Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
Shaak'Ti
Shirak SkunkWorks
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 05:57:00 -
[271] - Quote
Vae Caudex wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:Galatea Galilei wrote:Coming from a PvE perspective, active armor tanking is not unusable, but it's so bad relative to shield tanking that I can easily fit a cap-stable shield tank on my Myrmidon that tanks more DPS than a cap-stable twin-MAR armor tank, even though the Myrm has bonuses for armor tanking! You're better off ignoring the bonuses and fitting a shield tank to maximize your sustained tank.
The new rig only helps when overheating, and besides I can't very well use it when I need three CCC rigs, two cap rechargers, and a cap power relay just to make the dual MAR fit stable. The other rig changes just remove the speed penalty, and do nothing to affect the fact that even a twin-MAR setup on a bonused ship doesn't heal as much damage as a passive shield tank on a ship that doesn't even have resist bonuses.
The proposed changes don't seem to come anywhere close to putting a dent into the inferiority of armor tanking... Pretty much this. This whole set of changes seems like just throwing a weird, needlessly tweaky and kinda useless new module and yet another batch of one-off "must train to V" skills at the problem instead of just making a balance pass on the fundamentals. If you wanted to get armor tanking back on track, you should have been looking at fundamentals like: - Having the rep hit at the start instead of the end of the cycle - Making standard reppers run faster with the same cap use, or just rep more - Buffing hull active rep bonuses across the board to 10% - Buffing base armor resist values across the board to give armor tanking some sort of basis for seriously competing with shield features like passive recharge and dual/triple/quad/lolASB tanking If you wanted to get clever dealing with the speed disparity, how about something really nice like a role bonus for some hulls that negates 80% of the armor rig / plate speed penalty for the designated buffer tank / PvP boats? As it is, this doesn't feel like "balance" at all, just a random set of things that will bring a bunch of unintended consequences, aggravate the already out of control SP bloat that is going on with the "rebalancing," and not even touch the fundamental issues that have been discussed over and over here for ages. This^
"- Having the rep hit at the start instead of the end of the cycle" if u want to make armor reps like shield reps.. maybe you should simple learn shield stuffz ^^
I think until now you only learned armor tank, and u wanted it's moar powerfull.. maybe your skills doesn't lvl5 yet.. and don't want to learn shield.. because it's time.. yes, I play since 6 years.. i had all lvl5 at each tanks.. and uses armor and shield tank ships too.. You (and everyone who crys standard armor rep boost) only want a win button instead of prove your skillz (in your character sheet and playing skillz too) |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
583
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 06:11:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Expect at least most of these changes to make it into the next Sisi build for playtesting (the AARs might not catch this upcoming build but they should at least be in the one after that).
The best way to test this will be with a multi ASB fit shield Gnosis against a single AAR fit armour Gnosis What ya think is going to happen OUR LOGS SHOW NOTHING |
Shaak'Ti
Shirak SkunkWorks
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 06:18:00 -
[273] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Expect at least most of these changes to make it into the next Sisi build for playtesting (the AARs might not catch this upcoming build but they should at least be in the one after that).
The best way to test this will be with a multi ASB fit shield Gnosis against a single AAR fit armour Gnosis What ya think is going to happen
I usually fit active armor tank ships with min 2 reps.. so more like an AAR + a standard rep fit .. Don't be fool.. becouse only 1 can fit by AAR u still can fit standard armor reps.
(edit: also, armor rep cyrcle longer, so u can burst tank longer with AAR than ASB) |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 06:45:00 -
[274] - Quote
Shaak'Ti wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Expect at least most of these changes to make it into the next Sisi build for playtesting (the AARs might not catch this upcoming build but they should at least be in the one after that).
The best way to test this will be with a multi ASB fit shield Gnosis against a single AAR fit armour Gnosis What ya think is going to happen I usually fit active armor tank ships with min 2 reps.. so more like an AAR + a standard rep fit .. Don't be fool.. becouse only 1 can fit by AAR u still can fit standard armor reps. (edit: also, armor rep cyrcle longer, so u can burst tank longer with AAR than ASB) I think when a MEDIUM AAR provides more HP than a 1600 plate over a full set of cycles even before overheating or any nano pump rigs, you a very good module and the 1 per ship restriction is thoroughly justified. I can just imagine what a larger repper does with one of the new rigs, some nano pump rigs and some good overheating. Add in the fact that you can hybrid build some buffer and with a slave set, you'll likely survive the reload too assuming you haven't derped into a full-on fleet.
Given that small armor reppers are already decent, I wonder what a SAAR will do to armor frigs and dessies... |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:09:00 -
[275] - Quote
Ancillary armor repairer is BORING! It's just a copy-paste of ASB with some tweaks, you should be ashemed, Fozzie. ASB is relevant, because it combines SB and cap-booster, which both take med slots. On contrary, this new module is an abomination. It devaluates hi-meta reps. It also breaks metagame. Armor reps are never supposed to be burst-tanking. Also, you substitute armor tanking with cargohold tanking, which makes me sick. Not that I'm really a role-player, but that is a kind of tanking I'll never use, for ideological reasons.
I know it's too late, but check out how it really could be: Nanite injector pump Takes low slot, max 1 per ship. Should be loaded with nanites, consumes them when cycling. Also consumes capacitor. Each cycle gives additional +3% bonus to armor repairer amount. These bonuses are cumulative, from cycle to cycle. Cycle time = 10 sec. Accumulated bunus is reduced by 3% every 20 seconds. (number are for the sake of example only)
This module adapts philosophy of reactive armor hardener (which is generally fine imo), but makes it usable only for active tanking. You can adjust the amount of nanites consumed (or nano-paste, or whatnot), so it would not be profitable for PVE.
But FFS, why do you publish details when everything is decided?! |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:15:00 -
[276] - Quote
Personally, i dont like this. ASB already made old shield boosters practically obsolete. I dont feel that adding new stuff to the game before fixing things already in it is a good practice. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
584
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:25:00 -
[277] - Quote
Philsophically the nano paste fuel makes more sense. That stuff is pretty expensive though,no? It would take upless space though. OUR LOGS SHOW NOTHING |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:31:00 -
[278] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Philsophically the nano paste fuel makes more sense. That stuff is pretty expensive though,no? It would take upless space though. PVP is expensive, yes. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:42:00 -
[279] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Philsophically the nano paste fuel makes more sense. That stuff is pretty expensive though,no? It would take upless space though.
Navy cap booster 400 ~80k Nanite rapair paste ~20k
Both are cheap, and nanite takes much less space. And it makes sense. Using batteries to boost repair amount makes no sense. ASB work without batteries but take crapload of cap to operate and that is a logical mechanic. This is silly. |
X4me1eoH
Anarchist Dawn U N K N O W N
55
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:00:00 -
[280] - Quote
-» -ü-ç-+-é-¦-Ä -ç-é-+ AAR -ü-+-+-ê-¦-+-+ -¦-¦-ê-¦-¦-+, -ì-é-+-¦-+ -+-¦ -¦-+-+-¦-+-+ -¦-ï-é-î, -ç-é-+-¦ -+-+-Å-é-î -¦-¦-¦ -+ -¦ -ü-+-â-ç-¦-¦ -ü ASB -ü -ì-é-+-+ -¦-+-¦-+-+-+ -+-¦-é-¦-+-+ 100% -+-+-ë-¦-¦-Ç-+-¦-+-¦, -¦-¦-¦ -¦-¦-Ç-+-¦-+-é, -¦-+-¦-¦-¦-î-é-¦ -ì-é-â -ê-é-â-¦-â -¦ -+-+-Ç-¦-é-ü-¦-+-¦ -¢-ƒ--ê-+-+, -ç-é-+-¦ -+-ü-+-+-+-î-+-+-¦-¦-+-+-¦ AAR -¦-ï-+-+ -¦-ï -¦-+-Ç-+-¦-+-+, -+-+ -ì-ä-ä-¦-¦-é-+-¦-+-ï-+.
I think it AAR too cheap. Use it in pirate LP shop. I think I'ts too owerpowered If it will be cheap. It must be expensive. |
|
Corben Arctus
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:04:00 -
[281] - Quote
Off-topic, but why didn't you just limit the ASB to 1 per ship instead of nerfing it? |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1312
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:09:00 -
[282] - Quote
Very nice. |
Corben Arctus
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:11:00 -
[283] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Brutix, here I come
Fixed that for ya.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
942
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:24:00 -
[284] - Quote
Shaak'Ti wrote: ! WARNING !
Carebears crying for permatanks !
Burst tanks FTW !
AAR made for PvP... hell yeah.. go back to your rainbowland with your shiney fitting farmers :P
That's one the most stupid things about these ancilliary modules. They all come in just one cheap-ass variant, so PvP inevitably degenerates into all ships being limited to just one option of the very same meta level. By that logic we should have like one warp disruptor and one web, too. Damn communism is alive, it seems. Seriously, why make us same? 14 |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1759
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:25:00 -
[285] - Quote
Shaak'Ti wrote:
! WARNING !
Carebears crying for permatanks !
Burst tanks FTW !
AAR made for PvP... hell yeah.. go back to your rainbowland with your shiney fitting farmers :P
Confirming I am indeed a carebear. Why would you fit an AAR on a MYRM instead of an XLASB?
Btw when I actually carebear, my armor ship needs cap transfers and RR to hold up as well a passive shield tank.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Rick Rymes
Caldari Advanced Technology Corporation
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:29:00 -
[286] - Quote
Galatea Galilei wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Only medium armor repairers scale poorly (as evidenced by the need to fit triple reps on the Myrm to make it a competitive ship)... It's not even competitive. That gets it into tanking range of a shield-tanked Myrm, but it then does ridiculously low damage compared to the shield Myrm (which still tanks a bit more DPS while fitting three Drone Damage Amps). It's really, really sad that a Myrm with every single low slot, every rig, and half it's med slots devoted to tank still doens't quite tank as well as a shield-tanked Myrm with half of its low slots devoted to Drone Damage Amps. The only reason anyone ever armor-tanks a Myrm is they foolishly read the description and thought that rep bonus should get used, but never actually ran the numbers. The large armor reps aren't that great either, even fitting requirements aside.
Do remember that the new Myrm coming in the next change will be getting a bandwidth buff, meaning it will be able to use 4 Ogres. so the dps may be better than expected, damage amp or no damage amp. |
deepos
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:36:00 -
[287] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:The incursus nerf means the following to me: You are reading "the incursus works" as "armor repping just needs more repping amount". It works because it can fit decent dps alongside decent tank, while maintaining decent speed. The proposed changes will ruin it. Furthermore, you agree that neut immune active tanking is OP, yet you refuse to: 1 - Do something about the ASB's neut immunity 2 - Restrict ASBs to one module per ship. Instead you inflict both required nerfs on the armor tanks. You are really not making it easy for people to like your ideas this time Fozzie.
Well said,
100% true,
Please Fozzie, address this |
Rick Rymes
Caldari Advanced Technology Corporation
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:39:00 -
[288] - Quote
In a way this also a buff to the Punisher and Rifter.
The active armor tank Rifter will be able to use its speed to its fullest now, and the new ARR it can rep more too.
As for the Punisher, the buffer fit will still suck, but an active tank fit could actually work. The Punisher is quite fast till you slap plates and trimarks on it, now that plates don't hamper speed as much and if you use active tank rigs to increase rep amount (which is also buffed by its resist bonus) it could be used in conventional frigate PvP.
I do however stress the word could. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
243
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:46:00 -
[289] - Quote
Rick Rymes wrote:Do remember that the new Myrm coming in the next change will be getting a bandwidth buff, meaning it will be able to use 4 Ogres. so the dps may be better than expected, damage amp or no damage amp.
On the other hand, that will just widen the gap between the shield and armor fit Myrmidon's dps. The shield version will still be able to fit more damage amps than the armor... |
Rick Rymes
Caldari Advanced Technology Corporation
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:51:00 -
[290] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Rick Rymes wrote:Do remember that the new Myrm coming in the next change will be getting a bandwidth buff, meaning it will be able to use 4 Ogres. so the dps may be better than expected, damage amp or no damage amp. On the other hand, that will just widen the gap between the shield and armor fit Myrmidon's dps. The shield version will still be able to fit more damage amps than the armor...
Very true, just best to put it out there, i mean the armor changes also mean that the speed difference will be slighter, which i believe has been the thorn in the side of armor tankers for a long time, and am i right in assuming that an armor myrm will have more buffer than a shield myrm? |
|
Dmitrii Satohin
GOD OF DESTRUCTION
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:00:00 -
[291] - Quote
I dont like the thing with Incursus...Nowadays Armor tanking is not so good like shield tanking ...i think it should be the same!!! |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
473
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:27:00 -
[292] - Quote
Roime wrote:Shaak'Ti wrote:
! WARNING !
Carebears crying for permatanks !
Burst tanks FTW !
AAR made for PvP... hell yeah.. go back to your rainbowland with your shiney fitting farmers :P
Confirming I am indeed a carebear. Why would you fit an AAR on a MYRM instead of an XLASB? Btw when I actually carebear, my armor ship needs cap transfers and RR to hold up as well a passive shield tank.
Because its going to be better? do you realise how much 2.25 more is? Without gimping your fittings?
Anyhow now hopefully CCP can put a small team on revamping missions. PVP fittings should be required for missions (Fewer rats, more dps, rats that warp if you don't point, rats that try to kite you, so forth) |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13738
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:31:00 -
[293] - Quote
Well I've read the thread and now start to have my doubts regarding these changes. The AAR while initially looks good, is hit with 2 nerfs over the ASB.
TBH it still looks like a buffer tank is better than an active one, after these changes.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
473
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:34:00 -
[294] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Is my title pretentious enough? We've got the resources all properly committed so I'm now ready to share with you all our initial plan to fix some of the biggest problems that face armor tanking in this game. Sorry for the extended period of teasing, hopefully the happy ending will make it all worthwhile. I was going to go into this big spiel about all the problems with armor tanking in general and active armor tanking in particular, but you all know this so I'll jump straight to the interesting bits. Here's what we're looking for feedback on: Armor Rigs Updated formerly incorrect bonus on the Overcharger.
- New rig called the Nanobot Overcharger that increased the overheat bonus on your local armor reps by 100% (120% for T2). So with one of the T1 rigs overheating gives the rep 20% more rep amount and 30% faster rate of fire instead of the default 10% and 15% respectively. This effect is stacking penalized and gives no bonus when the reps are not overheated. Same calibration and build costs as a Aux Nano or Nanobot Acc rig.
- Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity. Note this is increasing the PG use of the reps by 10% (or 5% at Armor Rigging V) not decreasing the total PG of the ship.
Plates
- Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3) This skill affects all plates (including 1600mm) and is separate from the stat change listed below.
- Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%
Ancillary Armor Repairer
- Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end.
- Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
- When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer
- Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
- Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps
- Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads
- Limited to one per ship
:Edit: IncursusWith these changes we're looking to reduce the Incursus rep bonus from 10% to 7.5% because otherwise it would be wtfbbqop. Forgot to mention that initially :mybad: Quick Q&A about the AAR: Why limited to one per ship?The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR. Why keep the cap use consistent?The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further. Why not just buff all armor reps?One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered. So we are very interested in hearing your feedback on this proposal. Expect at least most of these changes to make it into the next Sisi build for playtesting (the AARs might not catch this upcoming build but they should at least be in the one after that).
Could you post the mass numbers the plates will have after changes with full skills?
|
Shaak'Ti
Shirak SkunkWorks
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:37:00 -
[295] - Quote
if shield and armor would be same.. why we have armor and shield, instead of one tank.. and we should fly same ships too.. aaand with same skills, and same avatar.. it will be awesome.. oh expect u, u a bit stornger than others.. right? .....
if u think shield is better.. use tha shield stuffz.. or use armor stuff if u think armor is better. Who care what u fitt on your myrmidon??
if u want to waste medslots to shield tanking (its hard in pvp coz need point, web, propulson in med, and some resist would be fine too if u really shield tanking) than DO IT!.. nobody cares
What I see in this topic? Idiots want a smarter game..( go play some other games if its too complex for u.)
What I want.. what I see in this? I want more challange, more type of tanking (not harder, to can be godmode anyone) makes more challenge.
it's still not a boost of armor reps.. it's a new type of armor repping. If u think it's crap don't need to use.. but I want it ! |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1023
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:39:00 -
[296] - Quote
I'm upset that you couldn't come up with an interesting new module and just made an armor repairer you could load with cap boosters. Despite the slightly different mechanics it's still very similar to an ASB. Even as someone who exclusively flies armor ships I want to see the asymmetry beyween shield and armor preserved and an armor repairer you can load with cap boosters for 0 cap repping blurs that considerably. |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:43:00 -
[297] - Quote
My view on the plates and changes to them.
IMHO the main problem with the plates isn't their mass addition (and the problems it creates). The fact that you want to reduce the mass of the not-used plate types is not a solution to the problem but rather an incentive to actually start using them. Why don't people use them now? Because they're bloody awful. Take the 50mm plate for example. The T2 version adds 150 armor hp. Now tell me, why would I waste my lowslot for that? The only way I'd fit this to a ship is if I really had no CPU and Grid to put in anything else but even then, I'd think about putting in an Overdrive or an Adaptive Nano Plating. The same applies to Shield Extenders - for instance - why would I put an MSE on a Vaga? 1050hp vs 2625 on an LSE, and most Vaga fits use 2 LSE's...
I get the basic idea behind the Armor vs Shield tank - Armor having less raw hp and hp regeneration (of course no passive one, talking reps here) but higher resists, the Shield having lots of raw hp and a huge regeneration but crappy resists. That being said, higher base resists just aren't enough at times, you need the raw hp, but to do that you need to put the biggest plate around. This is the shield fitting philosophy being applied to armor. This is why the 1600mm plate, aimed for battleships is being used on cruisers. You CAN fit it without making the fit look ********, it gives a lot more hp, it uses one low slot (remember, we use them for DPS as well, right? If in EFT a 1600 plate will give a similar or better result hp-wise than an 800 plate+additional hardener/rig, guess which one are the people going to use...). It's a very complicated system and while in theory plates vs extenders should yield similar results, the way they are being used creates the imbalance.
I guess you could try to force people to use the "right size" of the module for a particular ship (either by changing the fitting requirements drastically - creating other problems, or by limiting the number of extenders/plates you can use in a fit to 1 - making the whole thing ridiculous) but we all know It would again end in front of Jita 4-4, shooting the damn monument again. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1760
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:49:00 -
[298] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: Because its going to be better? do you realise how much 2.25 more is? Without gimping your fittings?
2.25*crap != good?
MAAR: 742.5 hp / 9s * 9 = 6682 hp XLASB: 980 hp / 5s * 9 = 8820 hp
Please note that this is indeed on an armor rep-bonused ship.
AAR reps come at the end of much longer cycle, which makes it considerably harder to use economically compared to ASB. Maybe this is a way to balance the fact that they also rep less and can be completely neuted out, idk.
Both fit without gimping "your fittings", with the difference that you can fit two XLASBs if you are willing to "gimp the ship"- which in this case means you will have more tank and dps than an armor fit.
vOv
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
SuicidalPancake
Capital Storm. WHY so Seri0Us
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:57:00 -
[299] - Quote
CCP Fozzie needs moar hugs! -SuicidalPancake PvP Video: Emergence |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1760
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 09:57:00 -
[300] - Quote
Shaak'Ti wrote: if u think shield is better.. use tha shield stuffz.. or use armor stuff if u think armor is better. Who care what u fitt on your myrmidon??
It is used as an example because it's second hull bonus is 7.5% to armor reps, and it still tanks better when active shield tanked.
Vimsy Vortis wrote: Even as someone who exclusively flies armor ships I want to see the asymmetry beyween shield and armor preserved and an armor repairer you can load with cap boosters for 0 cap repping blurs that considerably.
Cool then that there is no such module, AAR uses cap even when loaded with cap boosters.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |