't game breaking I look forward to what CCP serves up. |
Rroff
The Xenodus Initiative.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
I can't see how this isn't going to end up with silly station games - you can't really put enough automated/player controlled firepower on a POS/Station to stop people dropping in logistics support in to tank the automated defences and then wreaking havoc with a corp if they only have a few people online who end up camped into their own "POS" without being able to even warp off to scan the system, etc.
If this is really the best anyone can come up with we might as well keep the current broken system atleast is provides some semblance of balance even if its badly lacking on the useability side. |
M Thomas
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:15:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'd just like to point out that the creation of a single statement on POS's is actually impossible given that we are an Adhocracy. But I'll roll with this, for now. |
Sandslinger
NorCorp Enterprise
No Holes Barred
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
Great Post jonnykefka it addresses the exact concerns we have had also.
The other large concern is about undocking/docking.
In 0,0 you have the ability to pod yourself out of a camped station and rejoin the fight coming from another station.
In wormholes when corps posses are all surprise-coitus caged they can exit the posses and get into other posses using interdicted T3 or by sneaking through the bubbles with cov ops. Or even use bombers to blow the bubbles up if the attackers are thin on the ground.
If some sort of undocking/docking mechanism is created that's the end of that. What will effectively happen with WH invasions is that the attacker only need to blob up on the undock points of each pos that contains players and will then effectively have shut down the defenders possibility of doing anything at all.
That's a pretty massive loss of gameplay for everyone in wormholes. |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
M Thomas wrote:I'd just like to point out that the creation of a single statement on POS's is actually impossible given that we are an Adhocracy. But I'll roll with this, for now.
I made it, put it up for comments, and no one told me not to. That's official by our standards :P |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Project Wildfire
422
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rroff wrote: if they only have a few people online who end up camped into their own "POS" without being able to even warp off to scan the system, etc.
This worries me also...
They see me trolling, they hating... |
extraordinary facepalm
Aperture Disharmonics
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
good post from jonnykefka. i go agree with all this points and hope it will find ears! |
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
260
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
Thanks alot for your post!
The most important skill as a game designer is to listen. Listening to the players as well. Many game designer don't get that.
New inventory: Getting better since version 1.2, but what about back and forward buttons? |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Project Wildfire
422
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
Seleia O'Sinnor wrote:Thanks alot for your post!
The most important skill as a game designer is to listen. Listening to the players as well. Many game designer don't get that.
I would have thought the most important skill of a designer would be the ability to design something fit for purpose... 
Henry FordGÇÖs quote: GÇ£If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horseGÇ¥
They see me trolling, they hating... |
Rroff
The Xenodus Initiative.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Rroff wrote: if they only have a few people online who end up camped into their own "POS" without being able to even warp off to scan the system, etc.
This worries me also...
Theres too many variables really to see the full feasibility or otherwise of it at the moment i.e. a triage carrier would be a pain in the behind to extract after your done unless you either slowboat out dipping in and out of triage if needed or kill the scrams but there are other ways around that - infact even most reasonably setup large POSes at the moment can be tanked by a fairly small number of logis if theres 1 or less POS gunners online (so you could burn the fleet out of range and warp once done with logis instead of a carrier). Then you have the other side of it - would people really sit around waiting to grief a corp that only has a few people active for potentially no gain - but from what I've seen people actually do go to great lengths just to screw with people in that manner in eve so I think it will be a potential problem. |
Marsan
Production N Destruction INC.
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
The basic fundamental issue is undocking. Ask eve players who have done any sort of HS warfare, and 90% of them will have station/docking games as one of their top 3 dislikes about high sec warfare. Unless CCP fixes the current undock mess then WH warfare gets bogged down in the same undock camping insanity. NS is going to have the same sort of issues. Unless you give the new POS a doomsday gun able to shoot even cloaked undock campers it's going to reduce WH warfare to the lameness of HS warfare. (BTW the doomsday gun is horrible idea....)
What need to happen to make this work is to provide the following:
1) A way to see outside the station. This is nice for empire space, but at least there you have local. In WH you need to be able know if your station is under siege.
2) Remove the common docking exit area. Either let us undock at a place of our choosing or use a random direction. (This would be nice for places like Jita 4-4 as well to avoid playing bumper spaceships in space.) |
LanFear TyRaX
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 04:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
jonnykefka wrote:M Thomas wrote:I'd just like to point out that the creation of a single statement on POS's is actually impossible given that we are an Adhocracy. But I'll roll with this, for now. I made it, put it up for comments, and no one told me not to. That's official by our standards :P
for a second I thought adhoc has agreed on something , and the space-time fabric has been altered. Phew |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
Docking takes you out of the proper multi-player in-space environment and moves you into a single-player in-station environment. The docking games are possible because of the timers which exist to allow players who have slower computers or slower connections than other players to fully load the in-space environment before opponents can insta-blap them. If you don't take players out of the multi-player in-space environment, you have no need of timers, and you eliminate docking games.
Any kind of docking that is even remotely similar to what is called "docking" today is a problem. It is not just a problem with immersion, but it also removes the potential for intel from both sides, and it introduces gameplay that is universally hated. It's a technical means, like Time Dilation, to ensure some parts of the game can operate correctly, but it should not become the standard for everything.
Instead of accepting docking, push to have station services work in space, in the multi-player environment.
Keep docking out of w-space. It's not needed here.
|
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
The Nommo
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
I have been wondering why the station inventory system is so hard to implement in space, should be simple enough to have it connected to a POS module that would allow for "personal" hangars and all the functionality there in, with a limited space of course.
Is the issue with the corp hangar coding that i presume is shared with stations?
Hell, put both in the same module and the problem will be solved, just move stuff into the personal one whenever you need. |
Denidil
Evocations of Shadow
Eternal Evocations
530
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 02:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Oreamnos Amric wrote:
I don't want massively improved security - the trust issues are a large part of the W-space experience. Some improved security through increased granularity would be nice. e.g. roles on a per-POS basis would be more than enough.
.
i do. having to expose all of your assets to some jackass corp thief in your corp shouldn't be a requirement to live out of a POS.
obviously you cannot have unlimited private space - but you should have enough space to storage a reasonable number of ships in personal space, and mods and equipment.
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Captain Hellfest
The Elysian Horde
Elysian Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:21:00 -
[20] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Docking takes you out of the proper multi-player in-space environment and moves you into a single-player in-station environment. The docking games are possible because of the timers which exist to allow players who have slower computers or slower connections than other players to fully load the in-space environment before opponents can insta-blap them. If you don't take players out of the multi-player in-space environment, you have no need of timers, and you eliminate docking games.
Any kind of docking that is even remotely similar to what is called "docking" today is a problem. It is not just a problem with immersion, but it also removes the potential for intel from both sides, and it introduces gameplay that is universally hated. It's a technical means, like Time Dilation, to ensure some parts of the game can operate correctly, but it should not become the standard for everything.
Instead of accepting docking, push to have station services work in space, in the multi-player environment.
Keep docking out of w-space. It's not needed here.
What if instead of docking inside the station you somehow docked while still in space? Kinda like the space shuttle docks with the international space station. Same interface you have while you are spinning in station except you are still in space. |
Indo Nira
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
Exhale.
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Oreamnos Amric wrote:
I don't want massively improved security - the trust issues are a large part of the W-space experience. Some improved security through increased granularity would be nice. e.g. roles on a per-POS basis would be more than enough.
. i do. having to expose all of your assets to some jackass corp thief in your corp shouldn't be a requirement to live out of a POS. obviously you cannot have unlimited private space - but you should have enough space to storage a reasonable number of ships in personal space, and mods and equipment.
set up your own tower? with your own password, and own fuel? |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 13:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Captain Hellfest wrote:What if instead of docking inside the station you somehow docked while still in space? Kinda like the space shuttle docks with the international space station. Same interface you have while you are spinning in station except you are still in space.
This would work and is the concept of "mooring" that was in the other threads ... as long as the player remains in multi-player space, instead of just having some placeholder ship object while the player is relocated to a single-player environment. I still think there should be some sort of proximity-based zone of protection around the new-POS, even if access to station services depends on mooring. I'd definitely love to know why they want to get rid of force fields; maybe we collectively could come up with possibilities for them to explore to make it efficient and streamlined.
Stations came first, so the code is structured around stations. But since they're going to be touching the code, they should take the focus away from single-player environments and focus on the multi-player environment. You can always treat a single-player environment as a special case, but it's not as easy to make it work well the other way around.
The only two things that we wouldn't have would be actual ship spinning -- especially if they take away force fields instead of reimplementing them to be something less hacked-on -- and Incarna. I haven't been able to think of a way to provide what w-space residents want out of w-space while still offering Incarna features, though I do admit to having an aversion to space barbies.
Incidentally, if ships had to moor themselves to carriers, etc., before they could use the fitting and storage services, that would be an interesting development. I can see this happening if proximity-based access to "station services" was removed in favour of mooring. Are you in battle and want to re-fit your ship on the fly? You have to come to a full and complete stop for the duration :) (Detatching should propel the detaching ship some short distance away, instead of bumping the carrier in this case)
Oreamnos Amric wrote:I don't want massively improved security - the trust issues are a large part of the W-space experience. Some improved security through increased granularity would be nice. e.g. roles on a per-POS basis would be more than enough.
Either do it right, or don't do it. Since every corp is operated differently and has different needs, we need a robust and flexible system. Basing everything on a small number of pre-defined roles is not flexible enough. We have wedged the square pegs into the round holes, but it wasn't always as easy or efficient as it could have been. Eventually the shared-POS work-around will run out of spare moons.
Like with station services, the simple needs would be a special case of the more complex offerings. Theoretically, you would be able to configure access based on Trials, Members, and Directors, and just use that for everything, while others would be able to define and provide more specific levels of access as needs dictate.
|
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate
Transmission Lost
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 16:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
@Indo: obviously, if you do that, sooner or later, you'll run out of spare moons in the current system (pay your mates in HTEL a visit if you want to see a system that is highly susceptible to moon shortages).
On mooring: this seems like a good intermediate between the current "floating inside forcefield" system and having your ship disappear from space when you dock. It would raise the "two interfaces" question that CCP seems to want to avoid, but it seems like a necessity in order to not render the new starbase system unfit for purpose in W-space. (It would also allow the new system to elegantly handle the current "no docking" restriction on supercapitals.) Mooring to carriers and Orcas would be a natural extension of this mechanic as well.
On T3 refitting in space: perhaps refitting a T3 could cause the starbase to 'suck' the ship into drydock, do the subsystem change(s), and then 'spit' it back out again in the new configuration, as if you had simply exchanged ships?
On POS permissions: I do see a legitimate case being made for the need for fully general and granular permissions on starbase interactables (hangar divisions, factory/lab/refinery/reactor facilities, fuel bays, administrative controls, and starbase batteries). A system based on Access Control Lists could be implemented; however, ACLs tend to have a steep learning curve associated with them (sounds like a problem for FoxFour and the rest of CCP's UI people to chew on).
|
Jhan Niber
Big Johnson's
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
The only issue I have not mentioned in the OP is permissions and management of items. It can be a real pain in the butt too find what I'm looking for because there isn't a way to search all the hangars in a starbase. There also needs to be better roles management as well as locations that are only accessible by one individual and directors. Corporate theft and misplacing trust is something that is expected to happen even with the best security, but if you don't trust someone there's only one effective method to implement security: kicking and podding them to hisec. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
Elysian Empire
418
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:46:00 -
[25] - Quote
Whatever the mechanics, they absolutely cannot allow it to end up the way stations currently are - i.e. one tiny specific area that ships pop out of, that enemies can sit 0m on and immediately open fire. It doesn't matter how you change the mechanics of pos defenses, any fleet capable of tanking the defenses long enough to take down the tower will sit right on 0 and it'd be crap. The current method of dumping bubbles everywhere is much better in that regard, as ships can attempt to find gaps, or race out the opposite side, all leave the safety of the shields together without praying to the lag gods / black undock screen, etc. So long as the mechanics they come up with allow a few similar kind of options to the people in the tower and don't leave them with just having to poop themselves out into a big ball of enemies at 0m, then it'll be ok
As for limiting pos size/mods in smaller class wormholes: It's just a stupid, stupid idea. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
701
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 09:04:00 -
[26] - Quote
Improving life in WH is a two-edged sword. Yes it will make life in WH easier, but at the same time, these days it's mostly the inconvenience of living in a WH what keeps it 'hardcore'.
For instance better corp hangar management will result in less risk of corptheft, but at the same time this is something that keeps a lot of corporations from settling in W-space. Yes, these more targets is always nice, but it would also mean a lot more competition on the market for T3 goods.
So be very careful here, because convenience is death to the relevance of player skill and its rewards.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt
Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
701
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 09:10:00 -
[27] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
As for limiting pos size/mods in smaller class wormholes: It's just a stupid, stupid idea.
I agree. Such arbitrary measures are almost always bad.
Instead of trying to restrict C-1 to C-3 fortification itself, much better for CCP to make a counter-move like introducing new battle-cruiser size baby-dreadnoughts (that trade in siege for spider-tanking boost). This would also help with a more mass-efficient invasion of larger capital-heavy wormholes.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt
Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
YuuKnow
Inner 5phere
422
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 18:34:00 -
[28] - Quote
My main fear is that CCP will slowly morph WH to be more and more like Null Sec. There's more to the uniqueness of WHs than just no local and variable connectivity.
The corporation structure that's needed to successfuly run a WH is unique. The business deals rely more on trust and word (as there are no contracts or market). *This* is a good thing in my opinion as it makes WH corps a tighter knit group than other Eve corps IMHO. The logistical challenges in WHs are challenging parts of the game and challenges players to capitalize on opprotunities more.
There's a lot of uniqueness to WHs atm and I would hate to see CCP morph it into Null-sec without local.
yk |
Mattalious
The Marmarati
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 12:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:
There's a lot of uniqueness to WHs atm and I would hate to see CCP morph it into Null-sec without local.
yk
That would kill WH space for a lot of corps. No one wants to see another slice of Eve run by a handful of mega-alliances. The wonderful thing about WH is the feeling on Independence that being cut off from k-space gives. Yes, there's some large C5/C6 corps you have to be respectful of, but they're not charging us smaller corps for the privileged of trying to make a living in Eve. |
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate
Transmission Lost
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 13:18:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:
As for limiting pos size/mods in smaller class wormholes: It's just a stupid, stupid idea.
I agree. Such arbitrary measures are almost always bad. Instead of trying to restrict C-1 to C-3 fortification itself, much better for CCP to make a counter-move like introducing new battle-cruiser size baby-dreadnoughts (that trade in siege for spider-tanking boost). This would also help with a more mass-efficient invasion of larger capital-heavy wormholes.
I think that fixing ECM would go a long way to making low-class WHs less intimidating; Tier3s should have been this counter-move, but were negated by dickstars :P |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |