Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 25 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 01:11:00 -
[571] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:I agree with you on that damage calculation formula needs to be redressed. The issue that I am having is not knowing what the formula exactly is. If I don't know what it is, it is hard for me to correct it, mathematically. What I have been trying is to think of reasonable ways to address the issue. Yet, it may require a rewriting of the damage-calculation formula. The question that I think I would like to figure out is if the end result would be better. I take you sadly don't have that damage-calculation formula for missiles would you? That said, what do you think of the idea I mentioned above?
Already done. it seems i got forgotten easily.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2939186#post2939186
and
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2952112#post2952112 |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 01:15:00 -
[572] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Uh... I never said anything like that... at all. I *was* saying that cruiser sized missile systems, including T2 variants like Rage, should do full damage to stationary cruiser-sized targets. Currently, they do not. The current signature radius part of the damage equation is probably fine. The velocity portion of the equation needs to be less harsh. I have no idea where you got what you wrote.
Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(sig/Er, 1, (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5)))
sig = ship's signature vel = ship's velocity Er = Explosion Radius of missile Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile drf = Damage Reduction Factor of missile
See for yourself, as posted in my previous posts its a f(x) = 1/x function, which sucks as hell. |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 02:13:00 -
[573] - Quote
Okay i promised someone to post some math.
The calculation will be done without skills, except missiles, because they have 2 dmg application skills. Both dmg applications will be at 4.
There are some Links to understand how Turrets work.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tracking_Guide http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage
Okay Lets pick a Ship. Lets pick the worst-case, the Typhoon.
Typhoon max velocity: 130 Signature radius: 330
Traversal-velocity < max(my ship velocity, enemy ship velocity) So lets assume we dont move and the Typhoon is orbiting.
Lets pick the weapon with the worst tracking: 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II
Data so far: Traversal-velocity = 130 m/s Signature radius = 330 m Distance = [25KM,50KM] Explosion Velocity = 96.6 m/s Explosion Radius = 264 m Tracking = 0.009 rad/s Weapon Resolution = 400m
DMG Missiles = (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(4.5) / log(5.5)) = (96.6/264 * 330/130)^(0.882287) = 0.93695 DMG Turrets = 0.5^((Traversal Velocity / (Distance * Tracking) * Weapon Resolution / Signature radius)^2) = 0.5^((130 / (50000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2) = 0.5^(0.122617873) = 0.918519 Now 25KM: DMG Turrets = 0.5^((130 / (25000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2) = 0.5^(0.490471493) = 0.71179
Okay missiles have an advantage, but lets increase the speed, lets double the speed:
DMG Missiles = (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(4.5) / log(5.5)) = (96.6/264 * 330/260)^(0.882287) = 0.50830 DMG Turrets = 0.5^((Traversal Velocity / (Distance * Tracking) * Weapon Resolution / Signature radius)^2) = 0.5^((260 / (50000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2) = 0.5^(0.490471493) = 0.71179 Now 25KM: DMG Turrets = 0.5^((260 / (25000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2) = 0.5^(1.96188) = 0.25669
Lets be honest, if you get close missiles win, but if you have a proper range turrets are much better. See the plot: http://www.walterzorn.de/grapher/grapher.htm
Formula to use: Min(1, (86.6/264 * 330/x)^(log(4.5) / log(5.5))); 0.5^((x / (50000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2)
Red: Missiles Green: Turrets
As you can see the DMG-Application of a Turret is much smoother. Why cant have missiles the same dmg-application-curve? |
Kenshi Hanshin
Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now.
62
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 02:50:00 -
[574] - Quote
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote:I agree with you on that damage calculation formula needs to be redressed. The issue that I am having is not knowing what the formula exactly is. If I don't know what it is, it is hard for me to correct it, mathematically. What I have been trying is to think of reasonable ways to address the issue. Yet, it may require a rewriting of the damage-calculation formula. The question that I think I would like to figure out is if the end result would be better. I take you sadly don't have that damage-calculation formula for missiles would you? That said, what do you think of the idea I mentioned above? Already done. it seems i got forgotten easily. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2939186#post2939186and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2952112#post2952112
I am sorry to cause you to feel that way. I honestly forgot if they had been posted. It is a really busy week for me. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
262
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 07:04:00 -
[575] - Quote
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:Lets be honest, if you get close missiles win, but if you have a proper range turrets are much better. See the plot
That, right there, encapsulates the exact problem I've been trying to explain.
Missiles lose nothing from short ranges. Given a constant target speed they do the same damage at 0 as they do at 225+.
That is not possible to balance that situation without a radical shake up to the ENTIRE platform.
It what I've been trying to say, if you make missiles on a par with turrets at distance you're ALSO making them JUST as effective at point blank ranges, it wouldnt be balanced - not without the shakeup I mentioned. There could be no tactical flying - fighting a missile boat becomes a pure and simple DPS race - one which (if missiles are boosted more) the turret boat would lose, every time.
Basically what I'm saying is that it could be solved - but it cannot be solved tweaking individual missile stats alone - it's a bigger problem than that. Or - we accept the status quo that cruises just aint great in PvP. Remember, I'm a big missile user, it's a shame - but they're far from the only sub-par module choice in PvP.
Perhaps it's just one of those things. Perhaps I'm a little too magnanimous this time in the morning |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
696
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 07:59:00 -
[576] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Here is what I consider to be a reasonable expectation for missiles as a starting point: * Rockets and light missiles should do full damage to stationary frigate sized targets * Heavy missiles and HAMs should do full damage to stationary cruiser sized targets * Torpedoes and cruise missiles should do full damage to stationary battleship sized targets * Citadel torpedos and cruise missiles should do full damage to stationary capital sized targets and modest damage to BS sized targets
This is what already happens in almost all circumstances.
You also asked for T2 missiles to do the same. But this is clearly silly for Rage/Fury, as it leaves them without a role. |
Gimme more Cynos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 16:15:00 -
[577] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Uh... I never said anything like that... at all. I *was* saying that cruiser sized missile systems, including T2 variants like Rage, should do full damage to stationary cruiser-sized targets. Currently, they do not. The current signature radius part of the damage equation is probably fine. The velocity portion of the equation needs to be less harsh. I have no idea where you got what you wrote.
If full dmg is applied to stationary targets only, double-clicking in space would result in a huge dmg mitigation. That's where I got it out of. Obviously, that wasn't part of your suggestion. Sry
Quote:You are assuming that the present damage-calculation formula is balanced. Which has been proposed to be a false assumption.
Nah, that's not what I'm doing. I guess all missile-users know where the flaw is. The point is, that you'ld need to figure out how much damage a missile should do against targets of various sizes and at various speeds before you change the formula. Yes, a new formula would make sense, but it's a thin line between OP and useless.
It isn't as easy as proposing a new formula based on RL physics.. It needs to fit for EvE.. |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
21
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 16:28:00 -
[578] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:Nah, that's not what I'm doing. I guess all missile-users know where the flaw is. The point is, that you'ld need to figure out how much damage a missile should do against targets of various sizes and at various speeds before you change the formula. Yes, a new formula would make sense, but it's a thin line between OP and useless. It isn't as easy as proposing a new formula based on RL physics.. It needs to fit for EvE..
It seems ppl dont want to read before posting, like "Its not easy to change the Formula". Already done, took me about 4 hours, no big deal. See my Post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2962266#post2962266
Now Compare the Dmg-Application of both Formulas. Besides Missiles have the same Issue on ALL sizes. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
66
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 20:17:00 -
[579] - Quote
I would also like to address the fact that if a frig is standing still, a Cruise or Torp ship should be able to one shot it just as any turret ship would do, provided the weapon has enough damage to destroy it.
A torp or cruise would be like dropping a giant nuke on a tiny ship. It makes perfect sense for it to go splat right after. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
66
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 20:28:00 -
[580] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Hagika wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Missile flight time is simply not a problem solo or in small gang. It's only a problem in a mixed fleet with turret boats; but not only does Caldari have a top-notch fleet BS and ABC, but as Drake/Tengu spam showed, missile spam works in a pure missile fleet also.
You're not going to get 40 km/s missiles, be realistic. If you find yourself needing instant damage, use a turret boat - that's what they're there for. Small gang is close up. You need to do more small gang.
Have done a ton of small gang.
My eve career has been spent doing piracy, Faction warfare, large alliance wars and even Red vs Blue.
Usually my small gang experiences ended up being ambush, silly station games, or running around faction war site gates popping people.
The one thing I have enjoyed most in Eve is piracy. I cant count the number of times I have gone from -10 back to positive sec so i can go back into highsec to do shopping or suicide ganks.
I get my jollies from blowing up and taking peoples hard earned ships and loot.
Emo rage and carebear tears make the yummiest of deserts.
|
|
Enya Sparhawk
State Protectorate Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 21:52:00 -
[581] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:Nah, that's not what I'm doing. I guess all missile-users know where the flaw is. The point is, that you'ld need to figure out how much damage a missile should do against targets of various sizes and at various speeds before you change the formula. Yes, a new formula would make sense, but it's a thin line between OP and useless. It isn't as easy as proposing a new formula based on RL physics.. It needs to fit for EvE.. Agreed...
No disrespect to Bucca Zerodyme, (You do good work kid, but I just found your solution oversimplified where ideally the formula should be more complex as well as not be overly complicated)... it almost seems like to properly represent the damage instead of a smooth curve we would need something that graphs out as an S curve...
Or at least that is the image that is presently in my mind...
(Believe me when I say that my math is corroded beyond a little rusty; so this might not make sense)
Something that divides the curve into two parts, a curve representing the top part of 50% damage and an inverse of that curve representing the lower half...
Please tell me someone understands what I am trying to say... (because I'm not really sure how to explain it mathematically; at least not yet.) F+¡orghr+í: Gr+í na f+¡rinne D+¬an g+íire...Tiocfaidh +ír l+í |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 22:55:00 -
[582] - Quote
Enya Sparhawk wrote: Something that divides the curve into two parts, a curve representing the top part of 50% damage and an inverse of that curve representing the lower half...
Please tell me someone understands what I am trying to say... (because I'm not really sure how to explain it mathematically; at least not yet.)
You want to Split the function into 2 parts so far i get it, but the other part ... well in most cases a image of your function would be nice to understand what you mean. You can use even Paint to do it.
Edit: remember to explain, why do you think it need to be split into 2 parts. |
Itis Zhellin
Pagan INC 9th Company
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 08:58:00 -
[583] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Quote:These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small explosion radius increase for the missiles. Reading is difficult, it seems. Also:
200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers
Yay, extra dps ... but none do the math for the new grid needed to have all the launchers fited. If that's 200/launcher then some of us will have to remove one or more launchers or use T1 versions :| |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 10:18:00 -
[584] - Quote
Itis Zhellin wrote: Also:
200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers
Yay, extra dps ... but none do the math for the new grid needed to have all the launchers fited. If that's 200/launcher then some of us will have to remove one or more launchers or use T1 versions :|
Dont want to do math for you, but a Raven have no problem at all with PG. Didnt checked the Tyhpoon. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
697
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 10:22:00 -
[585] - Quote
Itis Zhellin wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Quote:These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small explosion radius increase for the missiles. Reading is difficult, it seems. Also: 200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers Yay, extra dps ... but none do the math for the new grid needed to have all the launchers fited. If that's 200/launcher then some of us will have to remove one or more launchers or use T1 versions :|
If you're talking about the Raven, then I can only refer you back to the "reading is difficult" comment. Six additional launchers will take 1080 PG more, but since the Raven itself is getting 1875 PG more, then I don't think this will pose a fundamental problem...
Nor should it be a problem for the Typhoon, which has even more PG. If you're referring to the CNR or Fleetphoon, then it's a fairer comment, because they haven't been rebalanced yet, although it seems to be really quite difficult to use all the PG on a PVE cruise CNR. Even with 7x CML, MJD, MWD, HCB and XLSB you only need a single PG mod. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
262
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 11:15:00 -
[586] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:although it seems to be really quite difficult to use all the PG on a PVE cruise CNR.
Probably because it has the CPU of a 1980's digital watch...... |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope Gallente Federation
94
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 12:20:00 -
[587] - Quote
In case someone hasn't seen it.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Ah yes, this makes me remember to tell you guys something that should make you happy - we're going to increase calibration on all Navy Ships from 350 to 400. While it makes sense for Tech2 hulls to have less rig sots due to the specialized nature of the ships, Navy hulls are supposed to be an improvement over Tech1, but is not always the case right now due to rig / calibration restrictions.
|
Itis Zhellin
Pagan INC 9th Company
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 13:36:00 -
[588] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Itis Zhellin wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Quote:These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small explosion radius increase for the missiles. Reading is difficult, it seems. Also: 200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers Yay, extra dps ... but none do the math for the new grid needed to have all the launchers fited. If that's 200/launcher then some of us will have to remove one or more launchers or use T1 versions :| ... If you're referring to the CNR or Fleetphoon, then it's a fairer comment, because they haven't been rebalanced yet, although it seems to be really quite difficult to use all the PG on a PVE cruise CNR. Even with 7x CML, MJD, MWD, HCB and XLSB you only need a single PG mod. That and also Rattlesnake and more than anything.. Nemesis. Nemesis which is a damn tight fit ship. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
123
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 13:54:00 -
[589] - Quote
Enya Sparhawk wrote:Gimme more Cynos wrote:Nah, that's not what I'm doing. I guess all missile-users know where the flaw is. The point is, that you'ld need to figure out how much damage a missile should do against targets of various sizes and at various speeds before you change the formula. Yes, a new formula would make sense, but it's a thin line between OP and useless. It isn't as easy as proposing a new formula based on RL physics.. It needs to fit for EvE.. Agreed... No disrespect to Bucca Zerodyme, (You do good work kid, but I just found your solution oversimplified where ideally the formula should be more complex as well as not be overly complicated)... it almost seems like to properly represent the damage instead of a smooth curve we would need something that graphs out as an S curve... Or at least that is the image that is presently in my mind... ( Believe me when I say that my math is corroded beyond a little rusty; so this might not make sense) Something that divides the curve into two parts, a curve representing the top part of 50% damage and an inverse of that curve representing the lower half... Please tell me someone understands what I am trying to say... (because I'm not really sure how to explain it mathematically; at least not yet.)
i guess you refer to something like the way the "chance to hit" looks like in falloff ? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/File:Falloff.png
if dmg applied vs signatur radius/ speed of target would look similar for missiles (maybe with a steeper slope) that would make sense. but then i do not know how it looks like atm.
|
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 14:58:00 -
[590] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i guess you refer to something like the way the "chance to hit" looks like in falloff ? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/File:Falloff.pngif dmg applied vs signatur radius/ speed of target would look similar for missiles (maybe with a steeper slope) that would make sense. but then i do not know how it looks like atm.
I dont know how often i have posted it on this thread. Current Missiles Formula:
Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(sig/Er, 1, (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5)))
If you want to make it more simple you can write:
Damage = min( 1, Ev/Er * sig/vel)
If you want it even more simpler:
Damage = min(1, 1/vel)
I hope i could help you. [No im not gonna plot it] see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=226046&p=29 |
|
Hagika
LEGI0N
78
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 20:51:00 -
[591] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:In case someone hasn't seen it.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Ah yes, this makes me remember to tell you guys something that should make you happy - we're going to increase calibration on all Navy Ships from 350 to 400. While it makes sense for Tech2 hulls to have less rig sots due to the specialized nature of the ships, Navy hulls are supposed to be an improvement over Tech1, but is not always the case right now due to rig / calibration restrictions.
Does nothing for the current missile issue at hand, much less the struggling raven issue. All the same, its a nice add on to navy ships |
Enya Sparhawk
State Protectorate Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 21:40:00 -
[592] - Quote
Bucca Zerodyme wrote: You want to Split the function into 2 parts so far i get it, but the other part ... well in most cases a image of your function would be nice to understand what you mean. You can use even Paint to do it.
Edit: remember to explain, why do you think it need to be split into 2 parts.
A curve that looks like this... A normal reduction in damage to start out with and then a below normal reduction for the last part...
The idea being that the change in damage shouldn't be so severe at below 50% so that large missles aren't getting raped hitting small ships, while still not doing insane damage...
I got the idea from a W+¦hler curve used for determining material fatigue (I'm evening wondering if a similar formula could be retranslated and applied to what we need... It uses a logarithmic scale same as the current formula; treat missle base damage as the "material" and the formula like the fatigue, stress factors???) F+¡orghr+í: Gr+í na f+¡rinne D+¬an g+íire...Tiocfaidh +ír l+í |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
25
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 22:38:00 -
[593] - Quote
Enya Sparhawk wrote:A curve that looks like this...A normal reduction in damage to start out with and then a below normal reduction for the last part... The idea being that the change in damage shouldn't be so severe at below 50% so that large missles aren't getting raped hitting small ships, while still not doing insane damage... I got the idea from a W+¦hler curve used for determining material fatigue (I'm evening wondering if a similar formula could be retranslated and applied to what we need at least conceptually... It uses a logarithmic scale as does the current formula; treat missle base damage as the "material" and the formula like the fatigue, stress factors???) so plotting on a graph: Y = 0-1 (0 -100%), X = logarithmic scale factoring the explosion radius/velocity, sig, velocity in some relationship (max & min ranges defined by 0.5) Z = rdf (just for a three dimensional graph comparing how the scale visually affects all range of missles) Make sense?
The W+¦hler-Curve looks like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/BrittleAluminium320MPA_S-N_Curve.jpg
Do you want the same behavior?
I dont understand what do you mean with X,Y, Z ? Is this a graph, which you want to explain?
If you want to have the same behavior as the W+¦hler-Curve, then there is a problem. This Graph, which i linked, is logarithmic scaled. That mean: - Short Version: You cant use the same formula - Long Version: If you really want to know, then look for yourself. |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope Gallente Federation
94
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 00:57:00 -
[594] - Quote
Hagika wrote: Does nothing for the current missile issue at hand, much less the struggling raven issue. All the same, its a nice add on to navy ships
With a 40-60M ISK increase in price... isn't the Raven already dead?
|
Hagika
LEGI0N
83
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 06:45:00 -
[595] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Hagika wrote: Does nothing for the current missile issue at hand, much less the struggling raven issue. All the same, its a nice add on to navy ships
With a 40-60M ISK increase in price... isn't the Raven already dead?
Yes, this last round of garbage thrown at it finally put the raven out of its misery.
It became a pve ship because in pvp it sucked horribly and now with the huge increase, it becomes a 200+ mil piece of garbage.
The scorp got a low slot though so it can armor tank now !
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
624
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 07:24:00 -
[596] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:intriguing changes i think people would be more likely to use them if you made them THE alpha damage platform ROF is less of an issue i think. They will be the best LR weapon for dps by far, and the second best for alpha... PS : you are looking at more than 800 dps with fury...
Which makes sense.
Caldari are suppose to be the long range specialists. Kinda balanced by the fact that it still takes them a while to reach their target. |
marVLs
131
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 11:00:00 -
[597] - Quote
Just one thing to help missiles (and torps) one tiny little thing that will help them more than some strange stats manipulating...
Move Target Painters to High Slot ffs |
Jezza McWaffle
EVOL Command Consortium Collective
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 11:31:00 -
[598] - Quote
Guns dont get tracking in their highs why should missiles. |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
29
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 11:33:00 -
[599] - Quote
Jezza McWaffle wrote:Guns dont get tracking in their highs why should missiles.
Because missiles dont have tracking enhancer |
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence
29
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 11:35:00 -
[600] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:intriguing changes i think people would be more likely to use them if you made them THE alpha damage platform ROF is less of an issue i think. They will be the best LR weapon for dps by far, and the second best for alpha... PS : you are looking at more than 800 dps with fury... Which makes sense. Caldari are suppose to be the long range specialists. Kinda balanced by the fact that it still takes them a while to reach their target.
Yeah if you are looking for PvE, then yes. If you are looking for PvP, then no. Did you even read the whole thread? Missiles sucks and you can use Fury's only on bigger Targets. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 25 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |