Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Lynne Rankin
Podlins R Us
26
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 13:39:00 -
[151] - Quote
+1 Carniflex.
I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!"
In the 3 years I've been playing there was certainly emergent gameplay, as Carniflex mentioned, but now it's becoming less of a feature and more classified as 'False Advertisement' in my opinion.
With these changes being made to the JDEM, I can firmly assure you that no one will be using these modules ever. Jump Freighters have a hard enough time getting from deep high-sec to border null without getting closer. Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2.
Take some risks, CCP. Make a few bans on what the item can be fitted on, but don't do a global ban. Otherwise you might as well rename these 'Industrial Jump Drive Economizers', since without industrial in the name the module is misleading.
Come Hyperion, we need another module to put in the graveyard. RIP Reactive Armor Hardner RIP Target Spectrum Breaker RIP Jump Drive Economizer Modules (I could list stuff like automatic targeting systems, passive targeting systems etc, but we all know those by heart) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1146
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 19:30:00 -
[152] - Quote
Lynne Rankin wrote:Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2. Where are you getting this from?Lynne Rankin wrote:I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!" Tou must have also been disturbed when you found out bastions was only for marauders, siege/triage only for dreads/carriers, and covert cloaks/cynos only fitting on covert ops ships. It's nothing new. What this does is keep the impact of the fuel changes on normal capitals while giving the JF the lowslot option(s) that were promised. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
1987
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 22:26:00 -
[153] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. I find this decision highly disappointing. I was really looking forward for fitting these on a BLOPS I use to haul my pod around and/or on a suitcase carrier. This restriction severely limits the player choice in the matter. Also - I believe these would have seen much more frequent use on Carriers than they would on JF's. On a JF and Roqual the decision is pretty straightforward (depending if you have full bay of stuff, if not fit these) and on top of that the JF nor Roqual has any issues whatsoever carrying these around and/or refitting. If you limit it only for the JF / Roqual then you might as well reduce the volume to 100 m3. Or if you want the volume to be relevant for the Roqual then you would need to increase it above 16 600 m3 per module. The 3500 m3 size is after all specifically targeted at carriers and if carriers cant fit these there is no point of clinging to that particular size. Granted on a suitcase carrier the decision is just as straightforward - always fit these. Anyway - I know that patch is sort of creeping near - but have you considered perhaps adding a meaningful penalty to these modules and still allow them to be fitted on all jump capable ships. The most obvious meaningful penalty is ofc course the jump range (give JF and Roqual a role bonus negating that penalty if that is the main location where these modules are supposed to be used). Say, for example, the modules would give the currently proposed fuel savings AND the same percentage penalty into the jump range (similarly stacking penalized). That would be in my opinion a meaningful decision to be made. Just banning the modules outright on anything but the ships on which they are "designed" to work is limiting player choice and emergent behavior. I can understand why it is needed in some cases (like cov ops cloaks) but the smaller is the number of "exceptions" in the rules the more sand I have in my sandbox. So I would respectfully request you to reconsider this decision if this is still possible. If not then please add more universal modules for fuel reduction in the next patch without this artificial restriction. JF full load out of Hisec into null --> Cargo expander JF light/empty load out of null to high --> economizer
Likewise, fitting all the low slots of an archon with the fuel economizer modules would basically negate the recent fuel change that ccp implemented, so that wasn't going to happen.
Basically, what you wanted to do with your blops/suitcase carrier is exactly the reason why CCP doesn't want to do it.
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
1987
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 22:28:00 -
[154] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Lynne Rankin wrote:Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2. Where are you getting this from? Lynne Rankin wrote:I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!" Tou must have also been disturbed when you found out bastions was only for marauders, siege/triage only for dreads/carriers, and covert cloaks/cynos only fitting on covert ops ships. It's nothing new. What this does is keep the impact of the fuel changes on normal capitals while giving the JF the lowslot option(s) that were promised.
I for one am deeply disturbed that I can't fit 7 bomb launchers to my phoon. |
Lynne Rankin
Podlins R Us
27
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 02:19:00 -
[155] - Quote
Not editing my post, but apparently I need to learn to read a bit more.
The jump drive range reduction was one of Caniflex's proposed penalties, and because of my skimming eyes (rushing off to work) I made a misinterpretation. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
280
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 06:54:00 -
[156] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: JF full load out of Hisec into null --> Cargo expander JF light/empty load out of null to high --> economizer
Likewise, fitting all the low slots of an archon with the fuel economizer modules would basically negate the recent fuel change that ccp implemented, so that wasn't going to happen.
Basically, what you wanted to do with your blops/suitcase carrier is exactly the reason why CCP doesn't want to do it.
That is not true. The fuel consumption was increased by 50%. The fuel cost reduction caps out at approx 25% with the 10% versions because of stacking penalties. Fitting anything above 4 is pretty much pointless.
As for the reason why - well we can only speculate but my suspicion is that it's not the fuel reductions on blops which made them do that decision. I can see few possibilities. (1) The reduction in online POS numbers might have been far more drastic than they expected after the industry expansion. So they feel that they must somehow burn all the isotopes to maintain luractivity of the ice mining. (2) The implemented the restriction mechanic to make it impossible to fit these on frigates and such for easy carrying in a carrier. Then the Q&A guys who were already stressed bcos of the patch creeping near went somethign on the lines of "no way in hell can we test all combinations of that before the patch" and the decision was made to just leave em for Roq and JF (a lot less Q&A). Basically a lazy shortcut to squeeze something already advertised for the upcoming patch into the available time resources. (3) It is theoretically possible that they might be worried about Carriers using that. I cant quite figure out why, exactly, would they be worried about that other than the abovementioned 2 points as for large coalitions the fuel cost is kinda pointless, their pilots do not buy their own fuel anyway and at most it might mean an extra JF run to the refueling midpoint. Small entities and solo pilots are not moving large enough distances on regular basis to have an significant effect. (4) There might have been technical problems when trying to make it so that one can not fit a frigate fitted with these in a carrier. This would be a just lazy shortcut to remove the "problem" altogether from the agenda.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
83
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 19:13:00 -
[157] - Quote
Capqu wrote:do they work on bridges
neither the rorqual nor the Jump Freighter can bridge so no
Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
83
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 19:16:00 -
[158] - Quote
And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
281
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 11:39:00 -
[159] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more
I would not go as far as to say it's "too easy" to fit 3 of these. The volume was 3500 m3 meaning you can not carry three in a carrier no matter how you spin it. Sure you could fit these and/or then drop into a can but it would expose these modules to some risk if refitting in space.
Ofc the normal procedure would be to fit these for travel and then refit in a last station before combat zone leaving these mods in station. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1180
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 13:58:00 -
[160] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more I would not go as far as to say it's "too easy" to fit 3 of these. The volume was 3500 m3 meaning you can not carry three in a carrier no matter how you spin it. Sure you could fit these and/or then drop into a can but it would expose these modules to some risk if refitting in space. Ofc the normal procedure would be to fit these for travel and then refit in a last station before combat zone leaving these mods in station.
Can't you just go all the way untiil the very last jump with some dude in a JF to hold all the modules and log-off to be "hidden" in space while you fight in a full combat fit, then relog when the shoooting is done and the first jump out of the fight system is amde to give back all the modules to low-cost travel back home? Sure it's extra logistic work but many player organisation would only see it as a minor muscle flexing over what they already do... |
|
Vyzia
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 00:41:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. It seems logical to me. Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume? Not at this time, no.
Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1166
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 01:28:00 -
[162] - Quote
Vyzia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. It seems logical to me. Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume? Not at this time, no. Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required? Well, you can now truly consider it a capital module so it still follows the pattern. and I don't really think your going to see a lack of space in those two ships to hold 3 of them. |
Vyzia
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 03:49:00 -
[163] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Vyzia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. It seems logical to me. Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume? Not at this time, no. Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required? Well, you can now truly consider it a capital module so it still follows the pattern. and I don't really think your going to see a lack of space in those two ships to hold 3 of them.
Good point, i was actually thinking of the hypersptial accelerator as a comparison so maybe that needs to be bigger too. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
281
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 07:51:00 -
[164] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Carniflex wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more I would not go as far as to say it's "too easy" to fit 3 of these. The volume was 3500 m3 meaning you can not carry three in a carrier no matter how you spin it. Sure you could fit these and/or then drop into a can but it would expose these modules to some risk if refitting in space. Ofc the normal procedure would be to fit these for travel and then refit in a last station before combat zone leaving these mods in station. Can't you just go all the way untiil the very last jump with some dude in a JF to hold all the modules and log-off to be "hidden" in space while you fight in a full combat fit, then relog when the shoooting is done and the first jump out of the fight system is amde to give back all the modules to low-cost travel back home? Sure it's extra logistic work but many player organisation would only see it as a minor muscle flexing over what they already do...
Too much hassle to use JF. You could use ofc Roqual which is better in that regard and/or additional JF but it would be too much hassle and increased complexity. Considering the outpost density it would be far far easier to just dock / refit 1j out and less possibility of seriously mess up.
Not that it matters as I am not holding my breath about CCP revisiting their decision whatever were the logic behind it. It is still ofc disappointing limitation removing the player choice where it should be left up to the players to decide.
EVE would be a bit different game when back in the beginning CCP would have made it so that you can not eject ore nor put it in a jet-can. Even if it would have made their design process simpler. In my opinion this change is in a nutshell telling us "that is this modules intended use/role and we will not let you use it any other way". Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Stalence
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
27
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 18:15:00 -
[165] - Quote
Tho'mas wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:I suppose this is supposed to counterbalance the increased fuel requirements; fair enough. To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up. I believe force projection is already bad enough in the current state of the game. I would not like to see jump range increased.
This isn't about PL's hot drop getting go-go-gadget length though. This is about easing logistics for rorquals and jump freighters. |
FlinnRyder
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 22:37:00 -
[166] - Quote
how does it help JF's and rorq that much if a jf has to choose lower fuel cost at the expense of cargo capacity? trading one maybe efficient way for another....
this 50% increase has kinda destroyed the market on topes. the smaller groups that need jf's and rorq for logistics of moving in and out have kinda stopped using them and the bigger groups arent phased at all by this change. Would be nice if you could find a solution that nerfed the carriers and supers without damaging smaller corps that barely use jump drive ships unless to move goods in and out.
Also it would be nice if CCP could find more of a use for Liquid Ozone and Heavy Water. I've been seeing how its being mined but there is even less of a market for it then the topes... dark glitter gelidus and glare crust are all over the place with these resources that have very little use. compared to the topes. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
99
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 22:47:00 -
[167] - Quote
FlinnRyder wrote:how does it help JF's and rorq that much if a jf has to choose lower fuel cost at the expense of cargo capacity? trading one maybe efficient way for another....
this 50% increase has kinda destroyed the market on topes. the smaller groups that need jf's and rorq for logistics of moving in and out have kinda stopped using them and the bigger groups arent phased at all by this change. Would be nice if you could find a solution that nerfed the carriers and supers without damaging smaller corps that barely use jump drive ships unless to move goods in and out.
Also it would be nice if CCP could find more of a use for Liquid Ozone and Heavy Water. I've been seeing how its being mined but there is even less of a market for it then the topes... dark glitter gelidus and glare crust are all over the place with these resources that have very little use. compared to the topes.
Part of the point of capital ships is you need people to back you up, even if they are alts. They don't function independently and as such should not be cheap to maintain, Its not hard to afford fuel for a carrier or a Jump freighter even after to 50% buff to consumption. Thats the bane of small corp carriers and such, you just dont have the same assets and liquid capital as larger groups and as such have to adapt to maintain your style of life.
And i agree heavy water needs some more use, but ozone is fine since you need it for cynos and POS Fuel. Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
FlinnRyder
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 22:53:00 -
[168] - Quote
my desire would be that ccp could find a way to nerf the power of coalitions and such without effecting smaller groups that only really use the rorq's or jump freighters for moving or mining. these may not be the effecting forces on our market right now. it could just be that in anticipation for Crius everyone took to heavy mining ice and it was nice when the market demand jumped but now its crashing for the excessive amounts available. and less demand |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
78
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 02:45:00 -
[169] - Quote
These were not mentioned in the dev blog about what's coming in Hyperion. Are they not making it in?
I noticed that I haven't commented on them anywhere. I love the idea of these modules. They meet their goal of creating more options. They don't actually solve huge problems, but they do create more options and I will definitely be using them if they come out.
Reading this thread I would say that commentary on them is either positive, or unrelated discourses about how other ideas could also fix the problems that these modules address, and comments about details of the size of the modules or their bonuses or whatever. But overall, nobody has said these things are a bad idea. They're a good idea. Unless it takes 500 people hundreds of hours to implement them, please do. I sincerely hope they make it in with Hyperion. Since I don't do wormholes, there's really not anything in Hyperion for me to get excited about other than these modules. If they make it in, I will be very excited.
In my view, the large volume of these things may succeed in preventing exploitation by big capital fleets. The bonuses they provide are appropriate to their general application. If you wanted to increase the bonuses you may have to put in some hard controls (JFs and Rorqs only). But as originally presented I like them and I doubt they will be exploited by the big cap groups and they will be a nice boon to the little guy JF and Rorq users like me.
Just my two cents.
Still just loving Crius folks. Incredible improvement to indy. |
Kniht
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
58
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 11:39:00 -
[170] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Update: They can only be fit to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. :Update: ... These modules all have a volume of 3500m3.
With the restriction to these ships, do they need to be 3500m3? |
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2014
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 04:02:00 -
[171] - Quote
Kniht wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Update: They can only be fit to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. :Update: ... These modules all have a volume of 3500m3.
With the restriction to these ships, do they need to be 3500m3? I'd support making them smaller....say 1000m3, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
108
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 04:53:00 -
[172] - Quote
well 3500m3 makes since since in essence this mod is somehow re calibrating your jump drives and re-routing fuel so you dont use as much per jump. So you do need room for all that hardware, processors, as well as any additional hull integration.
That aside 3500m3 isnt really that big you can still fit 3 in a blockade runner and several hundred in freighters. Besides when will you be moving more than 3 at a time in anything not a freighter or jump freighter anyways? Even if your bringing mods for a dozen people your probably going to be using something with the cargohold to boot. Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
839
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 22:14:00 -
[173] - Quote
So what's the reasoning behind making them Rorq/JF only . |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1249
|
Posted - 2014.08.15 09:26:00 -
[174] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:So what's the reasoning behind making them Rorq/JF only
Reduce a bit freighting costs when you're not moving the max capacity of these ships. So that the isk/m3 doesn't increase too much when moving less than the maximum. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
Plaid Rabbit
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.15 16:12:00 -
[175] - Quote
Please add modules that are interesting for players to chose, with these new modules it will literally be:
Can I remove a cargo expander? Yes: Okay, fit another conservation module. Repeat.
This aren't exciting decisions for a pilot to make, they just add more boringness to an already boring process (moving things around). |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1190
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 00:39:00 -
[176] - Quote
Plaid Rabbit wrote:Please add modules that are interesting for players to chose, with these new modules it will literally be:
Can I remove a cargo expander? Yes: Okay, fit another conservation module. Repeat.
This aren't exciting decisions for a pilot to make, they just add more boringness to an already boring process (moving things around). It's not like there are many interesting things to do with a JF to begin with. Rorqual already has access to most most modules so no lack of fun there. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
8
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 01:01:00 -
[177] - Quote
Rowells wrote: It's not like there are many interesting things to do with a JF to begin with. Rorqual already has access to most most modules so no lack of fun there.
that doesn't mean they shouldn't i'd like to see each of the different meta levels do something a little different so it isn't just the meta 4 being used |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
144
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 18:23:00 -
[178] - Quote
Introduce a capital officer drone / merc carrier. Give him a chance to drop an officer version.
Can probably take the AI from the L5 carrier missions, but make it so he jumps out at 25% armor (Assuming the officer is armor tanked) unless there's a bubble or a HIC on him. |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
910
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 08:56:00 -
[179] - Quote
I assume the original reason for having the 3500m size was to give a hard choice to cap pilots with limited room to carry them if not fitted. But now that they are limited to JFs and Rorqs can their size come down?
Virtually, every JF will be carrying 3 of these, with really the only other choice (when a jump is occurring, as opposed to slow boating through high sec), being the expanded cargohold when you have a large cargo. So losing 10500m3 to carry them for the return journey is a poor option. CTRL-Q - Minmatar FW - Low Sec PvP - Euro TZ - New Player Friendly Contact: Major Trant In game channel: FeO Public Recruitment thread: CTRL-Q |
Talvorian Dex
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 20:19:00 -
[180] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.
I tend to disagree. A lot of people buy carriers specifically to move their stuff around (I used to have a travel carrier that was meant to cart me back and forth on deployments). It sounds like the issue of fitting too many won't be a problem given the size of the module. Why this change? Writer of Target Caller, an Eve Online PvP blog, at http://targetcaller.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |