Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:51:00 -
[241] - Quote
OmniBeton wrote:Tippia wrote:Nalia White wrote: [quote=OmniBeton]If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ? You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.
That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life). As far as I understand there is only one "company" insuring ships in EVE and it is legal, so paying inurance to criminals is illogical. Isurance companies that protects criminals usualy are called "mafias"
"The SCC is responsible for regulating and monitoring all trade transactions that take place on space stations. It has agents on all stations that record the transactions and they also offer courier and escrow services to make trade smooth."
Nowhere does it say that it's supposed to be 100% legal.
The only thing to imply that is that it's part of the CONCORD faction... but we're talking about a corrupt entity which allows people to legally shoot each other in highsec for a small weekly fee. Do you think they would really care?
Also - tell me why miners and industrialists should be insured after dying in lowsec. After all, in real life, if you hauled your car into Somalia and it got blown up, would your friendly local insurance company be responsible?
Quote:Well Tippia, instead of trolling with your usual one-line punchers why don't you actually take the time to think about it for a minute?
And what is being curbed here is suicide ganking (not ganking as your post above suggests).
Can you actually provide a solid answer? Why is suicide ganking a bad thing? Why do gankers lose insurance, when miners and industrialists doing equally stupid things don't?
Or are you just going to stay on your high horse and act as if it's your god-given right to be correct because you are standing for the just and holy needs of the highsec citizens?
IMO, just get rid of insurance altogether. It's a massive isk faucet, and there's no way in hell that the SCC is actually running a profit. This also opens the door to player-run insurance companies. (Chribba's next venture, maybe?) |
Vastek Non
State War Academy Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:01:00 -
[242] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:OmniBeton wrote:Tippia wrote:Nalia White wrote: [quote=OmniBeton]If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ? You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.
That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life). As far as I understand there is only one "company" insuring ships in EVE and it is legal, so paying inurance to criminals is illogical. Isurance companies that protects criminals usualy are called "mafias" "The SCC is responsible for regulating and monitoring all trade transactions that take place on space stations. It has agents on all stations that record the transactions and they also offer courier and escrow services to make trade smooth." Nowhere does it say that it's supposed to be 100% legal. The only thing to imply that is that it's part of the CONCORD faction... but we're talking about a corrupt entity which allows people to legally shoot each other in highsec for a small weekly fee. Do you think they would really care? Also - tell me why miners and industrialists should be insured after dying in lowsec. After all, in real life, if you hauled your car into Somalia and it got blown up, would your friendly local insurance company be responsible?
I pretty much agree with the Insurance in war zones bit, however consider that real world militaries have insurance on many front line assets (including soldiers). I personally feel that Insurance being done away with completely would be great, however it would be extremely noob/small alliance unfriendly so probably best to leave as is for the sake of the game
edit: fail quote |
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:03:00 -
[243] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:I mean, since EVE is apparently based on "real life" now...
You know, I probably wouldn't give much of a **** under normal circumstances, but with the recent legalization of "decshields" and whatnot, this just gives the impression that CCP is now pandering to the safe-haven "iwin" needs of highsec carebears. CCP, say it ain't so?
I still personally think this is a stop gap until they can come up with a system of bribe/counter bribe for wardecs. Which would be much awesome and win. PvP starts in Highsec with a wallet duel, and if it goes all the way to conclusion, it ends with a gun duel. Verdict: Epic win for all and a righteous isk sink for highsec. The loser in any fight consols himself with a moral victory. Thus is the beginning of slave-morality. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:05:00 -
[244] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:Can you actually provide a solid answer? Why is suicide ganking a bad thing? Why do gankers lose insurance, when miners and industrialists doing equally stupid things don't? The answer has been provided numerous times. It's just you don't like the answer. Suicidie ganking as it is allows "LOL" players to easily destroy hundreds of millions of isk with very little risk and consequence to themselves. And mining in hi sec shouldn't have to be an extremely perilous activity as it has become for miners. And the solution to miners shouldn't have to be "don't mine in hi sec and you'll be safe". Because as it stands this is pretty much their only option during this LOL-fest. And because there is little damage to the gankers activities like this can go on indefinitely.
Quote:Or are you just going to stay on your high horse and act as if it's your god-given right to be correct because you are standing for the just and holy needs of the highsec citizens? Why don't you ask Tippia? :-) |
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:11:00 -
[245] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:p.s. you see that your kind is here minority... and zillion posts from one person is not zillion opinions, only one...
EVEs player base has been going to the dogs for years, there are many more whining carebears on the forums than there used to be. Most of the old school players who would be agreeing with Tippa have all quit over the years. Still it doesn't matter, what you claim as a victory is nothing of the kind and will change very little.
P.S.
I don't care anyway, you can all huddle in highsec to frightened to play the game and BFF each other to extacy for all eternity for all I care, so removal of insurance and dec shield alliances or w/e doesn't bother me. |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:12:00 -
[246] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:
"The SCC is responsible for regulating and monitoring all trade transactions that take place on space stations. It has agents on all stations that record the transactions and they also offer courier and escrow services to make trade smooth."
Nowhere does it say that it's supposed to be 100% legal.
The only thing to imply that is that it's part of the CONCORD faction... but we're talking about a corrupt entity which allows people to legally shoot each other in highsec for a small weekly fee. Do you think they would really care?
Also - tell me why miners and industrialists should be insured after dying in lowsec. After all, in real life, if you hauled your car into Somalia and it got blown up, would your friendly local insurance company be responsible?
Well, never seen CONCORD saying "nah, I'll pass on this" when someone was kill in hisec so I think they care. And even there was a corruption not all insurances would be payed. Corruption make things depend on someones mood.
Low sec does not differ much from hi sec from legal point of view. You stil became a criminal if you attack someone (sec status) so I think insurance applies. Null sec, a the other hand, is different story. It's your Somalia, no penalty for attacking, 100% off the empire and CONCORD jurisdiction. And for death there insurance payment is, I think, questionable. |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:28:00 -
[247] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Roosterton wrote:Can you actually provide a solid answer? Why is suicide ganking a bad thing? Why do gankers lose insurance, when miners and industrialists doing equally stupid things don't? The answer has been provided numerous times. It's just you don't like the answer. Suicidie ganking as it is allows "LOL" players to easily destroy hundreds of millions of isk with very little risk and consequence to themselves. And mining in hi sec shouldn't have to be an extremely perilous activity as it has become for miners. And the solution to miners shouldn't have to be "don't mine in hi sec and you'll be safe". Because as it stands this is pretty much their only option during this LOL-fest. And because there is little damage to the gankers activities like this can go on indefinitely.
No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now?
Miners have plenty of options available to them:
Don't mine with super shiny shield boosters. Don't mine in paper-thin mackinaws, use hulks D-scan at 500k, warp off if you see a fleet of thrashers on scan.
But no, on top of that, and on top of the fact that suicide ganking for-the-lols means a rapid descent into the bowels of being outlawed from highsec, and despite the fact that insurance was already nerfed to a certain extent in Tyrannis...
CCP are still trying to make it harder. It's like miners are supposed to sit there, activate lasers, and not have to do anything, and be in 100% complete safety.
And that's not EVE.
Quote:Why don't you ask Tippia? :-)
Perhaps because Tippia actually raises a good, philosophical point when he does it? You're just failing at trying to use Tippia-arguments, which only Tippia is pro enough to use.
|
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:30:00 -
[248] - Quote
El 1974 wrote:Just wondering if this change is going to affect the cost to insure a ship since the cost of insurance should be somehow linked to the risk of insurance payout. Not sure if it actually works that way in Eve, but it would make sense. There are varying levels of insurance you can buy, which basically means that they let you asses your own risk. Hilarious no?
El 1974 wrote:p.s. is there a way to ignore posters who keep trolling threads?
Yeah, don't read their posts. The loser in any fight consols himself with a moral victory. Thus is the beginning of slave-morality. |
enterprisePSI
Unimatrix 0.1
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:33:00 -
[249] - Quote
i never insure my ships when i suicide gank. The tears of the many, outweight the tears of the few. Or the one.
-«enterprise-psi |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:39:00 -
[250] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote: (The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.)
Surely the real soluton would be to extend your solution and make Eve more of real sandbox, less of the faux sandbox that it currently is.
An explanation - currently crafting in Eve is no different than most other MMOs, it is just a more complex version than most. In real sandbox games players have far more freedom when it comes to building stuff, they really can invent new stuff, in some even create the graphics.
Now creating the graphics may be a step too far in an mmorpg, but the game could certainly do with being more like a sandbox where players get the freedom and the abilty to influence the enviroment when it comes to crafting.
So to expand on your example, it would be even better if ships simply had a set number of points (obviously with more expensive ships having more points), that the player was then able to use tofit out a ship in any way they wished, how many HP, how much CPU, cargo hold size, how many high/mid/low slots, etc.
This, to take the mining / ganking example would give the miner the choice to go for an all out mining ship, that was easy to gank, or they could go for anti-gank minng ship, which would be a less effecient miner, smaller cargo hold,etc, but be much more tanky (genuinely tanky, not tanking out a paper thin hull which is the only option people currently have).
It fit in with the alleged goal of a player being able to effect the enviroment and add some much needed variety to the game. |
|
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:42:00 -
[251] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote: (The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.)
Surely the real soluton would be to extend your solution and make Eve more of real sandbox, less of the faux sandbox that it currently is.
So to expand on your example, it would be even better if ships simply had a set number of points (obviously with more expensive ships having more points), that the player was then able to allocate to use to fit out a ship in any way they wished, how many HP, how much CPU, cargo hold size, how many high/mid/low slots, etc.
This, to take the mining / ganking example would give the miner the choice to go for an all out mining ship, that was easy to gank, or they could go for anti-gank minng ship, which would be a less effecient miner, smaller cargo hold,etc, but be much more tanky (genuinely tanky, not tanking out a paper thin hull with little CPU which is the only option people currently have).
It fits in with the alleged goal of a player being able to effect the enviroment and add some much needed variety to the game. |
Russell Casey
One Ton Reverberation Project
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:43:00 -
[252] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:
No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now?
Faction navies can be dodged. Alts or friends with +status can be used to scout or haul gank-ships. The only major consequence really is being perma-flagged so other players can shoot you. Personally, I think CCP should just let outlaws into highsec so we get more carnage from them suicide ganking stuff and fighting with vigilantes. Having a second, watered down NPC police force never made much sense . |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:45:00 -
[253] - Quote
Russell Casey wrote:Roosterton wrote:
No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now?
Faction navies can be dodged. Alts or friends with +status can be used to scout or haul gank-ships. The only major consequence really is being perma-flagged so other players can shoot you.
Faction navies can be dodged while suicide ganking, sure, but what if you need to go to highsec to make isk? To pick up a shiny faction BS for your corp?
Or what if you're in lowsec, and now everybody can Peeveepee you without getting shot by sentries? (Although this may be a good thing, depending on your stance. )
|
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:48:00 -
[254] - Quote
whoops... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1264
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:00:00 -
[255] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Surely the real soluton would be to extend your solution and make Eve more of real sandbox, less of the faux sandbox that it currently is.
An explanation - currently crafting in Eve is no different than most other MMOs, it is just a more complex version than most. In real sandbox games players have far more freedom when it comes to building stuff, they really can invent new stuff, in some even create the graphics. GǪyou know, I've always wondered what shoggoth-like insanity would be spawned by having something like Alpha Centauri's unit creation mechanism in an MMO GÇö especially one with an industry and economy of the complexity of EVE.
Russell Casey wrote:Faction navies can be dodged. Alts or friends with +status can be used to scout or haul gank-ships. The only major consequence really is being perma-flagged so other players can shoot you. GǪand that is where we find the reason people why don't see any consequences of ganking: because they choose not to exercise this option and instead let the criminals off, scot-free.
Want to increase the actual consequences for gankers? Two words: tradeable killrights. 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 |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum KUGUTSUMEN.
280
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:05:00 -
[256] - Quote
About damn time. Make people actually choose their targets more carefully and take the full risk involved without having insurance to fall back on. Things have gotten out of hand, to where you can suicide just about anything just for ***** and giggles and still lose next to nothing. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:10:00 -
[257] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now? Oh? Then why don't you explain to me how a -10 player suicide ganking in hi sec suffers from a lower sec status?
In other words how exactly is it hurting going from a -10 to a -10?
Quote:Miners have plenty of options available to them:
Don't mine with super shiny shield boosters. I wasn't aware that lul-ganking was due to "shiny shield boosters". I seriously doubt that not having shield boosters is going to stop suicide ganking.
Quote: Don't mine in paper-thin mackinaws, and don't use paper-thin hulks either.
Fixed.
Quote:D-scan at 500k, warp off if you see a fleet of thrashers on scan. The problem isn't just thrashers. It's gangs of ships. And in hi sec, where there can be hundreds of players congrgated at any time it becomes extremely difficult sorting through gangs out looking for lul-ganks and players going about their business.
Quote:But no, on top of that, and on top of the fact that suicide ganking for-the-lols means a rapid descent into the bowels of being outlawed from highsec, and despite the fact that insurance was already nerfed to a certain extent in Tyrannis... Except it doesn't. -10's can and do enter hi sec with impunity thanks to alts providing them with any ship they wish upon arrival. |
Tuggboat
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:10:00 -
[258] - Quote
Great, Now that this is fixed it makes no sense for me to have to travel 20,30,40 jumps through gates. Now we need high sec cynos with limitless range and no fuel costs. You know its a bonus for from our High sec taxes. Rewards are lower cuase we got more benefits. Paid for by npc corp taxes or something like that. I see no use wasting valuable game time running 40 jumps to my lush incursion site. We need instant fleet formups to, fleet invite accept, cyno up. Will work nice for low sec too, no gate camps to hinder play. I never did understand travel, now it makes even less sense.
Or at least autopilot to zero |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:10:00 -
[259] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:CCP are still trying to make it harder. It's like miners are supposed to sit there, activate lasers, and not have to do anything, and be in 100% complete safety. Oh stop it with the melodrama. This change isn't going to stop suicide ganking. It will slightly curb it at best. They won't be 100% safe, so you can stop crying now.
Roosterton wrote:Tippia actually raises a good, philosophical point when he does it? You're just failing at trying to use Tippia-arguments, which only Tippia is pro enough to use. Ok then. Let me get all "philosophical" on you and ask the question... How so? |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:12:00 -
[260] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Oh stop it with the melodrama. This change isn't going to stop suicide ganking. It will slightly curb it at best. They won't be 100% safe, so you can stop crying now.
I know they're not going to be 100% safe. I'm saying that it's as if CCP wants them to be.
Quote: Ok then. Let me be "philosophical" and ask the question... How so?
How so what? You said removing suicide ganking insurance was a good thing. Tippia then said "how so?" You can't answer a "how so" with another "how so," as that's just bad English.
|
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:15:00 -
[261] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:How so what? You said removing suicide ganking insurance was a good thing. Tippia then said "how so?" You can't answer a "how so" with another "how so," as that's just bad English. You said Tippia asks philosophical questions, so I'm asking you a Tippian philosophical question... How so? :) |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum KUGUTSUMEN.
280
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:16:00 -
[262] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:
How so what? You said removing suicide ganking insurance was a good thing. Tippia then said "how so?" You can't answer a "how so" with another "how so," as that's just bad English.
Why not?
|
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:29:00 -
[263] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I think that during a suicide gank the insurance payout funds for the victim's ship should come from whoever fires the killing blow. Don't have sufficient funds in you account? You cannot shoot a player in high sec.
|
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
129
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:34:00 -
[264] - Quote
Good. I am a fan of the ability to suicide gank, have done it and will do more. However whatthis will do is stop peopel randomly suiciding freighters on the off chance itll have some nice loot, knowing that you arnt losing hundreds of millions in BSs.
Suicide ganking will, and should, still go on, itll be more of a risk to do so now, as it should be. If you fail now, you actually lose somethign of value. And yes, dessies can still pop miners, thats fine. |
Sader Rykane
The Dark Space Initiative Revival Of The Talocan Empire
128
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:37:00 -
[265] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
Concord is there to watch pod pilots. There are relatively FEW pod pilots in space compared with people in space. Not to mention concord operate with stuff like...this.
We are way to powerful to not have our every move watched constantly. So yes, I totally think its plausible that CONCORD not only watches us 24/7, but probably knows what we intend to do before we do it and has ships on standby.
|
Saint Lazarus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
165
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:41:00 -
[266] - Quote
to summarize my feelings
This is bullcrap
But I dont care enough to whine any more than that |
Kyneska
RONA Midgard Academy RONA Directorate
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:44:00 -
[267] - Quote
I think tippias ideas to remove concorde are stupid, its like she isnt aware that a giant blob force resides in 0.0 and the only thing holding them out of empire is concord. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:45:00 -
[268] - Quote
Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.
Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!
Awesome, EVE is realistic now!
High-sec is meant to be safe! I'm glad CCP changed this.
High-sec is dangerous, and finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.
Now CCP just need to make CONCORD pre-empt suicide ganks, and destroy the ganker before they can even get a single shot off.
Miners 1 - Gankers 0
So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!
Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.
There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.
Finally, the IWIN button of EVE is gone.
/inflammatory comments Excellent explanation for why this is a very bad change that hurts the game.
I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia, nectar of the Gods! It is sweet. Oh, so sweet!
I'm not going to say you're wrong Tippia. I respect your opinion to much to do so. However, I'll simply disagree.
This doesn't change the ganker's ability to gank the same targets they've been ganking all along. So, from a capability perspective, this changes NOTHING.
At best it's a motivational change. From what I've seen all these gankers "teaching" noobs to properly fit their ships were very adamant that they were doing these guy's a favor. So if they still feel that way, go ahead, gank away. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Oh wait, were you doing it because it as financially viable? Then perhaps you weren't doing Eve the favor you told everyone you were.
We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1264
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:59:00 -
[269] - Quote
Kyneska wrote:I think tippias ideas to remove concorde are stupid, its like she isnt aware that a giant blob force resides in 0.0 and the only thing holding them out of empire is concord. It's like you didn't quite get what the idea was born out of: the use of real-world logic to dictate how game mechanics should behave.
And no, CONCORD is not what keeps the giant 0.0 blobs out of empire. In fact, they enter empire with some frequency. Nor is CONCORD what keeps the blobs out of highsec GÇö completely different game mechanics are at play in that particular case.
Mr Kidd wrote:I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia We'll see. How long do you think you'll live? We have yet to see the dayGǪ 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 |
Reislier
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 15:08:00 -
[270] - Quote
Well it needed to be changed.. either lose the bogus insurance or change the name to bonus and keep it.
It's curious that people just can't seem to call a spade a spade in this game. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |