| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LNX Flocki
   |
Posted - 2005.04.01 18:39:00 -
[31]
Edited by: LNX Flocki on 01/04/2005 18:40:49
 Originally by: Rod Blaine
Yea, coz its so much easier to spend days of programming and debugging time on a not-planned project, as opposed to tweaking war costs for the time being ._.
Ofc tweaking works better on short term. But 3 tweaks in 4 months ? And every tweak ending up with an exploitable system that actually gets exploited ?
It's like saying this month that griefers get the edge and a cheap war, next month we'll move an exploit in that works for alliances so they can make themselves safe, and the one after that we'll just change it all again and make alliances cannonfodder in empire again.
All the while, the issue is that alliances should not be in empire in great numbers, period.
If you'd read the post i linked to, you'd know I agree that it's not feasible atm to actually not be in empire with at least a good part of your production people atm, because of said lacking features. Some other problems compound this of course.
All in all, maybe what I'm saying is that I guess ccp should withdraw the alliance feature altogether for the time being and bring the needed 0.0 content to support them in first.
Because no matter how you twist it, an alliance is a big and weak target in empire, so is going to be prone to war declarations when they cost little. On the other hand, if they cost lots because you open up an exploit to them to increase war costs, they are going to be too safe.
What is the hard part about making up your mind and stop messing with this for a while ? Why come up with a tweak that swings things over in the other direction so drastically ? Why actively support an exploitable situation ?
Yes, that's simply an insult to my patience. And not so much mine, but that of people involved.
I personally couldn't care less since i neither am at war with an alliance or will be as far as I know. Neither will I be in an alliance anytime soon. So for all I care keep messing with the damn system till everyone just decides for themselves that it's not going to work and reverts back to informal alliances again.
In the end, the only thing that's going to solve this issue is to force alliances to operate more effectively in terms of defense, and to give them the tools to do it (which can and should only be possible in 0.0 space).
Why, this change could be simplified too. Just insert an alliance maintenance fee of 400 million per week and make the cost of decalring on them fixed at 800 a week. Same result you'll see in the XF example, just without the exploitability factor to increase it even more. Of crouse, fixing ti at 50 million a week is nonsense too, thats a crap figure for a 5K member alliance.
I'd say do away with the fact that alliance corps cannot be declared on individually for now. It's only hurting things atm and leading to dissatisfaction on all sides involved. Revert to the individual system for now and put the fee per week at 25 million per week. Bad luck for newbs in this case, but at a rough guess I'm gonna say the largest part of those won't mind it too much right now.
CCP can reintroduce shared wars when a better and final solution can be found, or when empire wars have less impact and as such wont be this hot an issue. Losing hundreds of subscritions to a war system is not worth it.
And there's the solution.
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 18:40:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
le bla
Read what I wrote above, an alliance alt deccing on itself is actively inflicting financial damage on its own members 
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 18:44:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Face Lifter on 01/04/2005 18:48:23
Quote:
Every war the alliance has increases the warcost for the next declarer. So what will all alliances do first thing when the patch hits?
Right! Declare 4 wars on their own alliance by alt corps! Various of the 'softer' allainces have already voiced their wishes to be able to duck wars by paying for it. Well it seems they got their bloody wish!
I am also concerned about this. I know the devs meant well, but they failed to take into account rampant alt abuse. They should reconsider this feature quick.
Quote:
Read what I wrote above, an alliance alt deccing on itself is actively inflicting financial damage on its own members
I think it would still be economically viable to have at least 2 alt corps at war with you. For a decent sized corp, this cost is no more than a single lab slot rent fee.
|
LNX Flocki
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 18:48:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Face Lifter
Why won't they take advantage of free mutual war dec? What about an alliance using 100 alt corps to declare mutual free war? then any real corp that wants to declare war on them have to pay like 1 billion a week? heh
Mutual wars won't increase the war costs of normal wars. I think 
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 18:53:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Face Lifter
] I think it would still be economically viable to have at least 2 alt corps at war with you. For a decent sized corp, this cost is no more than a single lab slot rent fee.
Lab slots worth 100 million?
0-o
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 18:58:00 -
[36]
ah, I meant corp, not alliance. Corp-corp wars are much cheaper
|
Yzman Shhan
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 18:58:00 -
[37]
Quote:
War Cost Calculations have been simplified. Any war including corporations cost 2 million pr. week. any wars that include an Alliance as any party cost 50 million pr. week. The war cost is then multiplied by the number of non-mututal active wars the Corporation or Alliance has declared on them. Example: If a corporation you are declaring war on already has 3 wars declared on it, your war will cost 4 x 2 million pr. week.
I read that differently.. The way I understand this is that the price is multiplied by the number of YOUR wars, not the ones on the receiving end.
--
The higher that the monkey can climb
The more he shows his tail |
LNX Flocki
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:01:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Yzman Shhan
I read that differently.. The way I understand this is that the price is multiplied by the number of YOUR wars, not the ones on the receiving end.
Wrong
Quote:
If a corporation you are declaring war on already has 3 wars declared on it, your war will cost 4 x 2 million pr. week.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:04:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 01/04/2005 19:07:04
No, thats a false statement Disco about the negative result for allainces.
(damn you all for posting faster then I do and making me edit to preserve some type of resemblence of sense in the opening sentence).
An alliance currently facing 1.25 billion isk in damages per week due to losses-insurance + the inability to operate an effective industry (loss of income) is not something very hard to imagine. After all 250 million lost in ships and modules is short work against 2000 possible targets in empire every 23 hours, taken over 7 days. Add the fact that making 1 billion of revenue thru mining or agent running takes 100 persons about one to two days and that figure is reasonably conservative.
Now, they want to remove this loss of 1.25 bill.
They assume that war of this damaging factor are occurring once per two weeks. So they agree to spend 750 million per week to avoid them at maximum to insure their safety. The added 50% per week being afforded because its worth it to have the certainty.
They want to declare five wars on themselves, which costs them 50+100+150+200+250=750 million isk. (This is one day of good high ore mining by 25-50 people btw, certainly not more).
The next declarer would have to spend 300 million isk per week to open that war. That is is becoming prohibitive to all but large corps with real backing. Not impossible still, but at least alot less feasible for the grief+log type of 10 person corporations for any extended time.
Of course this is not real immunity.
I'd say real immunity happens at a cost of 500 million per week. That's when even the largest pvp corp out there is going to look for another target. But the 2.5 billion bill is going to prevent that allright.
Altogether, maybe not as much of a screwup as one would think at first glance due to the no longer "2x previous war"
calculating system, but still it makes is far to easy for big alliances to agree to not attack eachother and have a more or less guaranteed immunity for a relatively worthwhile price
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:12:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 01/04/2005 19:05:41
No, thats a false statement Disco about the negative result for allainces.
How is 50 + 100 +150 not more then 200 million? I must be really bad at math, then 
Originally by: Rod Blaine
(damn you all for posting faster then I do and making me edit to preserve some type of resemblence of sense in the opening sentence).
An alliance currently facing 1.25 billion isk in damages per week due to losses-insurance + the inability to operate an effective industry (loss of income) is not something very hard to imagine. After all 250 million lost in ships and modules is short work against 2000 possible targets in empire every 23 hours, taken over 7 days. Add the fact that making 1 billion of revenue thru mining or agent running takes 100 persons about one to two days and that figure is reasonably conservative.
Now, they want to remove this loss of 1 bill.
They assume that war of this damaging factor are occurring once per two weeks. So they agree to spend 750 million per week to avoid them at maximum to insure their safety. The added 50% per week being afforded because its worth it to have the certainty.
They want to declare five wars on themselves, which costs them 50+100+150+200+250=750 million isk. (This is one day of good high ore mining by 25-50 people btw, certainly not more).
The next declarer would have to spend 300 million isk per week to open that war. That is is becoming prohibitive to all but large corps with real backing. Not impossible still, but at least alot less feasible for the grief+log type of 10 person corporations for any extended time.
That's a total of 1.25 billion in potential losses + 750 million certain in alt war losses, equalling a loss of 2 billion isks, opposed to 300 million in war dec costs. Net result: the alliance loses out.
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Of course this is not real immunity.
I'd say real immunity happens at a cost of 500 million per week. That's when even the largest pvp corp out there is going to look for another target. But the 2.5 billion bill is going to prevent that allright.
50+100+150+200+250+300+350+400+450 = 2250 million = 2.25 billion.
I say, any alliance that spends 2.25 billion isks a week deserves immunity 
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Altogether, maybe not as much of a screwup as one would think at first glance due to the no longer "2x previous war"
calculating system, but still it makes is far to easy for big alliances to agree to not attack eachother and have a more or less guaranteed immunity for a relatively worthwhile price
Since when was it easy for big alliances not to attack eachother ?
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Silvanix
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:14:00 -
[41]
I think one crucial clarification is needed.
Need to know whether or not the multiplier for the number of active war decs against an alliance affects all declaring corps/alliances the same. All examples I've seen thus far indicate that the first corp will pay 50mil, the second will pay 100mil and so forth. But when these corps get their next bill, will they not pay the multiplied fee as well?
This will make alt corps delcaring against it's own alliance extremely unprofitable for said alliance.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:19:00 -
[42]
hmm Disco.
On second (sixth actually) thought, and not retracting any of what I say in the above post, I do think my earlier statement about some huge ****up are a tad overdone.
All in all, this might be the better solution for now, at least when compared to the previous ones of free warfare against alliances.
It might still be debatable wether retracting the sharing of wars for alliance might not be the better thing, altho I can see where that would rbing in cycled cheaper wars against the bigger industry corps within alliances.
The biggest problem (5 person altcorps declaring on alliances) will, with a bit of exploitation, be history from here on. It's not ideal seeing how easy it is do discourage war against alliances now assuming they can agree to not declare on eachother for a bit (the exploit making anything but alliances declaring on each other an incident at most I would expect), but it's something that could keep things stable untill the hopefully better solutions for bringing back alliances to 0.0 to do what they should do hit us.
So, I'm not going to edit them just because it took me a ****load of typing to make them, but please dear reader, dab my posts above the last two with a dose of relativation salve and amnesia ointment.
thank you,.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:20:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 01/04/2005 19:23:30
Originally by: Silvanix
I think one crucial clarification is needed.
Need to know whether or not the multiplier for the number of active war decs against an alliance affects all declaring corps/alliances the same. All examples I've seen thus far indicate that the first corp will pay 50mil, the second will pay 100mil and so forth. But when these corps get their next bill, will they not pay the multiplied fee as well?
This will make alt corps delcaring against it's own alliance extremely unprofitable for said alliance.
Why ?
It'll be:
First to declare: 50 mill per week till they end the war themselves or the alliance surrenders. Each week, no change in fee.
Second: 100 per week
Third: 150
etc.
Doesn't make it less profitable, seeing that damage done in empire war is larger then just shiplosses.
Aaah, revelation, you meant like:
week 1:
war1: 50
war2: 100
war3: 150
war4: 200
week2:
war1 (continued): 250
war2 (continued): 300
etc. ?
Did you ?
Wont influence it much other then making it more difficult to manage. You simply end war one thru 4 and declare war5 thru 8 when week 1 finishes for them, giving noone time to edge in since they dont know when they end.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
0subzero0
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:25:00 -
[44]
Originally by: LNX Flocki
(1) You're whining
(2) Come up with a better solution or stop doing (1)
(3) As you said yourself, 200 mil is peanuts. War dec'ing a 5000+ alliance is a profitable thing. Any corp with the dedication to fight that many people will gladly pay a few hundred mil.
In summary: It prevents total noobs from declaring on an alliance which is good. It does not prevent mature and dedicated PvP corps from declaring on an alliance, which is also good.
I agree on the possibility of exploiting this with alt corps but not a single solution i've seen on this issue was exploit-proof. I again direct your attention to (2).
Tell me why you don't suxxor the coxxor again ? How is profitable to pay 200M+ per week to fight a 5000+ cough cough alliance? plz do tell me how it is so that we can all start doing it.... tard.
---------------------------------------------
Yea thats right, I went there
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination. |
Silvanix
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:25:00 -
[45]
Tha is what I meant, but you're right. I didn't take into account the alliance could just surrender, or not pay for the war. 
|
LNX Flocki
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:27:00 -
[46]
Edited by: LNX Flocki on 01/04/2005 19:27:43
Originally by: 0subzero0
Tell me why you don't suxxor the coxxor again ? How is profitable to pay 200M+ per week to fight a 5000+ cough cough alliance? plz do tell me how it is so that we can all start doing it.... tard.
did you actually read the rest of the threat before making such a mature comment?
|
Krapz
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:36:00 -
[47]
ya know, the thing that really gets me, is why can't I use my joystick to fly my ship around in space....
could the devs pls address this issue too, in conjunction to fixing the war system?
-- Insert cool graphics sig here -- |
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:44:00 -
[48]
Actually the notes are unclear, I think it works for everyone involved.
My idea of declaring on a corp declared on who you want to attack would increase thier warcosts substantially as that would be another undeclared war they are party too.
BTW The Xetic alt-corp thing as far as I know was an idea that was not really supported by much of the alliance and went down in flames before being put into practice.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
Neslo
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 19:58:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Neslo on 01/04/2005 20:00:08
I believe because of the idiotic wars that happen to major alliances by alt corps...
Corps should only be able to declare war on corps...
Alliance should only be allowed to declare on alliances...
This way there are merc corps dedicated to corps... and merc alliances which are corps deciated enough to have the CEO skills / money to invest to attack larger targets.
Also i believe that the "cost" should be paid by the agressor alliance (ie if the m0o corp made the c0w alliance with huff amd mouth corp and mad cow disease corps) then they should have to pay X (where x is the number of corps in the other alliance) - Y (where y = the number of corps in your alliance) = the number of millions per week. This number can not be negative so that larger alliances have to pay to kill smaller alliances and smaller alliances need to have money to pester larger alliances...
and since mutual wars exsist (those alliances not wishing to inflict a monetary cost to their enemies except in the form of ships) there is no need to change this system for RPGers...
just my 2 isk though
From Ashes to Ashes... From Dust to Dust....
|
Thanit
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 20:06:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Neslo
Edited by: Neslo on 01/04/2005 20:00:08
I believe because of the idiotic wars that happen to major alliances by alt corps...
Corps should only be able to declare war on corps...
Alliance should only be allowed to declare on alliances...
This way there are merc corps dedicated to corps... and merc alliances which are corps deciated enough to have the CEO skills / money to invest to attack larger targets.
Also i believe that the "cost" should be paid by the agressor alliance (ie if the m0o corp made the c0w alliance with huff amd mouth corp and mad cow disease corps) then they should have to pay X (where x is the number of corps in the other alliance) - Y (where y = the number of corps in your alliance) = the number of millions per week. This number can not be negative so that larger alliances have to pay to kill smaller alliances and smaller alliances need to have money to pester larger alliances...
and since mutual wars exsist (those alliances not wishing to inflict a monetary cost to their enemies except in the form of ships) there is no need to change this system for RPGers...
just my 2 isk though
lol
So a 20 corp alliance would pay (10-20)=-10=0 under your rules to attack a 10 corp alliance for example ?
Makes sense....not.
And alliance v alliance only is ridiculous, that way every 5 guy corp will be in an alliance next week and everyone will jsut move from one alliance in empire to the next to avoid war declarations = endless cost increases for declaring alliances = no wars = not good.
|
Valentine Keen
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 21:55:00 -
[51]
At the end of the day, I honestly will never accept that an expensive system of war costs should be implemented just because alliances suck at working in Empire.
They and their wars are no different from corp wars - attackers prey on the weakest links be they corps or individual members, nothing is different.
To change the system to make alliances get special treatment is favouratism and allows exploitation of that privalege unfairly.
don't change the game just because alliances can't be bothered to look after their members or work together as they should.
Alliances were given exactly what they were told they were getting in Exodus - unified wars, claiming systems with POS and easier administration. No more, no less.
If corps were to truly work together as Allies, that would be enough, but they don't. Well if they can't make it work, tough.
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 22:51:00 -
[52]
Avoiding repercussions? Go visit them in 0.0 then.
Why should poor people have any voice? Poor people are poor for a reason. It is not a reason defending their credence as having a viable opinion either.
Other alliances and wealthy corps can afford those costs to pursue empire wars. If you can't, then you simply don't matter much in the scheme of things. I have the components to build techII tissues if you want to buy them my dear Quislings.
|
Valentine Keen
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 23:01:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Lygos
Avoiding repercussions? Go visit them in 0.0 then.
Why should poor people have any voice? Poor people are poor for a reason. It is not a reason defending their credence as having a viable opinion either.
Other alliances and wealthy corps can afford those costs to pursue empire wars. If you can't, then you simply don't matter much in the scheme of things. I have the components to build techII tissues if you want to buy them my dear Quislings.
Why should anyone, even rich, go blundering into a 0.0 gank blockade as a means to hold an alliance accountable?
You seriously think it should be okay for alliances to be able to attack smaller and newer corps without being able to be shot back at using the war system?
After all, if they're so much bigger and richer, can't they damn well just grow up and defend their Empire assets like any other corp has to. Why should CCP give you a free ride just because you're being lazy?
|
Cummilla
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 23:20:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Cummilla on 01/04/2005 23:25:37
Originally by: Tobiaz
Edited by: Tobiaz on 01/04/2005 17:29:34
Edited by: Tobiaz on 01/04/2005 17:26:47
Quote:
War Cost Calculations have been simplified. Any war including corporations cost 2 million pr. week. any wars that include an Alliance as any party cost 50 million pr. week. The war cost is then multiplied by the number of non-mututal active wars the Corporation or Alliance has declared on them. Example: If a corporation you are declaring war on already has 3 wars declared on it, your war will cost 4 x 2 million pr. week.
If this multiplier for the warcosts works the same way on alliances as for corps this is one huge mistake.
Every war the alliance has increases the warcost for the next declarer. So what will all alliances do first thing when the patch hits?
Right! Declare 4 wars on their own alliance by alt corps! Various of the 'softer' allainces have already voiced their wishes to be able to duck wars by paying for it. Well it seems they got their bloody wish!
Having 4 wars on your own alliances will cost the allaince 450M a week. This is peanuts for them.
But the corp that is to declare the 5th war on them will suddenly have to pay 200M ISK. Pretty much beyond the reach of any merc or pirate corp.
Still not very much for some of the really large corps out there, but this will make certain the allaince will never have more then 1 or 2 actual corps declaring war on them. And these will have to be bloody big to finance it.
I still can't believe the amount of whining 1000 people can do about some 10 men corps...not to mention they get what they want as well.
This new system doesn't make people to keep their own number of wars down, it just makes sure people will want to be the first corp to declare war on the victim, because joining later means paying a lot more.
Just another perfect example of a weird measure implemented by CCP without thinking it through.
(if this is not how the system works, though I doubt that) then consider this post never written)
P.S.
Mutual wars...ROFL...some people have to wake up...
I guess only CVA & enemies will be only players that will actually use this.
I have an idea: Go to 0,0 and kill an alliance you don't care for. I hear it doesn't cost you a dime to shoot someone out there. Concord doesn't care, your sec status remains the same. It's win\win baby keke :)
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 23:26:00 -
[55]
The best solution, but not the easiest solution, will be this:
* War cost on alliance is 50 million. Flat. Doesn't change. At all.
* Alliances cost 2 million upkeep fee per week
* Alliances can build 0.0 stargates within a POS sphere of influence (and inside system that is claimed by the alliance) that leads to a similar stargate a few jumps away (say up to 10)
* Alliances can set monthly fees on corporations
* Alliances can set alliance officers
* Alliance mail system can be moderated!
* ...
SHORT VERSION:
* Alliances cost to maintain
* Alliances doesn't cost very much to declare on
* Alliances get a lot of benefits - many of which are applicable in 0.0 only.
Sound neat, eh? The key is to make alliances rewarding to run, make mercenary proffession pliable, and limit griefers. The last bit makes it difficult.
--
If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. |
Jackkal
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 23:29:00 -
[56]
CCP for the win.
As it has been said wars in 0.0 are free.
The cost is still to low in my opinion. Everyone said xitec cried when they had all the griefer wars, who's whining now.
This is a much needed change
Keep up the good work ccp.
|
Cinnander
|
Posted - 2005.04.02 00:09:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Cinnander on 02/04/2005 00:10:53
Hihi,
If all alliances did the big boy thing and moved to 0.0 "Like they should", who does that leave in empire? Agent runners and researchers.
Soooo why should it be so cheap for (insert random 5 man greifer corp here) to be able to war dec THAT ("omgindies i'm such a big boy i nailed an iteron in my scorp!11 i r win etc").
It should be expensive...
Assume for instance an alliance does move say 70% of their operations to 0.0 (Cos POS just make this so easy  in their current state) ... well, excepting merc corps, if you want to fight us you could at least 'grow balls' (as I've heard it said) and come out to 0.0 as well.
Or would you be happy to see the EXODUS work as planned then still complain cos it costs you so damn much to shoot agent runners ohnoesccp.
It's the people's way of playing the system, not the system itself.
><))))¦> This is fishy .. You know what to do. |
ALTNAME
|
Posted - 2005.04.02 00:33:00 -
[58]
alliances can declare war on any small corp, small corps can declare war on any alliance, no cost, that is it. If you dont like it, leave the alliance, or corporation. EVE does everything Alliances say, such as including a mechanic to avoid fair play(known as an exploit in some games), by allowing war to be freely declared on those that play by the rules, while requiring exorbitant amounts to have the 'right' to declare war on corporations which are invincible, and dominate the game. Instead of making things difficult for the powerful, they have made them difficult for the new player, every step of the way. The weak and fragile mega corp is in need of constant dev attention. Anyone that hides in an alliance is a coward. Anyone
|
Ngwee
|
Posted - 2005.04.02 01:05:00 -
[59]
Firstly - I do not speak for anyone but myself.
What I am looking forward to is a nice war. So far they ALL seem to have consisted of ganking (Insert most hated Alliance) pilots in empire who dont have instas and lizard like reflexes.
Yes - We dont go Arrrrh and we hug roids - get over it. There shouldnt be any more easy targets in empire so come and visit us at home. That solves the war dec problem in an insta.
I am looking forward to meeting anyone who will come to fight where its more fun - and doesnt need an official Sanction to do so.
"All deaths will be accompanied by Mozart - Could be Yours - or Mine."
|
Altai Saker
|
Posted - 2005.04.02 01:36:00 -
[60]
is this another instance of ccp caving to carebears?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |