Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations Paper Tiger Coalition
986
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 15:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
Gallamoth Sickle wrote:
Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless?
.
Uhm , yeah the barge buff was only a few percent extra tank ....
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 15:44:00 -
[62] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Gallamoth Sickle wrote:
Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless?
.
Uhm , yeah the barge buff was only a few percent extra tank ....
which is now being removed \o/ |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations Paper Tiger Coalition
986
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 15:55:00 -
[63] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:flakeys wrote:Gallamoth Sickle wrote:
Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless?
.
Uhm , yeah the barge buff was only a few percent extra tank .... which is now being removed \o/
I was all for some tank buff on mining ships but CCP took it a step too far if you ask me
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 15:57:00 -
[64] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Dave Stark wrote:flakeys wrote:Gallamoth Sickle wrote:
Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless?
.
Uhm , yeah the barge buff was only a few percent extra tank .... which is now being removed \o/ I was all for some tank buff on mining ships but CCP took it a step too far if you ask me
with the mackinaw, yes. with the hulk, i think it was roughly right where it was.
that guy from bat country who posts a lot (and who's name i can never remember how to spell) said a hulk with 16k ehp or more was unprofitable to gank. i could fit a max yield hulk with 16k ehp therefore i felt the hulk was spot on. mackinaw, not so much.
i feel all this change will do is push mining ships in to the situation we were in pre barge change, and back in to the situation the changes were introduced to try and move away from. |
Thorleifer
Yeti Cave
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 16:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:flakeys wrote:Dave Stark wrote:flakeys wrote:Gallamoth Sickle wrote:
Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless?
.
Uhm , yeah the barge buff was only a few percent extra tank .... which is now being removed \o/ I was all for some tank buff on mining ships but CCP took it a step too far if you ask me with the mackinaw, yes. with the hulk, i think it was roughly right where it was. that guy from bat country who posts a lot (and who's name i can never remember how to spell) said a hulk with 16k ehp or more was unprofitable to gank. i could fit a max yield hulk with 16k ehp therefore i felt the hulk was spot on. mackinaw, not so much. i feel all this change will do is push mining ships in to the situation we were in pre barge change, and back in to the situation the changes were introduced to try and move away from.
meh every barge should be able to fit to 20k-30k ehp if they fit it right which none wants to do(those who say different just want easy kills and ganks and fail at ganking). The grief I saw coming was from the changes to dedicated ore holds being so hugely varied. I think if they want to mine like that they should have to sacrifice some of that tank thus making them more easily ganked. You should not get a 35k m3 ore hold and also hold a 30k+ ehp tank (mackinaw) where as the hulk gets a 8k ore hold and has roughly the same tank give or take. yes I know they may serve 2 different purposes (solo vs fleet) but the balance structure lately seems waaaaay out of wack in alot of regards. |
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 16:27:00 -
[66] - Quote
Thorleifer wrote:meh every barge should be able to fit to 20k-30k ehp if they fit it right which none wants to do(those who say different just want easy kills and ganks and fail at ganking). The grief I saw coming was from the changes to dedicated ore holds being so hugely varied. I think if they want to mine like that they should have to sacrifice some of that tank thus making them more easily ganked. You should not get a 35k m3 ore hold and also hold a 30k+ ehp tank (mackinaw) where as the hulk gets a 8k ore hold and has roughly the same tank give or take. yes I know they may serve 2 different purposes (solo vs fleet) but the balance structure lately seems waaaaay out of wack in alot of regards.
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Khalkotauroi Defence Labs
8031
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 16:36:00 -
[67] - Quote
It's not particularly hard to avoid a gank when you're mining.
Don't mine from the warpin, pre-bookmark the belts with 3 or 4 bookmarks that allow you to cover the whole belt, especially in systems you often mine, less time spent moving from one end of the belt to another, more time mining. Lady Fappingtons suggestion is also good, especially with huge belts.
Don't warpin, drop your drones, select a roid and hit the lasers and then bugger off, with ore mining you should be watching your cycles anyway, a roid without a full cycle in it isn't worth mining, if you strip mine it leaves nothing for the newish guys who are mining in ventures, you should feel bad about it. Ice miners are the guiltiest of being AFK, because they can and do hit the lasers and disappear for a minimum of 15 minutes, hence they die in their droves.
Most gankers are outlaws, they show up in local and on your overview as such, if you see them in local, be prepared, align to a celestial at 1/2 to 3/4 speed, if you see them on grid, take advantage of already being aligned, and moving to rapidly enter warp.
Fit a tank, possibly drop a MLU and replace it with a damage control, a shield booster is not a tank, shield extenders or resists are what you need, rig for EHP if you can, core defence field extenders would be my choice, and a resist rig if you need it to fill a hole. Downside you may sacrifice a small % of yield, upside you probably won't be replacing your mackinaw or hulk next week because of it
Know your enemy, catalysts are your main predator, there are plenty of resources that show what fits the gankers use, look at them, notice the ammo they use, tank appropriately (hint it's nearly always kinetic and thermal). Thrashers are also used, but they're nowhere near as common.
If you're really paranoid, use a Procuror or a Skiff, fitted properly they're basically impossible to suicide gank without spending a shitton of isk to do it.
It's not hard, you only have to survive for a little longer than it takes Concord to turn up and deal out their retribution. It just takes some preparation and effort to avoid them, gankers put preparation and effort into the way they play, in the form of organisation, their social network, pre-bookmarked spots, scouts etc; why should mining be any different? A war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Vyanr
SKORPION LEGION
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 16:53:00 -
[68] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
a DCII is a valid form of tanking. Your ignorance of PVP warfare is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically discount 60% instant, minuet power draw resistance bonuses as a stupid object. |
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 16:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
a DCII is a valid form of tanking. Your ignorance of PVP warfare is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically discount 60% instant, minuet power draw resistance bonuses as a stupid object.
your ignorance of the very fact that fitting a DCU II makes a 150m exhumer inferior to it's t1 counterpart at it's primary purpose is stiflingly repulsive.
you cannot logically sit and argue for a ship to be used it must be inferior to it's cheaper tier one counterpart. |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations Paper Tiger Coalition
986
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 16:59:00 -
[70] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:that guy from bat country who posts a lot (and who's name i can never remember how to spell) said a hulk with 16k ehp or more was unprofitable to gank.
balsack ?
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
|
Vyanr
SKORPION LEGION
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:00:00 -
[71] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
a DCII is a valid form of tanking. Your ignorance of PVP warfare is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically discount 60% instant, minuet power draw resistance bonuses as a stupid object. your ignorance of the very fact that fitting a DCU II makes a 150m exhumer inferior to it's t1 counterpart at it's primary purpose is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically sit and argue for a ship to be used it must be inferior to it's cheaper tech one counterpart.
I'm sorry that you don't care about your 150m isk, T2 ship enough to protect it. It seems to me that your loss of mat+¬riel is a valid effect from your lack of respect.
Have fun replacing them. |
Daimon Kaiera
179
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:04:00 -
[72] - Quote
Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
a DCII is a valid form of tanking. Your ignorance of PVP warfare is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically discount 60% instant, minuet power draw resistance bonuses as a stupid object. your ignorance of the very fact that fitting a DCU II makes a 150m exhumer inferior to it's t1 counterpart at it's primary purpose is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically sit and argue for a ship to be used it must be inferior to it's cheaper tech one counterpart. I'm sorry that you don't care about your 150m isk, T2 ship enough to protect it. It seems to me that your loss of mat+¬riel is a valid effect from your lack of respect. Have fun replacing them.
I never spent even 0.1 isk tanking my Retreiever or Procurer. No one ever ganked me.
Seriously guys, it's kind of old. Pop into Kino and shoot at me. Please. I'm begging you. Mining is so boring I....just...need....something to....UNDULL THE TEDIUM. Here by talk start if go able? |
Thorleifer
Yeti Cave
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:04:00 -
[73] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Thorleifer wrote:meh every barge should be able to fit to 20k-30k ehp if they fit it right which none wants to do(those who say different just want easy kills and ganks and fail at ganking). The grief I saw coming was from the changes to dedicated ore holds being so hugely varied. I think if they want to mine like that they should have to sacrifice some of that tank thus making them more easily ganked. You should not get a 35k m3 ore hold and also hold a 30k+ ehp tank (mackinaw) where as the hulk gets a 8k ore hold and has roughly the same tank give or take. yes I know they may serve 2 different purposes (solo vs fleet) but the balance structure lately seems waaaaay out of wack in alot of regards. define "fit it right" please. if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
well there is alot of variances invuln II's shield rigs and dc II can pop a mack to 32k EHP or more. Even though there is the variances having a DC II is better then the idiots out afk mining with nothing but the highs filled for strip miners. You can choose to fit your ship in any fashion but putting on a shield booster is simply dumb as heck, cause the alpha strike alone and possibly a second hit will blow your ship to dust before that booster even cycles.
My point is simple, atleast try to put forth an effort at tanking your 200+ mill barge or don't cry when you are ganked. |
Selene Nask
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
I'm newish to the game so my mining alt is just in a retriever or procurer. When I mine, and yes I semi afk when I mine, usually on my main I use a lot of the safety points. Don't stay at warp, align etc. I carry a couple of ecm drones. I don't bother with mining drones. One of the best things that happened in EVE was surviving a highsec gank, while being semi afk when it started. My tank allowed me enough time to hear what was happening and by the time I tabbed in to start trying some ecm stuff Concord "Boom"
I use a procurer for WH mining, tank and with ecm. Was able to break a lock once and another time lasted so long that my corpies had enough time to get to me. And this is with only T2 fittings. That thing will be a rock when I eventually get to TII shields. I'd use it in highsec but I'd rather take the higher risk for the bigger ore hold.
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
998
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:07:00 -
[75] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Fit a tank, possibly drop a MLU and replace it with a damage control, a shield booster is not a tank, shield extenders or resists are what you need, rig for EHP if you can, core defence field extenders would be my choice, and a resist rig if you need it to fill a hole. Downside you may sacrifice a small % of yield, upside you probably won't be replacing your mackinaw or hulk next week because of it [Mackinaw, Tank] Internal Force Field Array I Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Mining Laser Upgrade II
Medium Shield Extender II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
engineering, shield upgrades, mining upgrades IV; electronics V 35-40k ehp average 38-44 vs antimatter
you could drop the thermic amp for a scanner if you really wanted to i suppose
[Hulk, New Setup 1] Micro B66 Core Augmentation Damage Control II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
shield upgrades IV; electronics, engineering V 27-30k ehp average 27-29 vs antimatter
do i win something |
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:07:00 -
[76] - Quote
Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
a DCII is a valid form of tanking. Your ignorance of PVP warfare is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically discount 60% instant, minuet power draw resistance bonuses as a stupid object. your ignorance of the very fact that fitting a DCU II makes a 150m exhumer inferior to it's t1 counterpart at it's primary purpose is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically sit and argue for a ship to be used it must be inferior to it's cheaper tech one counterpart. I'm sorry that you don't care about your 150m isk, T2 ship enough to protect it. It seems to me that your loss of mat+¬riel is a valid effect from your lack of respect. Have fun replacing them.
it's not that i don't care, it simply isn't economical to do so. a ship should never be made inferior to it's t1 counterpart by fitting a tank. as far as i'm aware nowhere else in the game does this happen except maybe with amour tanked DSTs.
|
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:09:00 -
[77] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:do i win something
you win a quote from me telling you how a retriever mines more than your mackinaw for a fraction of the price. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
998
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:09:00 -
[78] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
a DCII is a valid form of tanking. Your ignorance of PVP warfare is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically discount 60% instant, minuet power draw resistance bonuses as a stupid object. your ignorance of the very fact that fitting a DCU II makes a 150m exhumer inferior to it's t1 counterpart at it's primary purpose is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically sit and argue for a ship to be used it must be inferior to it's cheaper tech one counterpart. are you comparing the yield of the tanked exhumer with a max yield barge or a tanked barge
because i must be looking at different numbers :( |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
998
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:12:00 -
[79] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:do i win something you win a quote from me telling you how a retriever mines more than your mackinaw for a fraction of the price. please post the tanked retriever fit for comparison |
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:12:00 -
[80] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
a DCII is a valid form of tanking. Your ignorance of PVP warfare is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically discount 60% instant, minuet power draw resistance bonuses as a stupid object. your ignorance of the very fact that fitting a DCU II makes a 150m exhumer inferior to it's t1 counterpart at it's primary purpose is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically sit and argue for a ship to be used it must be inferior to it's cheaper tech one counterpart. are you comparing the yield of the tanked exhumer with a max yield barge or a tanked barge because i must be looking at different numbers :(
max yield barge, since barges lack the slots to fit a meaningful tank even if you sacrificed all the yield bonuses. |
|
Thorleifer
Yeti Cave
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:13:00 -
[81] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Fit a tank, possibly drop a MLU and replace it with a damage control, a shield booster is not a tank, shield extenders or resists are what you need, rig for EHP if you can, core defence field extenders would be my choice, and a resist rig if you need it to fill a hole. Downside you may sacrifice a small % of yield, upside you probably won't be replacing your mackinaw or hulk next week because of it [Mackinaw, Tank] Internal Force Field Array I Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Mining Laser Upgrade II Medium Shield Extender II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I engineering, shield upgrades, mining upgrades IV; electronics V 35-40k ehp average 38-44 vs antimatter you could drop the thermic amp for a scanner if you really wanted to i suppose [Hulk, New Setup 1] Micro B66 Core Augmentation Damage Control II Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I shield upgrades IV; electronics, engineering V 27-30k ehp average 27-29 vs antimatter do i win something
My alt's mack fit is similiar except I have 2 of those invuln II's and a scanner. same rigs too but I have to make up yield with 5 mining drone II's or I get outmined. |
Vyanr
SKORPION LEGION
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:16:00 -
[82] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vyanr wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
define "fit it right" please.
if you dare say "damage control II" at any point, i am going to reach through my screen and slap you for gross stupidity.
a DCII is a valid form of tanking. Your ignorance of PVP warfare is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically discount 60% instant, minuet power draw resistance bonuses as a stupid object. your ignorance of the very fact that fitting a DCU II makes a 150m exhumer inferior to it's t1 counterpart at it's primary purpose is stiflingly repulsive. you cannot logically sit and argue for a ship to be used it must be inferior to it's cheaper tech one counterpart. I'm sorry that you don't care about your 150m isk, T2 ship enough to protect it. It seems to me that your loss of mat+¬riel is a valid effect from your lack of respect. Have fun replacing them. it's not that i don't care, it simply isn't economical to do so. a ship should never be made inferior to it's t1 counterpart by fitting a tank. as far as i'm aware nowhere else in the game does this happen except maybe with amour tanked DSTs.
I dunno, constantly replacing 150m isk ships +fittings verses 35m isk ships + fittings for about the same mining output per/hr is pretty obvious which one I would care more about protecting.
But it's cool if you don't want to protect your assets, it just means you can't really whine about it when you lose it, because you didn't bother to protect it. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Khalkotauroi Defence Labs
8031
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:17:00 -
[83] - Quote
Benny Ohu gets it, you have to get a good balance between efficiency and survivability.
A war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:19:00 -
[84] - Quote
Vyanr wrote:I dunno, constantly replacing 150m isk ships +fittings verses 35m isk ships + fittings for about the same mining output per/hr is pretty obvious which one I would care more about protecting.
But it's cool if you don't want to protect your assets, it just means you can't really whine about it when you lose it, because you didn't bother to protect it.
if they provide the same mining output per hour, why would you buy a 150m isk ship to begin with? hence, my point.
i didn't say i didn't want to protect my assets; i just pointed out a damage control isn't the way to do that unless you want a 200m isk pinata that's inferior at it's intended purpose than it's t1 counterpart. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3949
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:19:00 -
[85] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:flakeys wrote:Gallamoth Sickle wrote:
Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless?
.
Uhm , yeah the barge buff was only a few percent extra tank .... which is now being removed \o/ No, Dave, it's not. You're losing at most 5% of your resistance bonus. That's hardly taking your huge buff away.
But you knew that... To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Dave Stark
2565
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:22:00 -
[86] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:flakeys wrote:Gallamoth Sickle wrote:
Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless?
.
Uhm , yeah the barge buff was only a few percent extra tank .... which is now being removed \o/ No, Dave, it's not. You're losing at most 5% of your resistance bonus. That's hardly taking your huge buff away. But you knew that...
but i read it on evenews24, it must be true.
all in all though, the only ship the resistance changes will hurt is the hulk. *shrug* |
Thorleifer
Yeti Cave
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:23:00 -
[87] - Quote
solve all your problems, fly a skiff, tank that pig, have a 15k m3 ore hold and be happy. |
Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:28:00 -
[88] - Quote
Thorleifer wrote:solve all your problems, fly a skiff, tank that pig, have a 15k m3 ore hold and be happy.
i'm almost certain there's a reason why the skiff and procurer combined mine less than 10% of all the non-mercoxit ore mined in the game.
oh yeah, it's because they suck. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1000
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:31:00 -
[89] - Quote
i'm trying to fit a retriever in EFT
when fitted with an adaptive invuln II i don't need a MAPC in the lows so it mines the same as the Mack. the disadvantage is the retriever will have to stagger the strip miner activations. with an MSE2 it'll mine less than the mack but doesn't worry about capacitor
in both cases the flight of mining drones on the mack takes its yield way above the retriever. the mack's EHP is higher and there's a bigger ore bay
about 18-20k EHP on the retriever fit |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1282
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:35:00 -
[90] - Quote
So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw? Mining Overhaul Nothing changed since 2008. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |