Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Johnny3Tears
Norse'Storm Battle Group Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:56:00 -
[991] - Quote
Psymn wrote:Guys, your super caps are no longer solo pwn-wagons. If my baddon gets tackled by a dram theres nothing i can do about it either. Thats why i bring people who can.
I empathise with the folks complaining here that they will have to change their strategy. But any change that encourages inclusion of a wider range of ships in an engagement has to be a good change, right?
You could always pop drones ie, Web drones and pop him. |
Acwron
Anormalii S.A. Vera Cruz Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:56:00 -
[992] - Quote
I recommend to all drake pilots to read this locked thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53327#post53327
This post is a pamphlet and should be treated as such.
Nerfing supers and titans is the worst thing you can do...boost others, don't nerf the BIGGEST SHIPS in the GAME ! I didn't spend gazillions of years training for them and now see them good for taking pictures with.
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Universal Consortium
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:56:00 -
[993] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Lyrrashae wrote:
Get a clue, you mong.
lmao, my little boy just started saying this. i know i shouldnt laugh when he says it, but i cant help myself
(/me chuckles) Hey, why not? It's a great little word
|
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:57:00 -
[994] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
Are you sure you're not bringing the game back to 2007-2008, replacing the super carrier blob with the equally boring carrier blob?
Logically a carrier can field: light drones against frigates medium drones against cruisers/battlecruisers heavy/sentry drones against battleships
fighters against ... what ?
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:58:00 -
[995] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary. Why not go through with this nerf and give carriers a boost to fighters pr fighter level, meaning they would still be viable for use, while still reducing what supers could kill with them?
Why even penalize SCs use of fighters? You realize that a SC's fighter dps output is only equal to 2 carriers' worth, right? It's not exactly game-breaking, outlandish dps capabilities you're talking about. |
Frabba
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:59:00 -
[996] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
Are you sure you're not bringing the game back to 2007-2008, replacing the super carrier blob with the equally boring carrier blob? Logically a carrier can field: light drones against frigates medium drones against cruisers/battlecruisers heavy/sentry drones against battleships fighters against ... what ?
Equally boring, nowhere near as hard to kill. its me im the best poster. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
452
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:00:00 -
[997] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Why even penalize SCs use of fighters? You realize that a SC's fighter dps output is only equal to 2 carriers' worth, right? It's not exactly game-breaking, outlandish dps capabilities you're talking about. Because it still makes them too good against subcaps. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:01:00 -
[998] - Quote
Othran wrote:As you're removing logoffski can you go a little further and remove the ability to initiate self-destruct while aggressed please?
You need to do this otherwise the :goodfights: you anticipate will not happen. The target will simply self-destruct if he can't logoff. It happens far too often now, but it'll be happening a lot more with your changes.
Simple change - you cannot self-destruct while aggressed.
That's the whole point of having the Self-destruct You seem very mad that you don't get a killmail.
|
malet
FinFleet Raiden.
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:02:00 -
[999] - Quote
iulixxi wrote:malet wrote:Psymn wrote:Guys, your super caps are no longer solo pwn-wagons. If my baddon gets tackled by a dram theres nothing i can do about it either. Thats why i bring people who can.
I empathise with the folks complaining here that they will have to change their strategy. But any change that encourages inclusion of a wider range of ships in an engagement has to be a good change, right? And does your abbadon cost 85billion isk? you are tackled by a ship of the same value, then thats fair game. If your in a titan your net dies and some random dictors finds you before you disaapear you are then stuck there being held by a ship that cost 30 million isk.. its hardly the same is it? GÇ£And does your abbadon cost 85billion isk?GÇ¥An officer fitted one yes, does it have a change against your 85b titan? Same price, right? GÇ£If your in a titan your net dies and some random dictors finds you before you disaapear you are then stuck there being held by a ship that cost 30 million isk..GÇ¥Get better net or donGÇÖt fly alone. CCP is not an ISP or an electricity provider, we are talking about balancing a ship class not preventing a natural disaster that cold (or cold not) disconnect you during an engagement. DonGÇÖt fly anything you canGÇÖt afford to loseGǪ Once you jumped into a fight you have to be aware that there is a chance of losing your ship, unlike now GǪ you jump 200 supers -> launch fighters -> go watch a movie -> come back -> jump out. Win E
Im not talking about an ISP, EVE is renowned in large fleet fights for random DC`s followed by staring at entering space for hours while the servers decide whether to log you in or not. As for flying what I cant afford to lose then think again.
Fact is that eve is notoriuos for crashing in large fleet fights so whats your answer to that? Are we supposed to just swallow the usual CCP BS " our logs show nothing out of the ordinary followed by the standard copy paste petition response because no body actually bothers to look into a petition , more likely they just like to put it to the side and hope it goes away!
if you are going to fly a officer fit abaddon worth 85bill then please please for the love of god come visit so I can dd you before the nerf!
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
136
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:02:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:I'm not sure how suggesting their drone capacity be reduced from ~1750 to 60 counts as "suggesting they be left as they are," but by all means feel free to explain your logic to us.
Fighters are 5000m3. If super carriers are allowed to carry drones too, you only have to drop 1 fighter in order to have a stock of 1000 light drones or 200 sentries.
Thus in order to prevent super carriers having something approaching an "infinite" supply of drones with which to smash cruisers, they need to lose their ability to field drones.
Is that logic simple enough to follow?
|
|
Kern Walzky
x13 Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:02:00 -
[1001] - Quote
why dont you give dreads in siege a range bonus? and half the trackingpenalty OR fix the bumping by fixing the warpin mechanics on capital ships... its really anoying to bumb... you dont even need more then 2 caps to bump... really...must be a problem you can fix..
Give supercarriers bigger fighter/bomber bays space for 1 set of each plus a few spares. remove normal drones is fine. Leave fighters alone...carriers will suffer aswell.
Leave Titan EHP alone...its a ship costing 60-80bill...
Create Shield slave implants...to balance shield ships. create armor crystal implants...to balance armor/shield sub-capital ships. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:03:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Why even penalize SCs use of fighters? You realize that a SC's fighter dps output is only equal to 2 carriers' worth, right? It's not exactly game-breaking, outlandish dps capabilities you're talking about. vOv
At the very least we're talking about fighters which can be taken off the field by shooting them, thus defanging the supercarrier, so I'm not exactly what you'd call hell-bent on penalizing fighters on supercarriers. I was just throwing another idea out into the ether in case it was something tallest hadn't thought of. |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:04:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Johnny3Tears wrote:You could always pop drones ie, Web drones and pop him.
Web drones. Against the single fastest thing in game. Right.
(This statement and/or opinion may eb subjected to change, once the EWAR Drone DevBlog happens) |
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:05:00 -
[1004] - Quote
Liranan wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary. Thank you, it's good to see you guys listening to your players, shame it takes thousands of people leaving the game for CCP to take notice. I do think you guys shoot once again look at Selene's original MS/SC proposals. That was far more balanced than what we have today.
It was selene(DEV) and the players that made sc the pawnmobiles they are today.
I really think that nerfing the drone bay off supers is a good nerf, the figther nerf was uncalled for because it wouldn't affect scars only it would destroy carriers as a class.Whay i would like to see is to remove the ability of bombers to attack sov styructures making the dreads be the main bulk of the fleet sov in 0.0.
And to people that are saying they get massacred by Scars and figthers guess what , warp out, kill figthers or just dont be dumb enougth to get caugth by a super fleet and die due to your stupidity.
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
441
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:06:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I love the idiots going on about "bowing down to goons", as if they were the only ones who wanted a supercap nerf.
Everyone wanted a supercap nerf. Most of us hoped CCP would be reasonable about it tho, you know, like having proper balancing (between ships, i.e. Hel vs Nyx vs shield supers etc), like addressing the real issue (their damage output), and making less blob boosts and more blob deterrents.
Obviously we were hoping for too much, like usual. this is a signature |
Le Cardinal
Spricer Raiden.
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:07:00 -
[1006] - Quote
So CCP Tallest, Is this the place to point out that shield supers still get a penalty to shield when jumping in? Large parts of the nerf is fine, but with reduced HPs the shieldtankers gets an extra slap in the face compared to its fellow armortankers.
And +1 for actually considering community feedback.
|
Krimariol
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:08:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Some suggestions in addition to the Devblog:
1. Give all Carrier a new buff: "Reduce Fighter Signature by 10% per Lvl" -- So that Carrier could use the fighter still against BS and with less damage against BCs -- With Carrier V this would still be a 60% decrease in the Signature Resolution of fighters
2. Increase the tracking of Dreads in Siege so, that they hit slow BS and "fast" Caps 3. Change the changed Bonus of the Moroes into +1-2% Damage per level -- This would resolve the cap problems mentioned AND the moroes won't make 20+% more damage than all other dreads
4. Change the Fighter Bomber so, that there is a possibility to attack a forcefield with some drawback like -50% Damage
5. Change the DD nerv into: "DD fuel cost is indirect proportional to the signature of the enemy ship" -- Something like 40k for 2000+ sig and 400k for 200- sig so a Titan has something against small ships but it comes at a price
6. Change the HP nerv into: "Slavesets only work on subcaps" -- Main Problem seems the enourmous Armortank of the SCs and Titans, the shieldtanks have a lot of HP less 7. Change the behavior of buffs -- Armor works instant, shield takes a long time or logistics to work (after each system change) -- This is beside the slave sets the main point, why armor is in fleetbattles leading 8. If the Changes come, think about the prices of Titans and SCs and the production needs, change them according to the nervs.
To some of the Poster
Yes a SC may have HP equal to 150 BS, this should be nerved a little bit, BUT it costs as much as 100+ BS and if you buy some expensive Supermilitaryvehicle it should be at least in the near of a breakeven in COmbat rating. Lets make a calculation: (without implants) Fail-fitted Dominix 130k EHP, 700 DPS, 100 MISK Deadspace-fitted Nyx 22810k EHP, 10000 DPS, 20 BISK so for the same Price 200 Domi 26M EHP, 140k DPS 1 Nyx 23M EHP, 10k DPS A short Battle (about 160 s) later: 13 Dominix were shot, 1 Nyx was scrapped ... 1.3 B vs. 20 B ... So it seems the Domis need more NERV ?
I am a "new" player without capitals. I just made some logical thoughts and played something with EFT.
Just my e Cents or something like that |
Aldarean
Eclipse Innovations Fabricated Confabulations
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:09:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Raid'En wrote:ovenproofjet wrote:You kinda just nerfed the standard carrier there with the change to the fighter sensor res, carriers are gonna have trouble doing what you say here: "If you want to deal with sub-capitals, you should bring your own sub-capitals or a carrier"
Perhaps add the sensor res reduction as a penalty to supercarriers so as to avoid a knock on effect on the ordinarty carrier
Other wise good changes, especially to the Dreads, siege timer change is long overdue this. don't nerf the normal carriers with supercarriers Not empty quoting.
I dont think the standard carrier has got nerf. Under the provision it can still field normal drones.
I dont think CCP when designing Carriers, SC and Titans thought they would be used on high level plex.
As far as bomber/fighter setup go, they should be intened purposes. Bomber = SC and TItan Fighters = Carriers/Dreads Heavy/Sentry = Battleships/BC Meduim = BC/Cruiser Light = Frigates/Destroyers
There always going to be a looser here. They would either nerf to much or not enough.
Currently it means that a good Battleship fleet, could destroy, or atleast survive a SC fleet.
Adapt or die......
I don't believe that this will sort the blobs out. 20% EHP reduction just means more ship will be field.
So yes it will hinder smaller alliances a little, If CCP can sort out a spool up time for Cyno that is balance then that would go a good way to helping the smaller alliance's |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:09:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Why even penalize SCs use of fighters? You realize that a SC's fighter dps output is only equal to 2 carriers' worth, right? It's not exactly game-breaking, outlandish dps capabilities you're talking about. Because it still makes them too good against subcaps.
2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk
Dps output from fighters: Identical
Supercarriers are the ones that need a fighter nerf?
...and if your first thought is "but SCs have so much more EHP" then you're thinking about it in the wrong way-- kill the fighters, not the carrier. |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:11:00 -
[1010] - Quote
I don't like how they have backtracked on on the fighters change, yes ok 400 sig was too much but a change to 200 or something so there not as good as they are now but not a total wipeout is ok. Carriers are not really the main DPS in any fleet anyway, and SC's will just use FB's.
What i don't get is the change to Capital ships cannot kill sub-caps at all. This does not make sense. and if you need sub-caps to kill other sub-caps than you should also be forced to use only caps to kill other caps unless you have like 10/1 number advantage. If caps cannot do anything at all VS sub-caps then a BS's guns should be like throwing a water balloon at a car. |
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:12:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:I'm not sure how suggesting their drone capacity be reduced from ~1750 to 60 counts as "suggesting they be left as they are," but by all means feel free to explain your logic to us.
Fighters are 5000m3. If super carriers are allowed to carry drones too, you only have to drop 1 fighter in order to have a stock of 1000 light drones or 200 sentries. Thus in order to prevent super carriers having something approaching an "infinite" supply of drones with which to smash cruisers, they need to lose their ability to field drones. Is that logic simple enough to follow?
Take the pants off your head. SEPARATE DRONE BAYS. One for fighters / bombers, one for drones.
God you people are a dense bunch. |
Krimariol
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:15:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Oh my
5.2 Change the way Jumpportals work -- let the Titan enter a "siege" mode for 5 to 10 min -- AND Portals may not opened in forcefields
got lost. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
441
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:15:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Not every supercap pilot uses their ship in a blob context. If you're dead-set on stripping SCs of the little defensive capabilities they currently have (being able to field light drones) rather than simply reducing their drone bay sizes to 250-350m3 (which is the solution I think offers the best balance between the current "infinite drones" situation and SCs being utterly defenseless against any potential tacklers), then can you at least add in some logistical support perks to compensate?
I currently use my Nyx as a combination operations hub and ratting cap / dumb JF killing platform. If you're going to take combat usage in a small-gang context from "extremely risky" (currently, even with "infinite drones" it's extremely hard to fight off a competent hostile tackle-- all they need is a light dictor or two who know how to pilot their ships and you're gonna be stuck on the field for as long as they have warp disrupt probes left to deploy) to "near suicidal" (supers will be completely unable to fend off any hostile tackle at all, even baddies), then can you add some logistical capabilities to compensate?
Ideas I've been toying with for new / augmented logistical capacity are:
- Increased SMA / CHA space (can keep more people supplied with ships and gear) - "Repair bays" which could be used to repair items (for example, to rep fully heat-damaged modules) - Assembly lines that could produce the kinds of goods frequently consumed in small gang warfare-- nanite paste, bubbles, drones, possibly subcap-sized modules, etc. - Perhaps a limited variant of the jump portal generator-- perhaps only capable of bridging cruiser-sized hulls and smaller. This would leave fleet-level bridging to titans, but provide SCs an ability to augment small gang type warfare, similar to the way blops BS can at the moment.
Personally I think the idea of using supercarriers as logistics platforms is pretty cool. It would give SCs a continued use outside blob warfare for people like me who don't like unopposed structure bashing, and would help compensate for the fact that they'll be much less useful for combat in small gang contexts.
Good god, a really awsome post from a goon, I think the end is coming..
Since I liked your post and I'm feeling generous, I'll even throw in my pet peeve wet-dream, which I was gonna leave out of these troll-scattered discussions but.. here goes: It'd be awsome if active tanking came back into the game as a whole. Blobs and alpha has completely taken over, imagine if supers could actually active tank again? Capital reps is extremely underwhelming (repping barely anything while sucking massive amounts of cap). Say, make the e-war immunity on supers mean they cannot recieve friendly RR at all, but instead give them alot of hp and quite decent self-rep capability.
It's just a wet dream, and no maths done, so I'll slowly back off now and let people throw rotten fruit and laugh at me for even suggesting it.. but hey, a girl can dream.. this is a signature |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
441
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:17:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Camar wrote:Obsidian Hawk wrote:The true bitter vets of eve are the ones who manipulate the market, alliance politics, and resources out of the sight of peering eyes. Not the super cap pilots.
The proper vets know not to put their investments all into 1 ship that can go boom and cant get a good pay off of insurance true bitter vets dont play eve anymore
We play the forum, but we don't log in since aeons (see what I did there).. this is a signature |
Evil Celeste
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:18:00 -
[1015] - Quote
It would make much more sense if scs couldnt use anything else but fighter bombers - not even fighters. But with bigger "fbomber bay" so they could replace lost fbombers. For example 1 flight + 50-100% of 2nd flight.
The more utility you give them to fight subcaps /fighters, drones/, the lower will be need for support fleet - and thats bad thing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5425
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:19:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
114
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:21:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Aldarean wrote: As far as bomber/fighter setup go, they should be intened purposes. Bomber = SC and TItan Fighters = Carriers/Dreads Heavy/Sentry = Battleships/BC Meduim = BC/Cruiser Light = Frigates/Destroyers
QFT
|
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:22:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.
I dont think you get it. |
Krimariol
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:25:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.
But cost should be at least partly a balancing factor. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
441
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:27:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Obsidian Hawk wrote: If you want to committ to a fight and survive, you will have to rely on your FC's, you will have to rely on your alliance, you will have to rely on your friend s for victory and safety. All they are doing is putting an end to solo super cap play.
...Except that solo supercaps were *never* the problem in the first place. This is the point of my argument-- they're talking about breaking one, nonproblematic form of gameplay in order to fix problems with another form of gameplay (supercap blobbing). I'm just saying SCs should be left with enough drones to perhaps make a difference in solo play, but without such a mass of drones that they remain problematic in big fights. Being able to field a total of ~60 normal drones is not going to make the tiniest difference in a fleet fight, but it might just make or break a solo engagement. That said, it's not like being able to field drones is a get-out-of-jail-free card for SCs. Even now, with an essentially infinite supply of small drones, its not like a solo SC is going to be able to fight its way out of a properly set trap. For actual, real-world examples of this, see the incidents where Dabigredboat dropped his Nyx on a gatecamp in Cobalt Edge (IRC brought a couple of dictors, tackled him on a gate, and killed his Nyx with a titan, a supercarrier, 1-2 dreads and a kitchen sink gang of subcaps), or Zungen losing a Nyx in Delve to Brick Squad (they brought a couple of dictors, he was held on the field and killed by a subcap gang). If a solo supercap can't escape a small hostile gang now, with infinite drones, I find it hard to believe that keeping a couple of flights of drones in the future will somehow render SCs broken solo pwnmobiles. What reducing SC drone bays to a reasonable size *will* do is prevent piles of SCs in a fleet fight fielding hundreds of Ogre IIs, wave after wave, and using them to obliterate all subcaps on the field. I think this current behavior is dumb, and that supercaps shouldn't be able to prevail over subcap fleets without their own subcap support in fleet fights. Taking all their drones is totally unnecessary though.
Exactly this. The only reason CCP is removing the drone bays is same reasons titans/dreads are losing theirs: CCP hates drones and been trying to remove the drones from capitals since 2007. Each time players have been "quite upset" (to say the least). This time tho, CCP can disguise their drone-removal under the flag of 'capital revamp'.
The drone removals has nothing to do with actual gameplay, CCP just want less drones around. Probably for performance issues, but instead of being honest about it, they repeatedly keep trying to keep their reasons hidden and just blatantly try remove drones at every chance possible. this is a signature |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |